Model-Informed Clinical Pharmacology Profile of a Novel Fixed-Dose Combination of Nivolumab and Relatlimab in Adult and Adolescent Patients with Solid Tumors.

PURPOSE: Progression-free survival (PFS) was significantly improved with nivolumab 480 mg plus relatlimab 160 mg fixed-dose combination (FDC) every 4 weeks (Q4W) versus nivolumab alone in patients with previously untreated advanced melanoma in RELATIVITY-047. In addition, RELATIVITY-020 (Part D) demonstrated a manageable safety profile and potential for durable response with nivolumab plus relatlimab in previously treated patients. Here, we evaluate the clinical pharmacology profile (CPP) of nivolumab plus relatlimab to support the approved regimen for adult and adolescent patients with advanced melanoma and its continued clinical development in solid tumors. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: The pharmacokinetics (PK) and immunogenicity of relatlimab and nivolumab were assessed using data from RELATIVITY-047 and RELATIVITY-020. Patients with advanced solid tumors received relatlimab alone or nivolumab plus relatlimab as single-agent vials (SAV) or FDC. PK was characterized using a population PK (popPK) model. RESULTS: Relatlimab demonstrated nonlinear and time-varying PK. Nonlinearity in relatlimab PK represented approximately 31% of total CL of relatlimab 160 mg Q4W. Relatlimab PK was dose proportional at doses ≥160 mg Q4W. Geometric mean exposures were similar for SAV and FDC cohorts receiving equivalent dosing regimens. No dose adjustment was required for covariates. Incidence of relatlimab antidrug antibodies was <6% for nivolumab plus relatlimab and had no clinically meaningful impact. There was no PK-related drug interaction of nivolumab plus relatlimab. CONCLUSIONS: The CPP of relatlimab alone or in combination with nivolumab supports the approved dosing in advanced melanoma and the continued evaluation of nivolumab and relatlimab across other solid tumors. See related commentary by Gopalakrishnan and Amaria, p. 2862.

Bempegaldesleukin Plus Nivolumab in Untreated Advanced Melanoma: The Open-Label, Phase III PIVOT IO 001 Trial Results.

PURPOSE: Despite marked advances in the treatment of unresectable or metastatic melanoma, the need for novel therapies remains. Bempegaldesleukin (BEMPEG), a pegylated interleukin-2 (IL-2) cytokine prodrug, demonstrated efficacy in the phase II PIVOT-02 trial. PIVOT IO 001 (ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03635983) is a phase III, randomized, open-label study that builds on the PIVOT-02 results in first-line melanoma. METHODS: Patients with previously untreated, unresectable, or metastatic melanoma were randomly assigned 1:1 to receive BEMPEG plus nivolumab (NIVO) or NIVO monotherapy. Primary end points were objective response rate (ORR) and progression-free survival (PFS) by blinded independent central review and overall survival (OS). Secondary and exploratory end points included additional efficacy measures, safety, and pharmacokinetics (PKs) and pharmacodynamics analyses. RESULTS: In 783 patients (n = 391, BEMPEG plus NIVO; n = 392, NIVO monotherapy), the median follow-up was 11.6 months in the intent-to-treat population. The ORR with BEMPEG plus NIVO was 27.7% versus 36.0% with NIVO (two-sided P = .0311). The median PFS with BEMPEG plus NIVO was 4.17 months (95% CI, 3.52 to 5.55) versus 4.99 months (95% CI, 4.14 to 7.82) with NIVO (hazard ratio [HR], 1.09; 97% CI, 0.88 to 1.35; P = .3988). The median OS was 29.67 months (95% CI, 22.14 to not reached [NR]) with BEMPEG plus NIVO versus 28.88 months (95% CI, 21.32 to NR) with NIVO (HR, 0.94; 99.929% CI, 0.59 to 1.48; P = .6361). Grade 3-4 treatment-related adverse events (AEs) and serious AE rates were higher with the combination (21.7% and 10.1%, respectively) versus NIVO (11.5% and 5.5%, respectively). BEMPEG PK exposure and absolute lymphocyte count changes after BEMPEG plus NIVO were comparable between PIVOT IO 001 and PIVOT-02. CONCLUSION: The PIVOT IO 001 study did not meet its primary end points of ORR, PFS, and OS. Increased toxicity was observed with BEMPEG plus NIVO versus NIVO.

Bempegaldesleukin plus nivolumab in untreated, unresectable or metastatic melanoma: Phase III PIVOT IO 001 study design.

Nivolumab, a PD-1 inhibitor, has demonstrated prolonged survival benefit in patients with advanced melanoma. Bempegaldesleukin (BEMPEG; NKTR-214), a first-in-class CD122-preferential IL-2 pathway agonist, provides sustained signaling through the IL-2ßγ receptor, which activates effector T and natural killer cells. In the Phase I/II PIVOT-02 trial, the combination of bempegaldesleukin plus nivolumab was well-tolerated and demonstrated clinical activity as first-line therapy in metastatic melanoma. Here, we describe the design of and rationale for the Phase III, global, randomized, open-label PIVOT IO 001 trial comparing bempegaldesleukin plus nivolumab with nivolumab alone in patients with previously untreated, unresectable or metastatic melanoma. Primary end points include objective response rate, progression-free survival and overall survival. Key secondary end points include further investigation of safety/tolerability, previously assessed in the PIVOT-02 trial. Clinical Trial Registration: NCT03635983 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Population Pharmacokinetics of Ipilimumab in Combination With Nivolumab in Patients With Advanced Solid Tumors.

Ipilimumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody approved for the treatment of melanoma as monotherapy and for the treatment of melanoma, renal cell carcinoma, and colorectal cancer in combination with nivolumab. Ipilimumab time-varying clearance (CL) was assessed by a population pharmacokinetics (PPK) model developed using statistically significant covariates identified in a previous PPK analysis plus additional covariates. Data from 3,411 patients who received ipilimumab 0.3-10 mg/kg alone or in combination with nivolumab in 16 clinical trials were analyzed. Ipilimumab CL decreased over time; the change in CL was greater in patients treated with nivolumab combination than ipilimumab alone and in responders vs. nonresponders. Time-varying covariates including body weight, lactate dehydrogenase, albumin, and performance status were evaluated on change in ipilimumab CL. In addition, ipilimumab CL was similar across different tumor types, nivolumab dosing regimens, and lines of therapy. These data suggest an association of ipilimumab CL with disease severity.

Population Pharmacokinetics of Nivolumab in Combination With Ipilimumab in Patients With Advanced Malignancies.

Nivolumab is a fully human monoclonal antibody that inhibits programmed cell death-1 activation. To assess covariate effects on nivolumab clearance (CL), a population pharmacokinetics model was developed using data from 6,468 patients with colorectal cancer, hepatocellular carcinoma, melanoma, non-small cell lung cancer, renal cell carcinoma, or small cell lung cancer who received nivolumab as monotherapy or in combination with ipilimumab or chemotherapy across 25 clinical studies. Nivolumab CL was similar across the tumor types examined; CL was higher for ipilimumab 1 mg/kg every 6 weeks (by 17%) and 3 mg/kg every 3 weeks (by 29%) vs. nivolumab monotherapy. Nivolumab CL over time was partially explained by time-varying covariates. A greater decrease in nivolumab time-varying CL was associated with increased albumin and body weight and a responder status. Our findings support the observed association between nivolumab CL and disease severity.

Nivolumab Clearance Is Stationary in Patients With Resected Melanoma on Adjuvant Therapy: Implications of Disease Status on Time-Varying Clearance.

Nivolumab clearance (CL) in patients with advanced melanoma (MEL) decreases over the treatment duration, with change in CL associated with improved disease status, measured by reduced tumor burden. Here, we characterize the pharmacokinetics of nivolumab administered as adjuvant therapy for patients with MEL (AdjMEL) whose tumors were removed by surgical resection. A population pharmacokinetic model was developed using data from 1,773 patients with AdjMEL, MEL, non-small cell lung cancer, and other solid tumors who received nivolumab over a dose range of 0.1-20 mg/kg every 2 weeks. In patients with AdjMEL, the geometric mean nivolumab CL of 6.0 mL/hour was 40% lower at baseline and did not vary with time and 20% lower at steady state compared with patients with MEL. Lower nivolumab CL in patients with AdjMEL and absence of time dependence support the hypothesis that changes in nivolumab CL in the metastatic setting are associated with disease status after treatment.

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.

Phase 1 safety, pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic study of the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor dinaciclib administered every three weeks in patients with advanced malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Dinaciclib is a potent inhibitor of cell cycle and transcriptional cyclin-dependent kinases. This Phase 1 study evaluated the safety, tolerability and pharmacokinetics of various dosing schedules of dinaciclib in advanced solid tumour patients and assessed pharmacodynamic and preliminary anti-tumour activity. METHODS: In part 1, patients were enrolled in escalating cohorts of 2-h infusions administered once every 3 weeks, utilising an accelerated titration design until a recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) was defined. In part 2, 8- and 24-h infusions were evaluated. Pharmacokinetic parameters were determined for all schedules. Pharmacodynamic effects were assessed with an ex vivo stimulated lymphocyte proliferation assay performed in whole blood.Effects of dinaciclib on retinoblastoma (Rb) phosphorylation and other CDK targets were evaluated in skin and tumour biopsies. In addition to tumour size, metabolic response was evaluated by 18F-fluorodeoxyglucose-positron emission tomography. RESULTS: Sixty-one patients were enrolled to parts 1 and 2. The RP2Ds were 50, 7.4 and 10.4 mg m-2 as 2- 8- and 24-hour infusions, respectively. Dose-limiting toxicities included pancytopenia, neutropenic fever, elevated transaminases, hyperuricemia and hypotension. Pharmacokinetics demonstrated rapid distribution and a short plasma half-life. Dinaciclib suppressed proliferation of stimulated lymphocytes. In skin and tumour biopsies, dinaciclib reduced Rb phosphorylation at CDK2 phospho-sites and modulated expression of cyclin D1 and p53, suggestive of CDK9 inhibition. Although there were no RECIST responses, eight patients had prolonged stable disease and received between 6 and 30 cycles. Early metabolic responses occurred. CONCLUSIONS: Dinaciclib is tolerable at doses demonstrating target engagement in surrogate and tumour tissue.

Evaluation of Immunogenicity of Nivolumab Monotherapy and Its Clinical Relevance in Patients With Metastatic Solid Tumors.

Nivolumab is a fully human IgG4 monoclonal antibody targeting the programmed death-1 (PD-1) receptor that blocks interactions between PD-1 and its ligands on tumor cells to prevent T-cell exhaustion in patients with cancer. It has demonstrated efficacy in multiple tumor types, including melanoma, non-small-cell lung cancer, and renal cell carcinoma. This analysis assessed the immunogenicity of nivolumab and its impact on pharmacokinetics, safety, and efficacy in patients with solid tumors enrolled in 6 clinical studies. The incidence and prevalence of antidrug antibodies (ADAs) were determined by validated electrochemiluminescence assays in samples collected during nivolumab treatment and up to 100 days after the last dose. Confirmed positive samples from the 6 studies were also tested for presence of neutralizing antibodies (NAbs). Among 1086 nivolumab-treated patients, 138 patients (12.7%) were ADA positive (relative to baseline), only 3 (0.3%) of whom were persistently positive for ADA, and 9 (0.8%) were NAb positive at 1 time point. The presence of ADAs was not associated with hypersensitivity, infusion reactions, or loss of efficacy and had minimal impact on nivolumab clearance. Additionally, the presence of NAbs was not associated with loss of efficacy. In conclusion, immunogenicity of nivolumab is not clinically meaningful.

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.

Randomized phase 2 study of the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor dinaciclib (MK-7965) versus erlotinib in patients with non-small cell lung cancer.

OBJECTIVES: Dinaciclib (MK-7965, formerly SCH 727965), a novel, small-molecule inhibitor of cyclin-dependent kinases, has been shown to induce apoptosis in preclinical studies of human tumor cell lines, including non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cells. Erlotinib, an epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor, is approved for the treatment of advanced NSCLC as second- or third-line therapy. This phase 2, randomized, multicenter, open-label study compared dinaciclib with erlotinib in patients with previously treated NSCLC. MATERIALS AND METHODS: The study was comprised of 2 parts: in part 1, patients were randomized to either intravenous (IV) dinaciclib (50 mg/m2) or oral erlotinib (150 mg) using an adaptive Bayesian design that adjusted the randomization ratio in favor of the more active arm, and in part 2, patients who had progressed on erlotinib were permitted to cross over to receive dinaciclib at the same dosage as in part 1. Patients were followed until disease progression or death, initiation of nonstudy cancer treatment, discontinuation, or withdrawal of consent. The primary efficacy end point was time-to-progression (TTP) in part 1 and objective response rate (ORR) in part 2. RESULTS: Based on Kaplan-Meier estimates, the median TTP was 1.49 months (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.31, 2.63) following initial treatment with dinaciclib, compared with 1.58 months (95% CI: 1.38, 2.83) with erlotinib. No objective responses were observed following initial treatment with dinaciclib. Common severe (grade 3 or 4) drug-related adverse effects included neutropenia, leukopenia, vomiting, and diarrhea. CONCLUSIONS: Dinaciclib, administered IV, was well tolerated at the 50 mg/m2 dose, but does not have activity as monotherapy in previously treated NSCLC. Evaluation of dinaciclib in combination with other agents for other indications including breast cancer and multiple myeloma is in progress.

Randomized phase II trial of the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor dinaciclib (MK-7965) versus capecitabine in patients with advanced breast cancer.

INTRODUCTION: Effective therapies after failure of treatment with anthracyclines and taxanes are needed for patients with metastatic breast cancer. Dinaciclib (MK-7965, formerly SCH727965), a small-molecule cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor, has demonstrated antitumor activity in phase I studies with solid-tumor patients. This phase II trial was designed to assess the efficacy and safety of dinaciclib compared with that of capecitabine in women with previously treated advanced breast cancer. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Patients were randomized to receive either dinaciclib at 50 mg/m(2), administered as a 2-hour infusion every 21 days, or 1250 mg/m(2) capecitabine, administered orally twice daily in 21-day cycles. RESULTS: An unplanned interim analysis showed that the time to disease progression was inferior with dinaciclib treatment compared with capecitabine treatment; therefore, the trial was stopped after 30 patients were randomized. Dinaciclib treatment demonstrated antitumor activity in 2 of 7 patients with estrogen receptor-positive and human epidermal growth factor receptor 2-negative metastatic breast cancer (1 confirmed and 1 unconfirmed partial response), as well as acceptable safety and tolerability. Grade 3 or 4 treatment-related adverse events were common and included neutropenia, leukopenia, increase in aspartate aminotransferase, and febrile neutropenia. Population pharmacokinetic model-predicted mean dinaciclib exposure (area under the concentration-time curve extrapolated to infinity [AUC[I]]) at 50 mg/m(2) was similar to that observed in a previous phase I trial, and no drug accumulation was observed after multiple-dose administration. CONCLUSION: Although dinaciclib monotherapy demonstrated some antitumor activity and was generally tolerated, efficacy was not superior to capecitabine. Future studies may be considered to evaluate dinaciclib in select patient populations with metastatic breast cancer and in combination with other agents.

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.

A first-in-human, phase 1, dose-escalation study of dinaciclib, a novel cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor, administered weekly in subjects with advanced malignancies.

BACKGROUND: Dinaciclib, a small-molecule, cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor, inhibits cell cycle progression and proliferation in various tumor cell lines in vitro. We conducted an open-label, dose-escalation study to determine the safety, tolerability, and bioactivity of dinaciclib in adults with advanced malignancies. METHODS: Dinaciclib was administered starting at a dose of 0.33 mg/m2, as a 2-hour intravenous infusion once weekly for 3 weeks (on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle), to determine the maximum administered dose (MAD), dose-limiting toxicities (DLTs), recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D), and safety and tolerability. Pharmacodynamics of dinaciclib were assessed using an ex vivo phytohemagglutinin lymphocyte stimulation assay and immunohistochemistry staining for retinoblastoma protein phosphorylation in skin biopsies. Evidence of antitumor activity was assessed by sequential computed tomography imaging after every 2 treatment cycles. RESULTS: Forty-eight subjects with solid tumors were treated. The MAD was found to be 14 mg/m2 and the RP2D was determined to be 12 mg/m2; DLTs at the MAD included orthostatic hypotension and elevated uric acid. Forty-seven (98%) subjects reported adverse events (AEs) across all dose levels; the most common AEs were nausea, anemia, decreased appetite, and fatigue. Dinaciclib administered at the RP2D significantly inhibited lymphocyte proliferation, demonstrating a pharmacodynamic effect. Ten subjects treated at a variety of doses achieved prolonged stable disease for at least 4 treatment cycles. CONCLUSIONS: Dinaciclib administered every week for 3 weeks (on days 1, 8, and 15 of a 28-day cycle) was generally safe and well tolerated. Initial bioactivity and observed disease stabilization support further evaluation of dinaciclib as a treatment option for patients with advanced solid malignancies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov # NCT00871663.

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.

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.

Effect of aprepitant on the pharmacokinetics of the cyclin-dependent kinase inhibitor dinaciclib in patients with advanced malignancies.

PURPOSE: Dinaciclib, a selective inhibitor of cyclin-dependent kinase (CDK) 1, CDK2, CDK5, and CDK9, is metabolized via CYP3A4. Aprepitant, a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist for the prevention of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, is an inhibitor and inducer of CYP3A4. We conducted a randomized, crossover study to investigate the effects of single oral doses of aprepitant when coadministered with dinaciclib. METHODS: As part of a phase 1 dose-escalation trial, subjects with advanced malignancies were randomized into a 2-period, multi-cycle, crossover study to investigate the effect of single doses of oral aprepitant on the pharmacokinetics of 29.6 mg/m(2) dinaciclib administered by 2-h intravenous infusion. During cycle 1 and cycle 2, subjects received dinaciclib with aprepitant in one cycle and dinaciclib without aprepitant in the other cycle; aprepitant was administered at a dose of 125 mg orally on day 1 and 80 mg orally on days 2 and 3, along with standard dosing regimens of ondansetron and dexamethasone. RESULTS: Twelve patients completed the study; T (max) occurred approximately 2 h after the initiation of the infusion. The percent geometric mean ratio (dinaciclib + aprepitant vs. dinaciclib alone) was 106 % (90 % confidence interval [CI] 89-126 %) and 111 % (90 % CI 93-132 %) for dinaciclib C(max) and AUC([I]), respectively. The half-life and clearance of dinaciclib were similar, with or without aprepitant. CONCLUSIONS: Coadministration of dinaciclib with aprepitant resulted in no clinically significant effect on the pharmacokinetics and did not alter the safety profile of dinaciclib in patients with advanced malignancies.