Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Comparison of Fluticasone Propionate/Formoterol Fumarate Administered via a Pressurized Metered-Dose Inhaler and a Novel Breath-Actuated Inhaler in Healthy Volunteers.

Introduction: Fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate (fluticasone/formoterol) exposures, following administration of Flutiform® K-haler®, a breath-actuated inhaler (BAI), were compared with the Flutiform pressurized metered-dose inhaler (pMDI) with/without spacer in two healthy volunteer studies. In addition, formoterol-induced systemic pharmacodynamic (PD) effects were examined in the second study. Methods: Study 1: single-dose, three-period, crossover pharmacokinetic (PK) study with oral charcoal administration. Fluticasone/formoterol 250/10 µg was administered via BAI, pMDI, or pMDI with spacer (pMDI+S). Pulmonary exposure for BAI was deemed no less than for pMDI (primary comparator) if the lower limit of 94.12% confidence intervals (CIs) for BAI:pMDI maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUCt) ratios was ≥80%. Study 2: two-stage adaptive design, both stages being single-dose, crossover without charcoal administration. The PK stage compared fluticasone/formoterol 250/10 µg via BAI, pMDI, or pMDI+S. The primary comparisons were as follows: BAI versus pMDI+S for fluticasone and BAI versus pMDI for formoterol. Systemic safety with BAI was deemed no worse than primary comparator if the upper limit of 94.12% CIs for Cmax and AUCt ratios was ≤125%. PD assessment was to be conducted if BAI safety was not confirmed in the PK stage. Based on PK results, only formoterol PD effects were evaluated. The PD stage compared fluticasone/formoterol 1500/60 µg via BAI, pMDI, or pMDI+S; fluticasone/formoterol 500/20 µg pMDI; and formoterol 60 µg pMDI. The primary endpoint was maximum reduction in serum potassium within 4 hours postdose. Equivalence was defined as 95% CIs for BAI versus pMDI+S and pMDI ratios within 0.5-2.0. Results: Study 1: lower limit of 94.12% CIs for BAI:pMDI ratios >80%. Study 2, PK stage: upper limit of 94.12% CIs for fluticasone (BAI:pMDI+S) ratios <125%; upper limit of 94.12% CIs for formoterol (BAI:pMDI) ratios >125% (for Cmax, not AUCt). Study 2, PD stage: 95% CIs for serum potassium ratios 0.7-1.3 (BAI:pMDI+S) and 0.4-1.5 (BAI:pMDI). Conclusions: Fluticasone/formoterol BAI performance was within the range observed for the pMDI with/without a spacer. Sponsor: Mundipharma Research Ltd. EudraCT 2012-003728-19 (Study 1) and 2013-000045-39 (Study 2).

Pulmonary deposition of fluticasone propionate/formoterol in healthy volunteers, asthmatics and COPD patients with a novel breath-triggered inhaler.

INTRODUCTION: A combination of fluticasone propionate/formoterol fumarate (FP/FORM) has been incorporated within a novel, breath-triggered device, named K-haler®. This low resistance device requires a gentle inspiratory effort to actuate it, triggering at an inspiratory flow rate of approximately 30 L/min; thus avoiding the need for coordination of inhalation with manual canister depression. The aim of the study was to evaluate total and regional pulmonary deposition of FP/FORM when administered via the K-haler device. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Twelve healthy subjects, 12 asthmatics, and 12 COPD patients each received a single dose of 2 puffs 99mtechnetium-labelled FP/FORM 125/5 µg. A gamma camera was used to obtain anterior and posterior two-dimensional images of drug deposition. Prior transmission scans (using a99mtechnetium flood source) allowed the definition of regions of interest and calculation of attenuation correction factors. Image analysis was performed per standardised methods. RESULTS: Of 36 subjects, 35 provided evaluable post-dose scintigraphic data. Mean subject ages were 35.7 (healthy), 44.5 (asthma) and 61.7 years (COPD); mean FEV1% predicted values were 109.8%, 77.4% and 43.2%, respectively. Mean pulmonary deposition was 26.6% (healthy), 44.7% (asthma), 39.0% (COPD) of the delivered dose. The respective mean penetration indices (peripheral:central ratio normalised to a transmission lung scan) were 0.44, 0.31 and 0.30. CONCLUSION: FP/FORM administration via the K-haler device resulted in high lung deposition in patients with obstructive lung disease but somewhat lesser deposition in healthy subjects. Regional deposition data demonstrated drug deposition in both the central and peripheral regions in all subject populations. EUDRACT NUMBER: 2015-000744-42.

Pharmacokinetics of concentrated naloxone nasal spray for opioid overdose reversal: Phase I healthy volunteer study.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Take-home naloxone can prevent death from heroin/opioid overdose, but pre-provision is difficult because naloxone is usually given by injection. Non-injectable alternatives, including naloxone nasal sprays, are currently being developed. To be effective, the intranasal (i.n.) spray dose must be adequate but not excessive, and early absorption must be comparable to intramuscular (i.m.) injection. We report on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of a specially produced concentrated novel nasal spray. The specific aims were to: (1) estimate PK profiles of i.n. naloxone, (2) compare early systemic exposure with i.n. versus i.m. naloxone and (3) estimate i.n. bioavailability. DESIGN: Open-label, randomized, five-way cross-over PK study. SETTING: Clinical trials facility (Croydon, UK). PARTICIPANTS: Thirty-eight healthy volunteers (age 20-54 years; 11 female). INTERVENTION AND COMPARATOR: Three doses of i.n. (1 mg/0.1 ml, 2 mg/0.1 ml, 4 mg/0.2 ml) versus 0.4 mg i.m. (reference) and 0.4 mg intravenous (i.v.) naloxone. MEASUREMENTS: Regular blood samples were taken, with high-frequency sampling during the first 15 minutes to capture early systemic exposure. PK parameters were determined from plasma naloxone concentrations. Exploratory analyses involved simulation of repeat administration. FINDINGS: Mean peak concentration (Cmax ) values for 1 mg (1.51 ng/ml), 2 mg (2.87 ng/ml) and 4 mg (6.02 ng/ml) i.n. exceeded 0.4 mg i.m. (1.27 ng/ml) naloxone. All three i.n. doses rapidly achieved plasma levels > 50% of peak concentrations (T50%) by 10 minutes, peaking at 15-30 minutes (Tmax ). For comparison, the i.m. reference reached Tmax at 10 minutes. Mean bioavailability was 47-51% for i.n. relative to i.m. naloxone. Simulation of repeat dosing (2 × 2 mg i.n. versus 5 × 0.4 mg i.m. doses) at 3-minute intervals showed that comparable plasma naloxone concentrations would be anticipated. CONCLUSIONS: Concentrated 2 mg intranasal naloxone is well-absorbed and provides early exposure comparable to 0.4 mg intramuscular naloxone, following the 0.4 mg intramuscular curve closely in the first 10 minutes post-dosing and maintaining blood levels above twice the intramuscular reference for the next 2 hours.

Low absolute bioavailability of oral naloxone in healthy subjects.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the absolute bioavailability of naloxone from oral doses ranging from 5 mg to 120 mg. MATERIALS AND METHODS: In this open-label study, 28 healthy subjects received naloxone 1 mg (0.4 mg/ml) as an intravenous infusion (reference treatment), and the following oral doses as prolonged release (PR) naloxone tablets: 5 mg, 20 mg, 40 mg, 80 mg and 120 mg. The pharmacokinetic characteristics of 40 mg administered per rectum were also investigated. Each subject received five of the seven treatments as single doses with a 7 day washout between doses. Pharmacokinetic blood sampling and safety monitoring were performed for 24 h after the intravenous dose, and 72 h after the oral and rectal doses. RESULTS: The mean absolute bioavailability of naloxone from the orally administered PR tablets was very low, ranging from 0.9% for the 5 mg dose to 2% for the 40, 80 and 120 mg doses, based on AUC(t) values. The pharmacokinetics of naloxone were linear across the range of oral doses. Where AUC(inf) values were calculated, these confirmed the results based on AUC(t) values (mean absolute bioavailability ranging from 1.9% to 2.2% for the 20 mg to 120 mg oral doses). The absolute bioavailability of naloxone was higher following rectal administration compared with oral administration, but was still low at 15%. CONCLUSIONS: The mean oral absolute bioavailability of naloxone in this study was ≤ 2% at doses ranging from 5 mg to 120 mg.

Naloxone as part of a prolonged release oxycodone/naloxone combination reduces oxycodone-induced slowing of gastrointestinal transit in healthy volunteers.

OBJECTIVES: This exploratory study in healthy volunteers investigated the effect of single doses of oxycodone on gastrointestinal (GI) transit time and the degree to which a single dose of naloxone reverses the oxycodone-induced effect. METHODS: Fifteen healthy male volunteers received: oxycodone 10 and2 0 mg, oxycodone/naloxone 10/5 and 20/10 mg (all as prolonged release tablets) and placebo. Each dose was radiolabelled and administered with a capsule containing radiolabelled resin (surrogate for GI contents). RESULTS: Scintigraphic analysis showed that 20 mg oxycodone significantly increased colon arrival time (mean 7.19 vs 5.15 h for placebo, p = 0.0159). Mean colon arrival time for oxycodone/naloxone 20/10 mg (5.16 h) was similar to placebo, although the difference between oxycodone/naloxone 20/10 mg versus oxycodone 20 mg was not significant (p = 0.0653). Colonic geometric centre analysis showed a significant increase in mean time for the resin to reach the colon following oxycodone 10 and 20 mg compared with placebo (increases of 5.3 and 8.8 h). There was no significant effect of naloxone at the lower dose; however, oxycodone/naloxone 20/10 mg significantly reduced mean colonic transit time by 2.1 h (p = 0.0376). CONCLUSION: A single dose of oxycodone 20 mg significantly prolonged GI transit time but this effect was reduced by co-administration of naloxone.