Intravenous Dosing as an Alternate Approach to Safely Achieve Supratherapeutic Exposure for Assessments of Cardiac Repolarization: A Randomized Clinical Trial with Mavoglurant (AFQ056).

PURPOSE: The conduct of thorough QTc (TQT) studies is often challenging with compounds that are characterized by limited tolerability in healthy individuals. This is applicable to several central nervous system drugs, including mavoglurant acting as a selective allosteric modulator of metabotropic glutamate receptor 5. This TQT study describes the use of a single intravenous dosing regimen as an alternate approach allowing for sufficiently high Cmax values while controlling tolerability. METHODS: This study was a randomized, placebo- and active-controlled, 4-period, crossover, TQT study composed of 2 sequential phases. In the pilot phase, the safety and tolerability profile of 10-minute infusions of 25, 37.5, and 50 mg of mavoglurant was assessed in 36 healthy individuals. In the TQT phase, individuals received in random sequence single intravenous doses of mavoglurant (25 and 50 mg) and placebo and an oral dose of moxifloxacin (400 mg). FINDINGS: Mavoglurant was well tolerated up to a single intravenous dose of 50 mg, and supratherapeutic Cmax values were achieved that were approximately 2-fold higher than at the multiple maximum tolerated dose and more than 3-fold higher relative to therapeutic plasma concentrations. The upper bound of the 2-sided 90% CI of Fridericia-corrected placebo- and baseline-adjusted QTc intervals (QTcFs) did not exceed 10 milliseconds at any postdose time point for both mavoglurant doses. The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analysis confirmed the lack of an association between mavoglurant plasma concentrations and ΔΔQTcF data over the entire range of plasma concentration data at 25 and 50 mg of mavoglurant. An outlier analysis revealed no individuals with newly identified QTcF intervals >480 milliseconds or any QTcF prolongations >60 milliseconds compared with baseline in any of the treatment groups. Hence, the lack of any clinically relevant QTc prolongation was found for therapeutic and supratherapeutic single intravenous doses of 25 and 50 mg of mavoglurant. IMPLICATIONS: This TQT study describes the use of single intravenous dosing as an alternate approach to achieve supratherapeutic plasma concentrations as required per the International Council for Harmonisation E14 guideline with compounds characterized by exposure related tolerability limitations. The increased Cmax/AUC ratio compared with conventional oral dosing may contribute to a reduced incidence of adverse events that appear more related to overall exposure.

Effect of Pradigastat, a Diacylglycerol Acyltransferase 1 Inhibitor, on the QTcF Interval in Humans.

Pradigastat, a novel diacylglycerol acyltransferase 1 inhibitor, has been studied in familial chylomicronemia syndrome. To evaluate the effects of supratherapeutic concentrations of pradigastat on the QTc interval, 2 studies were conducted. The first study assessed the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of single escalating intravenous doses of pradigastat (10, 30, 100, and 115 mg over 60 minutes) in healthy adults. Single intravenous doses were safe, well tolerated, and at the higher doses resulted in supratherapeutic pradigastat exposure. The second was a parallel, 3-arm thorough QTc study in which healthy male subjects were randomized to pradigastat (115 mg intravenously), moxifloxacin (400 mg oral, positive control), or placebo. Following intravenous administration, pradigastat exposure peaked at 4 times the therapeutic concentration and did not prolong the baseline-adjusted and placebo-corrected QTc intervals. During the 60-minute pradigastat infusion, a number of infusion reactions and a small mean decrease in QTc were observed. Both effects disappeared when the infusion was stopped, suggesting that an infusate excipient may have been responsible. As expected, moxifloxacin significantly increased the QTc interval at multiple points, confirming the study's sensitivity to detect a true positive effect. Pradigastat is therefore unlikely to increase the risk of dysrhythmias associated with QTc prolongation in humans.

Relative bioavailability of diclofenac potassium from softgel capsule versus powder for oral solution and immediate-release tablet formulation.

The oral bioavailability of diclofenac potassium 50 mg administered as a soft gelatin capsule (softgel capsule), powder for oral solution (oral solution), and tablet was evaluated in a randomized, open-label, 3-period, 6-sequence crossover study in healthy adults. Plasma diclofenac concentrations were measured using a validated liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry/mass spectrometry method, and pharmacokinetic analysis was performed by noncompartmental methods. The median time to achieve peak plasma concentrations of diclofenac was 0.5, 0.25, and 0.75 hours with the softgel capsule, oral solution, and tablet formulations, respectively. The geometric mean ratio and associated 90%CI for AUCinf, and Cmax of the softgel capsule formulation relative to the oral solution formulation were 0.97 (0.95-1.00) and 0.85 (0.76-0.95), respectively. The geometric mean ratio and associated 90%CI for AUCinf and Cmax of the softgel capsule formulation relative to the tablet formulation were 1.04 (1.00-1.08) and 1.67 (1.43-1.96), respectively. In conclusion, the exposure (AUC) of diclofenac with the new diclofenac potassium softgel capsule formulation was comparable to that of the existing oral solution and tablet formulations. The peak plasma concentration of diclofenac from the new softgel capsule was 67% higher than the existing tablet formulation, whereas it was 15% lower in comparison with the oral solution formulation.

Bioequivalence and food effect assessment for vildagliptin/metformin fixed-dose combination tablets relative to free combination of vildagliptin and metformin in Japanese healthy subjects.

OBJECTIVE: To assess the bioequivalence of vildagliptin/metformin fixeddose combination (FDC) tablets (50/250 mg and 50/500 mg) to free combinations of vildagliptin and metformin and the effect of food on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of vildagliptin and metformin following administration of 50/500 mg FDC tablets. METHODS: Two openlabel, randomized, single-center, singledose, 2-period crossover studies were conducted in Japanese healthy male volunteers. Participants were administered vildagliptin/ metformin FDC tablets (study I: 50/250 mg, study II: 50/500 mg) or their free combinations under fasted condition. Food effect (standard Japanese breakfast: fat, 20 - 30% with ~ 600 kcal in total) was assessed during an additional period in study II (50/500 mg). PK parameters (AUC, C(max), t(max), t(1/2)) were calculated for vildagliptin and metformin. RESULTS: In both studies, vildagliptin/metformin FDC tablets were bioequivalent to their respective free combinations. Administration of FDC tablets after meals had no effect on vildagliptin PK parameters. The rate of absorption of metformin decreased when administered under fed condition, as reflected by a prolonged t(max) (3 hours in fasted state vs. 4 hours in fed state) and decrease in C(max) by 26%, however, the extent of absorption (AUC(last)) was similar to that in the fasted state. CONCLUSIONS: Vildagliptin/metformin FDC tablets were bioequivalent to their free combinations. Food decreased the C(max) of metformin by 26%, while AUC(last) was unchanged, consistent with previous reports. No food effect was observed on the C(max) or AUC(last) of vildagliptin. Thus, food had no clinically relevant effects on the PK of metformin or vildagliptin.

Assessment of pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction between pradigastat and acetaminophen in healthy subjects.

PURPOSE: The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of pradigastat, a diacylglycerol acyltransferase-1 inhibitor, on the pharmacokinetics of acetaminophen, a gastric emptying marker. METHODS: Twenty-five healthy subjects were enrolled and received 1000 mg acetaminophen with meal in period 1, pradigastat (100 mg × 3 days followed by 40 mg × 7 days, 1 h before meal) in period 2, and 1000 mg acetaminophen at -2, -1, 0, +1, and +3 h with respect to meal timing in presence of steady-state pradigastat (40-mg maintenance dose) during periods 3-7. RESULTS: The geometric mean ratio and 90% confidence interval of Cmax and AUC of acetaminophen were within 80-125% suggesting that the rate ad extent of acetaminophen were not affected when given at various time points with respect to pradigastat/meal timing. The acetaminophen Tmax was also not impacted under all treatment conditions but increased from 0.75 to 2.00 h when administered 1 h after food. CONCLUSION: In the presence of steady-state pradigastat, the pharmacokinetics of acetaminophen is unchanged, when given before, with, or 3 h after a meal. However, when given 1 h after a meal, the Tmax of acetaminophen was delayed by ∼1.25 h without affecting Cmax or AUC.

Evaluation of a potential transporter-mediated drug interaction between rosuvastatin and pradigastat, a novel DGAT-1 inhibitor.

OBJECTIVE: An in vitro drugdrug interaction (DDI) study was performed to assess the potential for pradigastat to inhibit breast cancer resistance protein (BCRP), organic anion-transporting polypeptide (OATP), and organic anion transporter 3 (OAT3) transport activities. To understand the relevance of these in vitro findings, a clinical pharmacokinetic DDI study using rosuvastatin as a BCRP, OATP, and OAT3 probe substrate was conducted. METHODS: The study used cell lines that stably expressed or over-expressed the respective transporters. The clinical study was an open-label, single sequence study where subjects (n = 36) received pradigastat (100 mg once daily x 3 days thereafter 40 mg once daily) and rosuvastatin (10 mg once daily), alone and in combination. RESULTS: Pradigastat inhibited BCRP-mediated efflux activity in a dose-dependent fashion in a BCRP over-expressing human ovarian cancer cell line with an IC(50) value of 5 µM. Similarly, pradigastat inhibited OATP1B1, OATP1B3 (estradiol 17ß glucuronide transport), and OAT3 (estrone 3 sulfate transport) activity in a concentrationdependent manner with estimated IC(50) values of 1.66 ± 0.95 µM, 3.34 ± 0.64 µM, and 0.973 ± 0.11 µM, respectively. In the presence of steady state pradigastat concentrations, AUC(τ, ss) of rosuvastatin was unchanged and its Cmax,ss decreased by 14% (5.30 and 4.61 ng/mL when administered alone and coadministered with pradigastat, respectively). Pradigastat AUC(τ, ss) and C(max, ss) were unchanged when coadministered with rosuvastatin at steady state. Both rosuvastatin and pradigastat were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: These data indicate no clinically relevant pharmacokinetic interaction between pradigastat and rosuvastatin.