JNJ-77242113, a highly potent, selective peptide targeting the IL-23 receptor, provides robust IL-23 pathway inhibition upon oral dosing in rats and humans.

The interleukin (IL)-23 pathway is a pathogenic driver in psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and inflammatory bowel disease. Currently, no oral therapeutics selectively target this pathway. JNJ-77242113 is a peptide targeting the IL-23 receptor with high affinity (KD: 7.1 pM). In human cells, JNJ-77242113 potently and selectively inhibited proximal IL-23 signaling (IC50: 5.6 pM) without impacting IL-12 signaling. JNJ-77242113 inhibited IL-23-induced interferon (IFN)γ production in NK cells, and in blood from healthy donors and psoriasis patients (IC50: 18.4, 11 and 9 pM, respectively). In a rat trinitrobenzene sulfonic acid-induced colitis model, oral JNJ-77242113 attenuated disease parameters at doses ≥ 0.3 mg/kg/day. Pharmacologic activity beyond the gastrointestinal tract was also demonstrated. In blood from rats receiving oral JNJ-77242113, dose-dependent inhibition of ex vivo IL-23-stimulated IL-17A production was observed. In an IL-23-induced rat skin inflammation model, JNJ-77242113 inhibited IL-23-induced skin thickening and IL-17A, -17F and -22 gene induction. Oral dosing of JNJ-77242113 in healthy human volunteers inhibited ex vivo IL-23-stimulated IFNγ production in whole blood. Thus, JNJ-77242113 provided selective, systemic IL-23 pathway inhibition in preclinical models which translated to pharmacodynamic activity in healthy human volunteers, supporting the potential for JNJ-77242113 as a selective oral therapy for IL-23-driven immune-mediated diseases.

A Phase 2 Study of Pimodivir (JNJ-63623872) in Combination With Oseltamivir in Elderly and Nonelderly Adults Hospitalized With Influenza A Infection: OPAL Study.

BACKGROUND: Both the elderly and individuals with comorbidities are at increased risk of developing influenza-related complications. Novel influenza antivirals are required, given limitations of current drugs (eg, resistance emergence and poor efficacy). Pimodivir is a first-in-class antiviral for influenza A under development for these patients. METHODS: Hospitalized patients with influenza A infection were randomized 2:1 to receive pimodivir 600 mg plus oseltamivir 75 mg or placebo plus oseltamivir 75 mg twice daily for 7 days in this phase 2b study. The primary objective was to compare pimodivir pharmacokinetics in elderly (aged 65-85 years) versus nonelderly adults (aged 18-64 years). Secondary end points included time to patient-reported symptom resolution. RESULTS: Pimodivir pharmacokinetic parameters in nonelderly and elderly patients were similar. Time to influenza symptom resolution was numerically shorter with pimodivir (72.45 hours) than placebo (94.15 hours). There was a lower incidence of influenza-related complications in the pimodivir group (7.9%) versus placebo group (15.6%). Treatment was generally well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: No apparent relationship was observed between pimodivir pharmacokinetics and age. Our data demonstrate the need for a larger study of pimodivir in addition to oseltamivir to test whether it results in a clinically significant decrease in time-to-influenza-symptom alleviation and/or the frequency of influenza complications. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02532283.

Phase 2b Study of Pimodivir (JNJ-63623872) as Monotherapy or in Combination With Oseltamivir for Treatment of Acute Uncomplicated Seasonal Influenza A: TOPAZ Trial.

BACKGROUND: Pimodivir, a first-in-class inhibitor of influenza virus polymerase basic protein 2, is being developed for hospitalized and high-risk patients with influenza A. METHODS: In this double-blinded phase 2b study, adults with acute uncomplicated influenza A were randomized 1:1:1:1 to receive one of the following treatments twice daily for 5 days: placebo, pimodivir 300 mg or 600 mg, or pimodivir 600 mg plus oseltamivir 75 mg. Antiviral activity, safety, and pharmacokinetics of pimodivir alone or in combination were evaluated. RESULTS: Of 292 patients randomized, 223 were treated and had confirmed influenza A virus infection. The trial was stopped early because the primary end point was met; the area under the curve of the viral load, determined by quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction analysis, in nasal secretions from baseline to day 8 significantly decreased in the active treatment groups, compared with the placebo group (300 mg group, -3.6 day*log10 copies/mL [95% confidence interval {CI}, -7.1 to -0.1]; 600 mg group, -4.5 [95%CI -8.0 to -1.0]; and combination group, -8.6 [95% CI, -12.0 to -5.1]). Pimodivir plus oseltamivir yielded a significantly lower viral load titer over time than placebo and a trend for a shorter time to symptom resolution than placebo. Pimodivir plasma concentrations increased in a dose-proportional manner. The most commonly reported adverse event was mild or moderate diarrhea. CONCLUSIONS: Pimodivir (with or without oseltamivir) resulted in significant virologic improvements over placebo, demonstrated trends in clinical improvement, and was well tolerated. Pimodivir 600 mg twice daily is in further development. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT02342249, 2014-004068-39, and CR107745.

No Pharmacokinetic Drug-Drug Interaction Between Prasugrel and Vorapaxar Following Multiple-Dose Administration in Healthy Volunteers.

Vorapaxar is a first-in-class antagonist of the protease-activated receptor-1, the primary thrombin receptor on human platelets, which mediates the downstream effects of thrombin in hemostasis and thrombosis. Prasugrel is a platelet inhibitor that acts as a P2Y12 receptor antagonist through an active metabolite, R-138727. This study investigated the interaction of these 2 platelet antagonists when coadministered. This was a randomized, open-label, multiple-dose study in 54 healthy volunteers consisting of a fixed-sequence crossover and a parallel group design. In sequence 1, 36 subjects received prasugrel 60 mg on day 1 and then prasugrel 10 mg once daily on days 2 to 7, followed by vorapaxar 40 mg and prasugrel 10 mg on day 8 and then vorapaxar 2.5 mg and prasugrel 10 mg orally once daily on days 9 to 28. In sequence 2, 18 subjects received vorapaxar 40 mg on day 1 and then vorapaxar 2.5 mg once daily on days 2 to 21. The geometric mean ratios (90% confidence intervals) for AUCτ and Cmax of coadministration/monotherapy for vorapaxar (0.93 ng·h/mL[0.85-1.02 ng·h/mL] and 0.95 ng/mL [0.86-1.05 ng/mL]) and R-138727 (0.91 ng·h/mL [0.85- 0.99 ng·h/mL] and 1.02 ng/mL [0.89-1.17 ng/mL]) were within prespecified bounds, demonstrating the absence of a pharmacokinetic interaction between vorapaxar and prasugrel. There was no specific safety or tolerability risk associated with multiple-dose coadministration of vorapaxar and prasugrel. In conclusion, in this study in healthy volunteers, there was no pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction between vorapaxar and prasugrel. Multiple-dose coadministration of the 2 drugs was generally well tolerated.

Vorapaxar, an oral PAR-1 receptor antagonist, does not affect the pharmacokinetics of rosiglitazone.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the potential effects of vorapaxar on the pharmacokinetics and safety of rosiglitazone. METHODS: This was an open-label, two-period, two-treatment, fixed-sequence study in 18 healthy subjects. On Day 1, Period 1, subjects received a single dose of rosiglitazone 8 mg. In Period 2, subjects received vorapaxar 40 mg on Day 1, vorapaxar 7.5 mg once-daily on Days 2-7, and a single dose of rosiglitazone 8 mg on Day 7. Rosiglitazone and N-desmethylrosiglitazone pharmacokinetics were assessed alone (Period 1) and after coadministration with vorapaxar (Period 2). Vorapaxar and its M20 metabolite pharmacokinetics were assessed on Day 7, Period 2. Safety and tolerability were assessed throughout the study. RESULTS: Coadministration of rosiglitazone with vorapaxar had no effect on rosiglitazone or N-desmethylrosiglitazone pharmacokinetics. The ratio of geometric means (GMR) and 90% confidence intervals (CI) of the coadministration versus monotherapy for Cmax (GMR 95; 90% CI 88, 103) and AUC0-24 h (GMR 103; 90% CI 98, 108) were within the 80-125% bioequivalence criteria. The metabolite-to-parent exposure ratio with and without vorapaxar was unaltered. Coadministration of vorapaxar with rosiglitazone was generally well tolerated. CONCLUSION: Coadministration of vorapaxar with rosiglitazone or drugs metabolized via CYP2C8 is unlikely to cause a significant pharmacokinetic interaction.

Pharmacokinetics of vorapaxar and its metabolite following oral administration in healthy Chinese and American subjects.

AIM: Vorapaxar is a proteaseactivated receptor (PAR)-1 antagonist being developed for the prevention and treatment of thrombotic vascular events. To evaluate race/ethnic differences between Caucasians and Chinese in the pharmacokinetics of vorapaxar and its active metabolite SCH 2046273 (M20) or in the metabolite/parent ratio, we conducted a cross-study comparison on pharmacokinetic data of vorapaxar and M20 obtained from two similarly designed studies: one in healthy Chinese subjects and the other in a healthy Western (United States, [U.S.]) population. METHODS: The pharmacokinetic profiles of vorapaxar and M20 were characterized using open label, two treatment parallel group designs in men and women aged 18 - 45 years. Vorapaxar was administered orally as a single dose of 40 mg in Chinese subjects (n = 14) or 120 mg in U.S. subjects (n = 14), or 2.5 mg QD for 6 weeks in both studies (Chinese, n = 14; U.S., n = 23). RESULTS: Vorapaxar was rapidly absorbed in both Chinese and U.S. subjects. Vorapaxar and M20 had similar elimination half-lives. The range of metabolite/parent ratios after single dose or daily administration was largely overlapped in Chinese and U.S. subjects. Steady state was attained by day 21 for vorapaxar and M20 in both race/ethnic groups. The accumulation ratios for vorapaxar and M20 during daily administration were similar in Chinese and U.S. subjects. Vorapaxar was well-tolerated in Chinese and U.S. subjects. CONCLUSION: The pharmacokinetic profiles of vorapaxar and M20 and the metabolite/parent ratios in healthy Chinese were generally comparable to those in a healthy Western population.

Effect of the thrombin receptor antagonist (PAR-1) vorapaxar on QT/QTc interval in healthy volunteers: A randomized, placebo- and positive-controlled, parallel group trial.

In a randomized, double-blind (vorapaxar and placebo), placebo- and positive-controlled (moxifloxacin 400 mg) parallel group study, the effect of single-dose vorapaxar 120 mg on QT/QTc interval was assessed in 120 adults 18-50 years. Twelve-lead digital ECGs were obtained in triplicate using Mortara H12+ Holter monitors at 9 timepoints over 24 hours. If the largest upper bound of the 95% one-sided CI for the mean difference in QTcF between vorapaxar and placebo was <10 milliseconds, vorapaxar was considered to have no potential for QT/QTc prolongation of regulatory concern. Vorapaxar was well-tolerated. The lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in QTcF between moxifloxacin and placebo was >5 milliseconds, confirming study sensitivity. Vorapaxar had no significant effect on QTcF. At all timepoints the upper 95% CI for the mean difference between placebo and vorapaxar was ≤3.8 milliseconds (mean difference ≤1.0 milliseconds). Vorapaxar does not prolong the QT/QTc interval in healthy subjects.

Evaluation of potential for pharmacokinetic interaction between mometasone furoate and formoterol fumarate after oral inhalation from a fixed-dose combination metered-dose inhaler device.

A fixed-dose combination (FDC) containing mometasone furoate (MF) and formoterol fumarate (F) in a pressurized metered dose inhaler (MDI) is approved for asthma and is being developed for COPD. This randomized, open-label, 4-period crossover study compared single-dose pharmacokinetics of MF 800 µg; F 20 µg; MF 800 µg + F 20 µg coadministered (MF + F); and MF 800 µg/F 20 µg (MF/F) FDC in healthy subjects. MF, F, and MF + F were administered from single-ingredient MDI devices. MF and formoterol plasma samples were obtained predose and up to 48 hours post dose for estimation of AUC0-tf (primary endpoint) and Cmax . Treatments were deemed comparable if the 90% CIs for the geometric mean ratios (GMRs) fell within 70-143%. MF AUC0-tf was comparable following treatment with MF + F versus MF (GMR 98%; 90% CI 85-113%) and MF/F versus MF + F (GMR 95%; 90% CI 82-109%). Similarly, formoterol AUC0-tf was comparable following treatment with MF + F versus F (GMR 98%; 90% CI 77-124%) and MF/F versus MF + F (GMR 108%; 90% CI 85-136%). The 90% CIs for MF and formoterol Cmax fell within the prespecified comparability bounds for all comparisons. Systemic exposures to MF and formoterol were similar following treatment with the FDC MDI device versus individual or concomitant use of single-ingredient MDI devices.

An evaluation of the systemic bioavailability of mometasone furoate (MF) after oral inhalation from a MF/formoterol fumarate metered-dose inhaler versus an MF dry-powder inhaler in healthy subjects.

PURPOSE: This randomized, open-label, multiple-dose, two-period, crossover study compared the systemic bioavailability of mometasone furoate (MF) administered from a metered-dose inhaler containing MF and formoterol fumarate (F) (MF/F-MDI) versus MF administered from a single-ingredient dry-powder inhaler (MF-DPI). METHODS: Healthy, non-smoking adults, 18-65 years with body mass index 18-29 kg/m(2) (N = 12) received MF 800 µg/F 20 µg via MF/F-MDI or MF 800 µg via MF-DPI twice daily for 5 days separated by a 7-day period. MF pharmacokinetics (AUC(0-12 hour) , Cmax , and Tmax ) were measured at Day 1 and 5 after each treatment. Safety and tolerability were assessed. RESULTS: Systemic exposure to MF based on AUC(0-12 hour) was ∼25% lower following MDI versus DPI administration. The Day 5 geometric mean ratio (MDI/DPI) estimates (90% confidence intervals [CI]) for AUC(0-12 hour) and Cmax were 0.747 (0.61, 0.91) and 0.606 (0.49, 0.75), respectively. The accumulation index (R) value for MF was higher following MDI (3.81-fold) versus DPI administration (2.34-fold) indicative of prolonged absorption. The most common adverse events were tremor, headache, and catheter site pain. CONCLUSIONS: Systemic exposure to MF was lower following multiple-dose MF/F-MDI administration versus MF-DPI administration. The magnitude of this difference is not considered to be clinically important. MF/F-MDI was safe and generally well tolerated.

Hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis effects of mometasone furoate/formoterol fumarate vs fluticasone propionate/salmeterol administered through metered-dose inhaler.

BACKGROUND: The effects of mometasone furoate and fluticasone propionate on the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis were compared when administered from combination metered-dose inhaler (MDI) products. METHODS: In a randomized, open-label, placebo-controlled, parallel group study, 66 patients with mild to moderate asthma received one of the following four treatments bid through an MDI for 42 days: mometasone furoate/formoterol (MF/F) 200 µg/10 µg, MF/F 400 µg/10 µg, fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/S) 460 µg/42 µg, or placebo. Plasma cortisol concentrations were measured over 24 h on days -1 (baseline) and 42. Geometric mean ratio (GMR) and 90% CI for mean change from baseline to day 42 in 24-h plasma cortisol area under the curve (AUC) were calculated for each treatment. If the 90% CI for the GMRs fell within 70% to 143%, treatments were deemed comparable. RESULTS: Mean baseline cortisol AUCs were similar across groups. Mean cortisol effects (change from baseline) were similar for MF/F 400 µg/10 µg and FP/S 460 µg/42 µg (GMR, 119%; 90% CI, 101%-140%). Effects of MF/F 200 µg/10 µg on cortisol AUC were similar to placebo (GMR, 92%; 90% CI, 78%-110%), whereas MF/F 400 µg/10 µg and FP/S 460 µg/42 µg lowered cortisol AUC vs placebo (GMR, 78% [90% CI, 66%-92%] and 66% [90% CI 56%-78%], respectively). All treatments were generally well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: MF/F 400 µg/10 µg or FP/S 460 µg/42 µg bid through an MDI led to similar reductions from baseline in mean cortisol AUC (22% and 34% lower than placebo, respectively), whereas the effect of MF/F 200 µg/10 µg was similar to placebo.

Comparison of the systemic bioavailability of mometasone furoate after oral inhalation from a mometasone furoate/formoterol fumarate metered-dose inhaler versus a mometasone furoate dry-powder inhaler in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease.

BACKGROUND: Coadministration of mometasone furoate (MF) and formoterol fumarate (F) produces additive effects for improving symptoms and lung function and reduces exacerbations in patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The present study assessed the relative systemic exposure to MF and characterized the pharmacokinetics of MF and formoterol in patients with COPD. METHODS: This was a single-center, randomized, open-label, multiple-dose, three-period, three-treatment crossover study. The following three treatments were self-administered by patients (n = 14) with moderate-to-severe COPD: MF 400 µg/F 10 µg via a metered-dose inhaler (MF/F MDI; DULERA(®)/ZENHALE(®)) without a spacer device, MF/F MDI with a spacer, or MF 400 µg via a dry-powder inhaler (DPI; ASMANEX(®) TWISTHALER(®)) twice daily for 5 days. Plasma samples for MF and formoterol assay were obtained predose and at prespecified time points after the last (morning) dose on day 5 of each period of the crossover. The geometric mean ratio (GMR) as a percent and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for treatment comparisons. RESULTS: Systemic MF exposure was lower (GMR 77%; 90% CI 58, 102) following administration by MF/F MDI compared to MF DPI. Additionally, least squares geometric mean systemic exposures of MF and formoterol were lower (GMR 72%; 90% CI 61, 84) and (GMR 62%; 90% CI 52, 74), respectively, following administration by MF/F MDI in conjunction with a spacer compared to MF/F MDI without a spacer. MF/F MDI had a similar adverse experience profile as that seen with MF DPI. All adverse experiences were either mild or moderate in severity; no serious adverse experience was reported. CONCLUSION: Systemic MF exposures were lower following administration by MF/F MDI compared with MF DPI. Additionally, systemic MF and formoterol exposures were lower following administration by MF/F MDI with a spacer versus without a spacer. The magnitude of these differences with respect to systemic exposure was not clinically relevant.

The effect of multiple doses of ketoconazole or rifampin on the single- and multiple-dose pharmacokinetics of vorapaxar.

This randomized, open-label, parallel-group study evaluated the effects of multiple-dose ketoconazole or rifampin on the single- and multiple-dose pharmacokinetics of vorapaxar. Healthy subjects randomly received one of the following three treatments (N = 12/group): (1) ketoconazole 400 mg once daily (QD) for 28 days (Days 1-28) and single-dose vorapaxar 20 mg on Day 7 followed by vorapaxar 2.5 mg QD for 21 days (Days 8-28); (2) rifampin 600 mg QD for 28 days (Days 1-28) and single-dose vorapaxar 20 mg on Day 7 followed by vorapaxar 2.5 mg QD for 21 days (Days 8-28); and (3) placebo QD for 28 days (Days 1-28) and single-dose vorapaxar 20 mg on Day 7 followed by vorapaxar 2.5 mg QD for 21 days (Days 8-28). Ketoconazole increased the steady-state vorapaxar AUC(0-24 h) and C(max) by approximately twofold (GMR [90% CI]: 196% [173,222]; 193% [166,223], respectively), while rifampin decreased vorapaxar AUC(0-24 h) and C(max) by approximately 50% (GMR [90% CI]: 45.5% [40,52]; 61.4% [52,72], respectively) versus vorapaxar alone. Potent CYP3A4 inhibitors or inducers may cause moderate increases or decreases in vorapaxar exposure, respectively, which may have safety and/or efficacy implications; therefore, their concomitant use with vorapaxar is not recommended.

The Influence of Multiple-Dose Vorapaxar, an Oral PAR-1 Receptor Antagonist, on the Single-Dose Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Digoxin.

Vorapaxar is a novel orally active thrombin receptor antagonist selective for the PAR-1 receptor. This open-label, single-center, fixed-sequence, 2-period, 2-treatment study assessed the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of single-dose digoxin in the presence/absence of multiple-dose vorapaxar. Eighteen healthy adult subjects received two treatments in a fixed sequence separated by ≥8-day washout: (A) digoxin 0.5 mg (Day 1); (B) vorapaxar 2.5 mg/day Days 1-6 and single-dose vorapaxar 40 mg administered with single-dose digoxin 0.5 mg Day 7. The geometric mean ratio (%; GMR) for the two treatments (digoxin alone and digoxin plus vorapaxar) and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for and AUCtf and Cmax of digoxin were calculated. Pharmacodynamics of digoxin was assessed by measuring changes in electrocardiogram (ECG) parameters. The GMR (90% CIs) estimates for digoxin AUCtf and Cmax were 105% (91, 121) and 154% (130, 181), respectively. Except for differences in peak plasma concentrations, the pharmacokinetics of digoxin were similar between the two treatments. Coadministration of vorapaxar plus digoxin had no effect on digoxin Tmax or ECG parameters. The results of this study suggest that the coadministration of vorapaxar and digoxin is unlikely to cause a clinically significant drug-drug interaction.

Effect of Food, Antacid, and Age on the Pharmacokinetics of the Oral Thrombin Receptor Antagonist Vorapaxar (SCH 530348) in Healthy Volunteers.

This randomized, open-label, parallel group study examined the effects of food, antacid, and age on the pharmacokinetics of vorapaxar. In total, 101 subjects were enrolled including 83 young adults (18-45 years) and 18 elderly subjects (>65 years). Subjects received single-dose vorapaxar 40 mg after a 10-hour fast (young and elderly) or with extra-strength antacid, food, or 1 or 2 hours after food (young only). Vorapaxar 40 mg was rapidly absorbed after a fast (median Tmax : 1 hour). Administration with food or 1 or 2 hours post-meal modestly increased vorapaxar mean area under the curve (AUC) and Cmax and prolonged median Tmax by 1 hour. Concomitant food modestly increased vorapaxar AUC from time zero to infinity [AUC(I)] and Cmax 43% and 31%, respectively. Antacid modestly decreased vorapaxar AUC(I) by 15% and Cmax by 38%, and increased median Tmax by 1 hour. Vorapaxar AUC(I) and Cmax were 41% and 29% higher, respectively, in elderly versus young subjects. Concomitant food and older age were associated with modest increases, and antacid was associated with a small decrease in vorapaxar exposure, which are not expected to affect the drug's safety or efficacy.

The Absence of a Clinically Significant Effect of Food on the Single Dose Pharmacokinetics of Vorapaxar, a PAR-1 Antagonist, in Healthy Adult Subjects.

In this open-label, randomized, 2-period crossover study, 16 healthy subjects received a single oral 2.5-mg dose of vorapaxar in the fed (i.e., standardized high-fat breakfast) and fasted (i.e., an overnight fast) state with a 6-week washout. Plasma samples for vorapaxar assay were obtained pre-dose and up to 72 hours post-dose. Least squares (LS) geometric mean AUC0-72 hr and Cmax were analyzed by ANOVA. If 90% confidence intervals (CI) for the geometric mean ratios (GMRs; fed/fasted) of AUC0-72 hr and Cmax were within the 50-200% range, then food was deemed not to have a clinically important effect. The LS geometric mean (90% CI) AUC0-72 hr and Cmax of vorapaxar in the fasted state were 314 (284-348) ng hr/mL and 23.4 (20.7-26.4) ng/mL, respectively. The GMRs (fed/fasted) and 90% CIs for AUC0-72 hr and Cmax were 96.9 (92.2-102) and 79.1 (67.6-92.5), respectively. Vorapaxar was generally safe and well tolerated in the presence and absence of food. Concomitant food decreased the rate (i.e., 21% reduction in Cmax and 45-min delay in Tmax ) with no effect on the extent of vorapaxar absorption when administered as a single 2.5-mg dose. Thus, vorapaxar can be administered without regard to food.

Pharmacokinetics of the novel PAR-1 antagonist vorapaxar in patients with hepatic impairment.

PURPOSE: To determine whether hepatic impairment has an effect on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of vorapaxar or M20, its main pharmacologically active metabolite. METHODS: This was an open-label study in which a single 40-mg oral dose of vorapaxar was administered to patients with mild (n = 6), moderate (n = 6), and severe (n = 4) hepatic impairment and healthy controls (n = 16) matched for age, gender, weight, and height. Blood samples for vorapaxar and M20 assay were collected predose and at frequent intervals up to 8 weeks postdose. RESULTS: Plasma vorapaxar and M20 PK profiles were similar between patients with impaired liver function and healthy controls. Group mean values for vorapaxar C(max) and AUC(tf) were 206-279 ng/mL and 14,200-18,200 ng·h/mL, respectively, with the lowest values observed in patients with severe impairment. Vorapaxar median T(max) and mean t(1/2) values were 1.00-1.75 h and 298-366 h, respectively. There was no apparent correlation between vorapaxar or M20 exposure or t(1/2) values and disease severity. Vorapaxar was generally well tolerated; one serious adverse event (gastrointestinal bleeding secondary to ruptured esophageal varices) was reported in a patient with severe hepatic impairment. CONCLUSIONS: Hepatic impairment had no clinically relevant effect on the PK of vorapaxar and M20. No dose or dosage adjustment of vorapaxar will be required in patients with mild to moderate hepatic impairment. Although systemic exposure to vorapaxar does not appear to increase in patients with severe hepatic impairment, administration of vorapaxar to such patients is not recommended given their bleeding diathesis.

Vorapaxar, an oral PAR-1 receptor antagonist, does not affect the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of warfarin.

PURPOSE: Vorapaxar is an orally active protease-activated receptor 1 (PAR-1) antagonist that inhibits thrombin-induced platelet aggregation. This open-label study assessed the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of single-dose warfarin in the presence/absence of multiple-dose vorapaxar in 12 healthy men. METHODS: Subjects received two treatments separated by ≥ 7-day washout: Treatment A warfarin 25 mg (Day 1); Treatment B vorapaxar 2.5 mg/day on Days 1-6 and vorapaxar 40 mg coadministered with warfarin 25 mg (Day 7). R-warfarin, S-warfarin, and prothrombin time (PT) were assayed predose and up to 120 h postdose. RESULTS: The geometric mean ratio (GMR) as a percentage (warfarin + vorapaxar/warfarin) was calculated. The GMR (90 % CIs) estimates of C(max) were 105 (99, 111) and 105 (99, 112) for R- and S-warfarin, respectively. The GMR (90 % CIs) estimates of AUC(0-∞) were 108 (101, 116) and 105 (96, 115) for R- and S-warfarin, respectively. The GMR (95 % CIs) estimates of AUC(0-120 h) for PT and INR were 97 (95, 98) and 96 (94, 98), respectively. CONCLUSION: Results of this study indicate that vorapaxar has no meaningful effect on the pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics of warfarin, suggesting that the coadministration of these two drugs or vorapaxar coadministered with other CYP2C9/CYP2C19 substrates is unlikely to cause a clinically significant pharmacokinetic drug interaction.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the novel PAR-1 antagonist vorapaxar in patients with end-stage renal disease.

PURPOSE: To determine whether impaired renal function alters the pharmacokinetics (PK) of vorapaxar or its ability to inhibit thrombin receptor agonist peptide (TRAP)-induced platelet aggregation. METHODS: This was an open-label study in which 8 patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) on hemodialysis and 7 matched (based on age, gender, weight, and height) healthy controls were administered a single 10-mg oral dose of vorapaxar. Blood samples for vorapaxar PK and pharmacodynamic analysis were collected predose and at frequent intervals up to 6 weeks postdose. RESULTS: Mean vorapaxar bioavailability (based on area under the curve of plasma vorapaxar concentration over time) was identical in the two subject groups; the ESRD/healthy geometric mean ratio (GMR, expressed in percent) was 98. Mean maximum observed plasma concentration (77.4-98.2 ng/mL) was numerically lower in patients with ESRD compared with matched controls (GMR=76; 90% confidence interval=48 to 118). Median time of maximum observed plasma concentration was 2 h in both subject groups. The observed means for elimination half-life were 186 and 231 h in the ESRD and control groups, respectively. Inhibition of platelet aggregation was similar in the two groups. Four out of 15 (27%) subjects reported adverse events, all of which were characterized by the investigator as mild and unrelated to treatment. CONCLUSIONS: ESRD had no clinically relevant effect on the PK profile of vorapaxar or its ability to inhibit TRAP-induced platelet aggregation.

No differences in the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of the thrombin receptor antagonist vorapaxar between healthy Japanese and Caucasian subjects.

BACKGROUND: Vorapaxar, a novel antiplatelet agent in advanced clinical development for the prevention and treatment of atherothrombotic disease, is a potent, orally bioavailable thrombin receptor antagonist selective for the protease-activated receptor 1 (PAR-1). METHODS: Since race/ethnicity may affect the safety, efficacy and dosage of drugs, this study was conducted to evaluate potential differences in the pharmacodynamics, pharmacokinetics and safety of vorapaxar after single (5, 10, 20, or 40 mg) or multiple (0.5, 1, or 2.5 mg once daily) doses in healthy Japanese and matched (gender, age, height, and weight) Caucasian volunteers. RESULTS: Vorapaxar was well tolerated in both Japanese and Caucasian subjects. Pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic profiles of vorapaxar in the two racial/ethnic groups were similar. In both racial groups, complete inhibition of platelet aggregation was achieved most rapidly with vorapaxar 40 mg and was consistently achieved and maintained with a 2.5 mg daily maintenance dose. CONCLUSION: There were no substantial differences in the safety, pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics of vorapaxar between Japanese and Caucasian subjects.

Pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of the novel PAR-1 antagonist vorapaxar (formerly SCH 530348) in healthy subjects.

PURPOSE: The aim of our study was to evaluate the pharmacology of vorapaxar (SCH 530348), an oral PAR-1 antagonist, in healthy volunteers. METHODS AND RESULTS: In two randomized, placebo-controlled studies, subjects received either single ascending doses of vorapaxar (0.25, 1, 5, 10, 20, or 40 mg; n = 50), multiple ascending doses of vorapaxar (1, 3, or 5 mg/day for 28 days; n = 36), a loading dose (10 or 20 mg) followed by daily maintenance doses (1 mg) for 6 days (n = 12), or placebo. Single 20- and 40-mg doses of vorapaxar completely inhibited thrombin receptor activating peptide (TRAP)-induced platelet aggregation (>80% inhibition) at 1 h and sustained this level of inhibition for ≥72 h. Multiple doses yielded complete inhibition on Day 1 (5 mg/day) and Day 7 (1 and 3 mg/day). Adverse events were generally mild, transient, and unrelated to dose. CONCLUSION: Vorapaxar provided rapid and sustained dose-related inhibition of platelet aggregation without affecting bleeding or clotting times.