Lisdexamfetamine Dimesylate: Prodrug Delivery, Amphetamine Exposure and Duration of Efficacy.

Lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) is a long-acting d-amphetamine prodrug used to treat attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children, adolescents and adults. LDX is hydrolysed in the blood to yield d-amphetamine, and the pharmacokinetic profile of d-amphetamine following oral administration of LDX has a lower maximum plasma concentration (Cmax), extended time to Cmax (Tmax) and lower inter- and intra-individual variability in exposure compared with the pharmacokinetic profile of an equivalent dose of immediate-release (IR) d-amphetamine. The therapeutic action of LDX extends to at least 13 h post-dose in children and 14 h post-dose in adults, longer than that reported for any other long-acting formulation. Drug-liking scores for LDX are lower than for an equivalent dose of IR d-amphetamine, which may result from the reduced euphorigenic potential associated with its pharmacokinetic profile. These pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics of LDX may be beneficial in the management of symptoms in children, adolescents and adults with ADHD.

A thorough QT study of guanfacine.

OBJECTIVES: Guanfacine extended- release (GXR) is approved for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents. As part of the clinical development of GXR, and to further explore the effect of guanfacine on QT intervals, a thorough QT study of guanfacine was conducted (ClinicalTrials. gov identifier: NCT00672984). METHODS: In this double-blind, 3-period, crossover trial, healthy adults (n = 83) received immediaterelease guanfacine (at therapeutic (4 mg) and supra-therapeutic (8 mg) doses), placebo, and 400 mg moxifloxacin (positive control) in 1 of 6 randomly assigned sequences. Continuous 12-lead electrocardiograms were extracted, and guanfacine plasma concentrations were assessed pre-dose and at intervals up to 24 hours post-dose. QT intervals were corrected using 2 methods: subject-specific (QTcNi) and Fridericia (QTcF). Time-matched analyses examined the largest, baseline-adjusted, drug-placebo difference in QTc intervals. RESULTS: In the QTcNi analysis, the largest 1-sided 95% upper confidence bound (UCB) through hour 12 was 1.94 ms (12 hours postdose). For the 12-hour QTcF analysis, the largest 1-sided 95% UCB was 10.34 ms (12 hours post-supratherapeutic dose), representing the only 1-sided 95% UCB > 10 ms. Following the supra-therapeutic dose, maximum guanfacine plasma concentration was attained at 5.0 hours (median) post-dose. Assay sensitivity was confirmed by moxifloxacin results. Among guanfacine-treated subjects, most treatment-emergent adverse events were mild (78.9%); dry mouth (65.8%) and dizziness (61.8%) were most common. CONCLUSIONS: Neither therapeutic nor supra-therapeutic doses of guanfacine prolonged QT interval after adjusting for heart rate using individualized correction, QTcNi, through 12 hours postdose. Guanfacine does not appear to interfere with cardiac repolarization of the form associated with pro-arrhythmic drugs.

A double-blind, randomized, ascending, multiple-dose study of bazedoxifene in healthy postmenopausal women.

Bazedoxifene is a novel selective estrogen receptor modulator in clinical development for the prevention and treatment of postmenopausal osteoporosis. This phase 1, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study (N = 107) of healthy postmenopausal women examined the pharmacokinetics and safety/tolerability profile of multiple doses of bazedoxifene (1, 2.5, 5, 10, 20, 40, and 80 mg) administered orally once daily for 30 days. Bazedoxifene demonstrated a half-life of 25 to 30 hours, reached steady state within 7 days, and exhibited linear pharmacokinetics over a dose range of 5-80 mg. Fibrinogen levels decreased with bazedoxifene doses of 5 mg and greater; these changes were significant for bazedoxifene 20, 40, and 80 mg (P ≤ .05 vs placebo), but were not dose dependent. Bazedoxifene was associated with increased levels of sex hormone-binding globulin, thyroxine-binding globulin, and cortisol-binding globulin (CBG); only increases in the levels of CBG appeared to be dose related. Bazedoxifene was safe and well tolerated within the tested dose range. Bazedoxifene showed no differences from placebo in adverse event reports, vital sign measurements, or electrocardiogram findings.

Pharmacokinetics of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate after targeted gastrointestinal release or oral administration in healthy adults.

The purpose of this work was to assess the pharmacokinetics and safety of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) delivered and released regionally in the gastrointestinal (GI) tract. In this open-label, randomized, crossover study, oral capsules and InteliSite delivery capsules containing LDX (50 mg) with radioactive marker were delivered to the proximal small bowel (PSB), distal SB (DSB), and ascending colon (AC) during separate periods. Gamma scintigraphy evaluated regional delivery and GI transit. LDX and d-amphetamine in blood were measured postdose (≤72 h). Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were assessed. Healthy males (n = 18; 18-48 years) were enrolled. Mean (S.D.) maximal plasma concentration (C(max)) was 37.6 (4.54), 40.5 (4.95), 38.7 (6.46), and 25.7 (9.07) ng/ml; area under the concentration-time curve to the last measurable time point was 719.1 (157.05), 771.2 (152.88), 752.4 (163.38), and 574.3 (220.65) ng · h · ml⁻¹, respectively, for d-amphetamine after oral, PSB, DSB, and AC delivery of LDX. Median time to C(max) was 5, 4, 5, and 8 h, respectively. Most TEAEs were mild to moderate. No clinically meaningful changes were observed (laboratory, physical examination, or electrocardiogram). LDX oral administration or targeted delivery to small intestine had similar d-amphetamine systemic exposure, indicating good absorption, and had reduced absorption after colonic delivery. The safety profile was consistent with other LDX studies.

Intranasal versus oral administration of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate: a randomized, open-label, two-period, crossover, single-dose, single-centre pharmacokinetic study in healthy adult men.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Data on pharmacokinetic parameters of the prodrug stimulant lisdexamfetamine dimesylate via alternate routes of administration are limited. The pharmacokinetics of d-amphetamine derived from lisdexamfetamine dimesylate after single oral (PO) versus intranasal (IN) administration of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate were compared. METHODS: In this randomized, two-period, crossover study, healthy men without a history of substance abuse were administered single PO or IN (radiolabelled with ≤100 µCi (99m)Tc-diethylenetriamine-pentaacetic acid and confirmed by scintigraphy) lisdexamfetamine dimesylate 50 mg ≥7 days apart. Serial blood samples were drawn to measure d-amphetamine and intact lisdexamfetamine at 0 (pre-dose), 15, 30 and 45 minutes and at 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, 16, 24, 36, 48 and 72 hours post-dose for PO administration and at 0 (pre-dose), 5, 10, 15, 20, 30, 45 minutes and 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, 16, 24, 36, 48 and 72 hours post-dose for IN administration. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were assessed. RESULTS: Eighteen subjects were enrolled and completed the study. The mean ± SD maximum observed plasma concentration (C(max)) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to time of last measurable concentration (AUC(last)) of d-amphetamine following PO administration of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate were 37.6 ± 4.54 ng/mL and 719.1 ± 157.05 ng · h/mL, respectively; after IN administration, these parameters were 35.9 ± 6.49 ng/mL and 690.5 ± 157.05 ng · h/mL, respectively. PO and IN administration demonstrated similar median time to reach C(max) (t(max)) for d-amphetamine: 5 hours for PO administration versus 4 hours for IN administration. Mean ± SD elimination half-life (t(1/2)) values were also similar for PO (11.6 ± 2.8 hours) and IN (11.3 ± 1.8 hours) lisdexamfetamine dimesylate. TEAEs after PO and IN administration were reported by 27.8% of subjects (5/18) and 38.9% of subjects (7/18), respectively; all AEs were mild or moderate in severity, and TEAEs such as anorexia, dry mouth, headache and nausea were consistent with known amphetamine effects. CONCLUSION: IN administration of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate resulted in d-amphetamine plasma concentrations and systemic exposure to d-amphetamine comparable to those seen with PO administration. Subject variability for d-amphetamine pharmacokinetic parameters was low. Both PO and IN lisdexamfetamine dimesylate demonstrated a tolerability profile similar to that of other long-acting stimulants.

Pharmacokinetic variability of long-acting stimulants in the treatment of children and adults with attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder.

Methylphenidate- and amfetamine-based stimulants are first-line pharmacotherapies for attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, a common neurobehavioural disorder in children and adults. A number of long-acting stimulant formulations have been developed with the aim of providing once-daily dosing, employing various means to extend duration of action, including a transdermal delivery system, an osmotic-release oral system, capsules with a mixture of immediate- and delayed-release beads, and prodrug technology. Coefficients of variance of pharmacokinetic measures can estimate the levels of pharmacokinetic variability based on the measurable variance between different individuals receiving the same dose of stimulant (interindividual variability) and within the same individual over multiple administrations (intraindividual variability). Differences in formulation clearly impact pharmacokinetic profiles. Many medications exhibit wide interindividual variability in clinical response. Stimulants with low levels of inter- and intraindividual variability may be better suited to provide consistent levels of medication to patients. The pharmacokinetic profile of stimulants using pH-dependent bead technology can vary depending on food consumption or concomitant administration of medications that alter gastric pH. While delivery of methylphenidate with the transdermal delivery system would be unaffected by gastrointestinal factors, intersubject variability is nonetheless substantial. Unlike the beaded formulations and, to some extent (when considering total exposure) the osmotic-release formulation, systemic exposure to amfetamine with the prodrug stimulant lisdexamfetamine dimesylate appears largely unaffected by such factors, likely owing to its dependence on systemic enzymatic cleavage of the precursor molecule, which occurs primarily in the blood involving red blood cells. The high capacity but as yet unidentified enzymatic system for conversion of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate may contribute to its consistent pharmacokinetic profile. The reasons underlying observed differential responses to stimulants are likely to be multifactorial, including pharmacodynamic factors. While the use of stimulants with low inter- and intrapatient pharmacokinetic variability does not obviate the need to titrate stimulant doses, stimulants with low intraindividual variation in pharmacokinetic parameters may reduce the likelihood of patients falling into subtherapeutic drug concentrations or reaching drug concentrations at which the risk of adverse events increases. As such, clinicians are urged both to adjust stimulant doses based on therapeutic response and the risk for adverse events and to monitor patients for potential causes of pharmacokinetic variability.

Effects of omeprazole on the pharmacokinetic profiles of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate and extended-release mixed amphetamine salts in adults.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the pharmacokinetics of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX), a long-acting prodrug stimulant, and mixed amphetamine salts extended-release (MAS XR), alone or with omeprazole, a proton pump inhibitor (PPI). METHODS: This open-label, randomized, 4-period crossover study enrolled healthy adults (18-45 years). Subjects alternately received single doses of LDX 50 mg and MAS XR 20 mg at 4-day intervals. Following washout, subjects received omeprazole (40 mg/day x 14 days), with alternate single doses of LDX 50 mg or MAS XR 20 mg added on days 7 and 11. Blood samples were collected predose and 0 to 96 hours postdose for pharmacokinetic analysis. Safety assessments included adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: Overall, 24 subjects were randomized; 21 completed the study. For LDX monotherapy, d-amphetamine mean (SD) exposure was 45.0 (13.97) ng/mL and 713.0 (134.75) ng . h/mL; when coadministered with omeprazole it was 46.3 (9.71) ng/mL and 761.6 (191.13) ng . h/mL, for Cmax and AUCinf, respectively. The median Tmax was 3 hours with and without omeprazole. For MAS XR monotherapy, total amphetamine mean (SD) exposure was 36.6 (9.19) ng/mL and 640.8 (95.66) ng . h/mL; when coadministered with omeprazole it was 38.1 (7.35) ng/mL and 643.9 (143.16) ng . h/mL, for Cmax and AUCinf, respectively. The median Tmax was 5 hours and 2.75 hours without and with omeprazole, respectively; 57.1% to 61.9% of subjects receiving MAS XR and 25% receiving LDX showed an earlier (>or= 1 hour) Tmax with omeprazole. Both medications had AEs consistent with amphetamine use. CONCLUSIONS: Total exposure was unaffected by omeprazole for both compounds. However, approximately 50% of subjects receiving MAS XR showed an earlier Tmax while on omeprazole, indicating unpredictable release of active drug by the second bead of MAS XR, most likely related to reduced stomach acid while on a PPI compromising the pulsed delivery of MAS XR. No clear trend was observed for LDX.

Bioavailability of triple-bead mixed amphetamine salts compared with a dose-augmentation strategy of mixed amphetamine salts extended release plus mixed amphetamine salts immediate release.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the single-dose pharmacokinetics of triple-bead mixed amphetamine salts (MAS), an oral, once-daily, enhanced extended-release amphetamine formulation, with MAS extended release (MAS XR) (Adderall XR) + MAS immediate release (MAS IR) administered 8 h later. METHODS: This was a phase I, randomized, open-label, single-dose, single-center, two-period, crossover study in healthy adult volunteers designed to evaluate the bioavailability of triple-bead MAS over the course of a full day. Subjects were randomized to triple-bead MAS 37.5 mg or MAS XR 25 mg + MAS IR 12.5 mg administered 8 h later (MAS XR + MAS IR). The reference treatment was designed to mimic the clinical practice of providing extended coverage by supplementing a morning dose of MAS XR with a dose of MAS IR 8 h later in order to increase the duration of action. Plasma was assayed for d-amphetamine and l-amphetamine. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), vital signs, electrocardiograms (ECGs), and laboratory data were also collected for safety evaluation. RESULTS: Exposure to d- and l-amphetamine was equivalent between triple-bead MAS and MAS XR + MAS IR based on maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to infinity (AUC(0-infinity)). For Cmax, least-squares mean ratios comparing triple-bead MAS with MAS XR + MAS IR were 101.0% and 90.9% for d-amphetamine and l-amphetamine, respectively, and for AUC(0-infinity) were 104.4% and 95.3% for d-amphetamine and l-amphetamine, respectively. Median time to maximum observed plasma concentration (Tmax) values for d-amphetamine and l-amphetamine were 8.0 h for triple-bead MAS and 10.0 h for MAS XR + MAS IR. There were no clinically meaningful differences between the study formulations for TEAEs or laboratory values. One subject experienced an ECG abnormality (asymptomatic premature ventricular contractions) leading to early termination from the study. CONCLUSIONS: In healthy adults, the exposure observed with triple-bead MAS 37.5 mg was bioequivalent to MAS XR 25 mg supplemented by MAS IR 12.5 mg administered 8 h later. These data demonstrate that a single morning dose of triple-bead MAS provides equivalent plasma concentrations to those observed with a dose-augmentation strategy of MAS XR in the morning followed by MAS IR in the afternoon, while minimizing peak-to-trough fluctuations. Triple-bead MAS was also generally well-tolerated in this study.

Pharmacokinetics and safety of tanaproget, a nonsteroidal progesterone receptor agonist, in healthy women.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to evaluate the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and safety of the nonsteroidal progesterone receptor agonist, tanaproget. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, sequential-group study of ascending single doses of tanaproget was conducted in healthy, 25- to 45-year-old women on cycle days 8 to 12. Eight subjects (six active, two placebo) per cohort received a dose of 0.1, 0.3, 1, 3, 7 (+/-high-fat meal) or 15 mg. RESULTS: The maximum concentration (C(max)) of tanaproget occurred approximately 2 to 3 h after administration. The elimination half-life (t(1/2)) ranged from 12 to 30 h, and the oral clearance was approximately 70 L/h. The pharmacokinetics of tanaproget was not noticeably altered with a high-fat meal. All doses of tanaproget decreased cervical mucus scores (using a modified Insler method), indicating poor production and poor quality of cervical mucus. The most frequent treatment-emergent adverse events were vaginal bleeding/spotting, abdominal cramping and vomiting; their incidence was not dose related and most events were mild. CONCLUSIONS: Tanaproget was safe and well tolerated, decreased cervical mucus scores and had a pharmacokinetic profile acceptable for use as a once-daily oral contraceptive.