Novel hepato-preferential basal insulin peglispro (BIL) does not differentially affect insulin sensitivity compared with insulin glargine in patients with type 1 and type 2 diabetes.

AIMS: Basal insulin peglispro (BIL) is a novel PEGylated basal insulin with a flat pharmacokinetic and glucodynamic profile and reduced peripheral effects, which results in a hepato-preferential action. In Phase 3 trials, patients with T1DM treated with BIL had lower prandial insulin requirements, yet improved prandial glucose control, relative to insulin glargine (GL). We hypothesized that this may be because of an enhanced sensitivity to prandial insulin with BIL resulting from lower chronic peripheral insulin action. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Two open-label, randomized, 2-period crossover clinical studies were conducted in 28 patients with T1DM and 24 patients with T2DM. In each study period, patients received once-daily, individualized, stable, subcutaneous doses of BIL or GL for 5 weeks before a euglycaemic 2-step hyperinsulinemic clamp procedure (with [6,6- 2 H2 ]-glucose in 12 of the patients with T1DM). M-values were derived from the clamp procedure for all patients, with rate of glucose appearance (Ra) and disappearance (Rd) and insulin sensitivity index (SI) determined from the clamps with [6,6- 2 H2 ]-glucose. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant differences between BIL and GL in key measures of hepatic (% Ra suppression during the low-dose insulin infusion; 78.7% with BIL, 81.8% with GL) or peripheral (M-value and M/I during the high-dose insulin infusion, Rd and SI) insulin sensitivity in patients with T1DM or T2DM. CONCLUSIONS: The need to reduce prandial insulin observed with BIL during phase 3 trials cannot be explained by the differential effects of BIL and GL on sensitivity to prandial insulin in either T1DM or T2DM.

QT effects of duloxetine at supratherapeutic doses: a placebo and positive controlled study.

BACKGROUND: The electrophysiological effects of duloxetine at supratherapeutic exposures were evaluated to ensure compliance with regulatory criteria and to assess the QT prolongation potential. METHODS: Electrocardiograms were collected in a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover study that enrolled 117 healthy female subjects aged 19 to 74 years. Duloxetine dosages escalated from 60 mg twice daily to 200 mg twice daily; a single moxifloxacin 400 mg dose was used as a positive control. Data were analyzed using 3 QT interval correction methods: mixed-effect analysis of covariance model with RR interval change from baseline as the covariate, the QT Fridericia's correction method, and the individual QT correction method. Concentrations of duloxetine and its 2 major metabolites were measured. RESULTS: Compared with placebo, the mean change from baseline in QTc decreased with duloxetine 200 mg twice daily. The upper limits of the 2-sided 90% confidence intervals for duloxetine vs. placebo were <0 msec at each time point by any correction method. No subject had absolute QT Fridericia's correction values >445 msec with duloxetine, and the change in QT Fridericia's correction from baseline with duloxetine did not exceed 36 msec. No relationship was detected between QTc change and plasma concentrations of duloxetine or its metabolites even though average duloxetine concentrations ranged to more than 5 times those achieved at therapeutic doses. Moxifloxacin significantly prolonged QTc at all time points, regardless of correction method. CONCLUSIONS: Duloxetine does not affect ventricular repolarization as assessed by both mean changes and outliers in QT corrected by any method.

Duloxetine pharmacokinetics are similar in Japanese and Caucasian subjects.

AIMS: To compare single- and multiple-dose duloxetine pharmacokinetics between healthy Japanese and Caucasians. METHODS: Twenty-four subjects of each race were given single oral doses of duloxetine (20, 40 and 60 mg) in a randomized, double-blind study. Another 20 subjects of each race received 20, 40 mg or placebo (2 : 2 : 1) twice-daily for 5 days. RESULTS: Following single doses, the mean duloxetine C(max) and AUC were approximately 20% greater in Japanese. This difference could be explained by the 15% lower average body weight in Japanese. Similar results were observed following multiple dosing. CONCLUSION: Duloxetine pharmacokinetics are not meaningfully different between Japanese and Caucasians.

Effect of duloxetine on tolterodine pharmacokinetics in healthy volunteers.

AIM: To investigate the effect of duloxetine on the pharmacokinetics and tolerability of tolterodine and its active 5-hydroxymethyl metabolite (5-HM). METHODS: Sixteen healthy subjects received two 5-day treatment regimens in a randomized, double-blinded, crossover fashion: tolterodine (2 mg, BID) + duloxetine (40 mg, BID), tolterodine (2 mg, BID) + duloxetine placebo (BID). Plasma concentrations of tolterodine and 5-HM were measured on day 5. Adverse events, clinical safety laboratory data and vital signs were assessed during the study. RESULTS: Duloxetine increased the AUC(tau,ss) of tolterodine by 71%[geometric mean, 95% confidence interval (CI) 31, 123], and its C(max,ss) by 64% (CI 30, 106), and prolonged its t(1/2) by 14% (CI 1, 28). Duloxetine did not affect the plasma concentrations or t(1/2) of 5-HM. Laboratory data and vital signs did not reveal any clinically significant changes or abnormalities. CONCLUSIONS: Duloxetine exhibited minor inhibitory effects on the pharmacokinetics of tolterodine but not 5-HM. Coadministration of these drugs was well tolerated and demonstrated no significant safety findings in the studied population. These findings suggest that there should not be a need for routine adjustment of tolterodine dosage in the presence of duloxetine.

Effect of age on the pharmacokinetics of duloxetine in women.

AIMS: The effect of age on duloxetine pharmacokinetics was evaluated in healthy volunteers and in patients with urinary incontinence. METHODS: Twenty-four healthy subjects (12 women 65-77 years, and 12 women 32-50 years) were given a single 40-mg oral dose of duloxetine in Study 1. Plasma concentration-time data were analysed by noncompartmental pharmacokinetic methods. Sparse plasma samples were obtained from patients with urinary incontinence treated in two phase II studies: 70 women (24-77 years) who received duloxetine 20 mg day(-1), 30 mg day(-1), or 40 mg day(-1) in Study 2A and 128 women (28-64 years) who received duloxetine 20 mg day(-1), 40 mg day(-1), or 80 mg day(-1) in Study 2B. Based upon the combined data, a model was developed to characterize population pharmacokinetics of duloxetine using the nonlinear mixed-effects modelling program (NONMEM). RESULTS: In Study 1, the elderly (> or = 65 years) exhibited a statistically significant slower elimination rate constant lambdaz compared with younger subjects [elderly-younger difference = -0.022 h(-1)[95% confidence interval (CI) -0.036, -0.008]]. However, no statistically significant differences in either CL/F [elderly-younger difference = -17.4 l h(-1) (95% CI -41.1, 6.23)] or V/F [elderly-younger difference = 115.9 l (95% CI -168.6, 400.4)] were observed. The population pharmacokinetic analysis of Studies 2A and 2B revealed that the CL/F of duloxetine decreased with increasing age. Despite statistical significance, the age effect only accounted for 3% of the interindividual variability in CL/F and unexplained sources of the variation in clearance were still substantial (> 50%). Adverse events were generally mild to moderate, and the incidence of adverse events was generally similar in elderly and non-elderly participants in these studies. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas the results suggest that age has an effect on duloxetine pharmacokinetics, primarily reflected as a slower lambdaz in the elderly, the magnitude of mean changes in CL/F, or V/F was small relative to the large interindividual variation in pharmacokinetics. Elderly participants had a safety profile of duloxetine comparable to their younger counterparts. Specific dose recommendations for duloxetine in the elderly are not warranted.