Relationship between biomarkers and subsequent clinical and angiographic restenosis after paclitaxel-eluting stents for treatment of STEMI: a HORIZONS-AMI substudy.

Drug-eluting stents (DES) reduce the incidence of in-stent restenosis (ISR) after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Whether the use of biomarkers might be of utility to identify patients who remain at risk for DES ISR after primary PCI has never been examined. A total of 26 biomarkers were measured at enrollment and 30 days and analyzed at a central core laboratory in 501 STEMI patients from the HORIZONS-AMI trial. All patients underwent primary PCI with the TAXUS paclitaxel-eluting stent (PES), were scheduled for routine angiographic follow-up at 13 months, and were followed for 3 years. Mean in-stent late-loss was 0.28 ± 0.57 mm, and target lesion revascularization (TLR) at 3 years occurred in 9.1 % of patients. Low levels of interleukin-6 (IL-6) and placental growth factor (PLGF) at admission were associated with both higher in-stent late loss and ischemia-driven TLR. Additionally, low admission levels of cardiotrophin-1 (CT-1) were associated with higher rates of ischemia-driven TLR. At 30-day follow-up lower values of IL-1ra (IL-1ra), matrix metalloproteinase 9 (MMP9), and myeloperoxidase (MPO), and a decline relative to admission in IL-1ra, monocyte chemotactic protein-1 (MCP-1), and MMP9 were associated with higher in-stent late loss. Low values of IL-6 at 30 days were also associated with ischemia-driven TLR. After multivariate adjustment, only MPO at 30 days and a decline of MCP-1 between admission and 30 days were associated with in-stent late loss, and only CT-1 was associated with TLR. MPO at 30 days and a decline of MCP-1 between admission and 30 days were independently associated with in-stent late loss, and CT-1 was associated with TLR. Additional studies to confirm and validate the utility of these biomarkers are warranted.

Evaluation of pharmacokinetic interactions between amlodipine, valsartan, and hydrochlorothiazide in patients with hypertension.

The steady-state pharmacokinetic (PK) interaction potential between amlodipine (10 mg), valsartan (320 mg), and hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ; 25 mg) was evaluated in patients with hypertension in a multicenter, multiple-dose, open-label, 4-cohort, parallel-group study. Eligible patients were randomly allocated to the dual combination of valsartan + HCTZ, amlodipine + valsartan, or amlodipine + HCTZ and nonrandomly allotted to amlodipine + valsartan + HCTZ triple combination treatment. After 6 days of treatment with a half-maximal dose of different combinations, patients were up-titrated to the maximal drug doses from day 7 through day 17. PK parameters of corresponding analytes from the triple- and dual-treatment groups were estimated on day 17 and compared. Safety and tolerability of all treatments was assessed. The C ( ssmax ) and AUC(0-τ) values of amlodipine or HCTZ remained unaffected when administered with valsartan + HCTZ or valsartan + amlodipine, respectively. On the other hand, valsartan exposure increased by 10% to 25% when coadministered with HCTZ and amlodipine, which is not considered clinically relevant. In conclusion, there were no clinically relevant PK interactions with amlodipine, valsartan, and HCTZ triple combination compared with the corresponding dual combinations. All treatments were safe and well tolerated.

Effect of verapamil on the pharmacokinetics of aliskiren in healthy participants.

The authors describe the drug-drug interaction between aliskiren and verapamil in healthy participants. Eighteen participants first received an oral dose of aliskiren 300 mg (highest recommended clinical dose) in period 1. After a 10-day washout period, the participants received verapamil 240 mg/d for 8 days (period 2). On day 8, the participants also received an oral dose of aliskiren 300 mg. Safety and pharmacokinetic analyses were performed during each treatment period. Concomitant administration of a single dose of aliskiren during steady-state verapamil resulted in an increase in plasma concentration of aliskiren. The mean increase in AUC(0-∞), AUC(last), and C(max) was about 2-fold. On day 8, in the presence of aliskiren, AUC(τ,ss) of R-norverapamil, R-verapamil, S-norverapamil, and S-verapamil was decreased by 10%, 16%, 10%, and 25%, respectively. Similarly, the C(max,ss) of R-norverapamil, R-verapamil, S-norverapamil, and S-verapamil was decreased by 13%, 18%, 12%, and 24%, respectively. Aliskiren did not affect the AUC(τ,ss) ratios of R-norverapamil/R-verapamil and S-norverapamil/S-verapamil. Aliskiren administered alone or in combination with verapamil was well tolerated in healthy participants. In conclusion, no dose adjustment is necessary when aliskiren is administered with moderate ABCB1 inhibitors such as verapamil (240 mg/d).

Effect of food on the pharmacokinetics of a vildagliptin/metformin (50/1000 mg) fixed-dose combination tablet in healthy volunteers.

OBJECTIVE: Vildagliptin is an orally active, potent and selective DPP-4 inhibitor that improves glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes by increasing alpha- and beta-cell responsiveness to glucose. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This open-label, single-center, randomized, two-period crossover study in healthy subjects (n=23) ages 18-45 years investigated the effect of food on the pharmacokinetics of vildagliptin and metformin following administration of a vildagliptin/metformin (50/1000 mg) fixed-dose combination tablet. RESULTS: Administration of the fixed-dose combination tablet following a high-fat meal had no effect on vildagliptin AUC(0-infinity) (ratio of geometric mean for fed:fasted state, 1.10 [90% CI 1.03, 1.18]), C(max) (ratio of means 0.98 [90% CI 0.85, 1.13]) or median t(max) (2.5 h in fed and fasted states). The rate of absorption of metformin was decreased when given with food, as reflected by the prolonged t(max) (2-4 h) and reduction in C(max) (by 26%), but the extent of absorption was not changed. The food effect on the metformin component of the fixed-dose combination tablets was consistent with, but of a lesser magnitude compared with data stated. CONCLUSIONS: The vildagliptin/metformin (50/1000 mg) fixed-dose combination tablet can be administered in the same manner as metformin, and can be recommended to be taken with meals to reduce the gastrointestinal symptoms associated with metformin.

Evaluation of pharmacokinetic interactions between vildagliptin and digoxin in healthy volunteers.

Vildagliptin is a novel antidiabetic agent that is an orally active, potent, and selective inhibitor of dipeptidyl peptidase IV, the enzyme responsible for degradation of the incretin hormones. This open-label, randomized, 3-period crossover study investigated the potential for pharmacokinetic interactions in 18 healthy subjects during coadministration of vildagliptin and digoxin. Subjects were randomized to receive each of 3 treatments: vildagliptin 100 mg qd, digoxin (0.5 mg, then 0.25 mg qd on days 2-7), and the combination vildagliptin/digoxin for 7 days. Coadministration of digoxin with vildagliptin had no effect on exposure to vildagliptin (geometric mean ratios [90% confidence interval]: AUC(0-24h), 0.99 [0.95-1.03]; C(max), 0.95 [0.85-1.06]) or to digoxin (AUC(0-24h), 1.02 [0.94-1.12]; C(max), 1.08 [0.97-1.20]). In addition, no changes in t(max), t((1/2)), and CL/F were observed for either drug. These results indicate that no dose adjustment is necessary when vildagliptin and digoxin are coadministered.

Effect of the novel oral dipeptidyl peptidase IV inhibitor vildagliptin on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of warfarin in healthy subjects.

OBJECTIVE: Vildagliptin is a potent and selective dipeptidyl peptidase-IV (DPP-4) inhibitor that improves glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes by increasing alpha and beta-cell responsiveness to glucose. This study assessed the effect of multiple doses of vildagliptin 100 mg once daily on warfarin pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics following a single 25 mg oral dose of warfarin sodium. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: Open-label, randomized, two-period, two-treatment crossover study in 16 healthy subjects. RESULTS: The geometric mean ratios (co-administration vs. administration alone) and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) of vildagliptin, R- and S-warfarin were 1.04 (0.98, 1.11), 1.00 (0.95, 1.04) and 0.97 (0.93, 1.01), respectively. The 90% CI of the ratios for vildagliptin, R- and S-warfarin maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) were also within the equivalence range 0.80-1.25. Geometric mean ratios (co-administration vs. warfarin alone) of the maximum value and AUC for prothrombin time (PT(max), 1.00 [90% CI 0.97, 1.04]; AUC(PT), 0.99 [0.97, 1.01]) and international normalized ratios (INRmax, 1.01 [0.98, 1.05]; AUC(INR), 0.99 [0.97, 1.01]) were near unity with the 90% CI within the range 0.80-1.25. Vildagliptin was well tolerated alone or co-administered with warfarin; only one adverse event (upper respiratory tract infection in a subject receiving warfarin alone) was reported, which was judged not to be related to study medication. CONCLUSIONS: Co-administration of warfarin with vildagliptin did not alter the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of R- or S-warfarin. The pharmacokinetics of vildagliptin were not affected by warfarin. No dosage adjustment of either warfarin or vildagliptin is necessary when these drugs are co-medicated.

Semiparametric Estimation of Treatment Effect in a Pretest-Posttest Study with Missing Data.

The pretest-posttest study is commonplace in numerous applications. Typically, subjects are randomized to two treatments, and response is measured at baseline, prior to intervention with the randomized treatment (pretest), and at prespecified follow-up time (posttest). Interest focuses on the effect of treatments on the change between mean baseline and follow-up response. Missing posttest response for some subjects is routine, and disregarding missing cases can lead to invalid inference. Despite the popularity of this design, a consensus on an appropriate analysis when no data are missing, let alone for taking into account missing follow-up, does not exist. Under a semiparametric perspective on the pretest-posttest model, in which limited distributional assumptions on pretest or posttest response are made, we show how the theory of Robins, Rotnitzky and Zhao may be used to characterize a class of consistent treatment effect estimators and to identify the efficient estimator in the class. We then describe how the theoretical results translate into practice. The development not only shows how a unified framework for inference in this setting emerges from the Robins, Rotnitzky and Zhao theory, but also provides a review and demonstration of the key aspects of this theory in a familiar context. The results are also relevant to the problem of comparing two treatment means with adjustment for baseline covariates.

Semiparametric estimation of treatment effect in a pretest-posttest study.

Inference on treatment effects in a pretest-posttest study is a routine objective in medicine, public health, and other fields. A number of approaches have been advocated. We take a semiparametric perspective, making no assumptions about the distributions of baseline and posttest responses. By representing the situation in terms of counterfactual random variables, we exploit recent developments in the literature on missing data and causal inference, to derive the class of all consistent treatment effect estimators, identify the most efficient such estimator, and outline strategies for implementation of estimators that may improve on popular methods. We demonstrate the methods and their properties via simulation and by application to a data set from an HIV clinical trial.