Siponimod pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability in combination with the potent CYP3A4 inhibitor itraconazole in healthy subjects with different CYP2C9 genotypes.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the PK and safety of siponimod, a substrate of CYP2C9/3A4, in the presence or absence of a CYP3A4 inhibitor, itraconazole. METHODS: This was an open-label study in healthy subjects (aged 18-50 years; genotype: CYP2C9 *1*2 [cohort 1; n = 17] or *1*3 [cohort 2; n = 13]). Subjects received siponimod 0.25-mg single dose in treatment period 1 (days 1-14), itraconazole 100 mg twice daily in treatment period 2 (days 15-18), and siponimod 0.25-mg single dose (day 19) with itraconazole until day 31 (cohort 1) or day 35 (cohort 2) in treatment period 3. PK of siponimod alone and with itraconazole and safety were assessed. RESULTS: Overall, 29/30 subjects completed the study. In treatment period 1, geometric mean AUCinf, T1/2, and median Tmax were higher while systemic clearance was lower in cohort 2 than cohort 1. In treatment period 3, siponimod AUC decreased by 10% (geo-mean ratio [90% confidence intervals]: 0.90 [0.84; 0.96]) and 24% (0.76 [0.69; 0.82]) in cohorts 1 and 2, respectively. Siponimod Cmax was similar between treatment periods 1 and 3. In both cohorts, the Cmax and AUC of the metabolites (M17, M3, and M5) decreased in the presence of itraconazole. All adverse events were mild. CONCLUSIONS: The minor albeit significant reduction in plasma exposure of siponimod and its metabolites by itraconazole was unexpected. While the reason is unclear, the results suggest that coadministration of the two drugs would not cause a considerable increase of siponimod exposure independent of CYP2C9 genotype.

Bimagrumab improves body composition and insulin sensitivity in insulin-resistant individuals.

AIM: To test the hypothesis that an improving body composition in insulin-resistant individuals could enhance insulin sensitivity. METHODS: A total of 16 people with a mean body mass index of 29.3 kg/m2 and insulin resistance, received a single dose of bimagrumab or placebo and were assessed at week 10 for insulin sensitivity, using a hyperinsulinaemic-euglycaemic clamp and an intravenous glucose tolerance test (IVGTT), and for body composition using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry and positron-emission tomography. RESULTS: Bimagrumab increased lean mass by 2.7% (P < .05) and reduced fat mass by 7.9% (P = .011) at week 10 compared with placebo, and had a neutral effect on body weight. Bimagrumab reduced glycated haemoglobin by 0.21% at week 18 (P < .001) and improved insulin sensitivity by ~20% (according to the clamp) to ~40% (according to the IVGTT). CONCLUSION: Taking the observed changes together, and given that these occurred without accompanying dietary intervention and without any prescribed regular physical exercise, bimagrumab may offer a novel approach for the treatment of the metabolic complications of obesity.

Siponimod pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability in combination with rifampin, a CYP2C9/3A4 inducer, in healthy subjects.

PURPOSE: To assess the potential pharmacokinetic (PK) interactions between siponimod and rifampin, a strong CYP3A4/moderate CYP2C9 inducer, in healthy subjects. METHODS: This was a confirmatory, open-label, multiple-dose two-period study in healthy subjects (aged 18-45 years). In Period 1 (Days 1-12), siponimod was up-titrated from 0.25 to 2 mg over 5 days (Days 1-6) followed by 2 mg once daily on days 7-12. In Period 2, siponimod 2 mg qd was co-administered with rifampin 600 mg qd (Days 13-24). Primary assessments included PK of siponimod (Days 12 and 24; maximum steady-state plasma concentration [Cmax,ss], median time to achieve Cmax,ss [Tmax, ss], and area under the curve at steady state [AUCtau,ss]). Key secondary assessments were PK of M3 and M5 metabolites, and safety/tolerability including absolute lymphocyte count (ALC). RESULTS: Of the 16 subjects enrolled (age, mean ± standard deviation [SD] 31 ± 8.3 years; men, n = 15), 15 completed the study. In Period 1, siponimod geometric mean Cmax,ss (28.6 ng/mL) was achieved in 4 h (median Tmax,ss; range, 1.58-8.00) and the geometric mean AUCtau,ss was 546 h × ng/mL. In Period 2, the siponimod geometric mean Cmax,ss and AUCtau,ss decreased to 15.7 ng/mL and 235 h × ng/mL, respectively; median Tmax remained unchanged (4 h). Rifampin co-administration increased M3 Cmax,ss by 53% while M5 Cmax,ss remained unchanged. The AUCtau,ss of M3 and M5 decreased by 10% and 37%, respectively. The majority of adverse events reported were mild, with a higher frequency during Period 2 (86.7%) versus Period 1 (50%). The mean ALC increased slightly under rifampin co-administration but remained below 1.0 × 109/L. CONCLUSIONS: The study findings suggest that in the presence of rifampin, a strong CYP3A4/moderate CYP2C9 inducer, siponimod showed significant decrease in Cmax,ss (45%) and AUCtau,ss (57%) in healthy subjects.

Pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of siponimod (BAF312) in subjects with severe renal impairment: A single-dose, open-label, parallel-group study
.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the pharmacokinetics (PK), safety, and tolerability of siponimod and selected inactive metabolites (M3 and M5) in subjects with varying degrees of renal impairment (RI) compared to demographically matched healthy subjects (HS). METHODS: The study enrolled subjects with severe RI (n = 8) and matched HS (n = 8). Subjects with moderate and mild RI were to be enrolled only if interim analysis showed ≥ 50% increase in maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) or area under the curve (AUC) of total and/or unbound siponimod in severe RI subjects vs. HS. All subjects received a single oral dose of siponimod 0.25 mg on day 1; PK and safety were evaluated during the follow-up (~ 13 days). RESULTS: PK of siponimod was marginally affected in severe RI subjects vs. HS: Cmax decreased by 8%, and AUClast and AUCinf increased by 23% and 24%, respectively; half-life (37 vs. 26 hours) and systemic clearance (2.9 vs. 3.4 L/h) were comparable. Siponimod plasma unbound (u) fraction at 4 hours post-dose was similar between the two groups (range: 0.0172 - 0.0550%). Cmax(u) was comparable while AUClast(u) and AUCinf(u) were increased by 33% compared to HS. M3 exposure was similar (Cmax decreased by 9%; AUClast and AUCinf increased by 11%) and M5 exposure was slightly lower (Cmax decreased by 26%; AUClast decreased by 16%) in subjects with severe renal impairment (RI) compared with matched HS. No adverse events were reported during this study. CONCLUSIONS: Changes in the plasma exposure of total and unbound siponimod and metabolites M3 and M5 were not considered to be clinically relevant. Further to severe RI, investigation of PK in subjects with mild and moderate RI was not warranted.
.

Effect of pradigastat, a diacylglycerol acyltransferase 1 inhibitor, on the pharmacokinetics of a combination oral contraceptive in healthy female subjects.

OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the potential pharmacokinetic interaction between pradigastat, a potent and selective diacylglycerol acyltransferase 1 inhibitor, and Levora-28®, a combination oral contraceptive (COC) containing 30 µg ethinylestradiol (EE) and 150 µg levonorgestrel (LVG). METHODS: An open-label, single-sequence three-period (period 1, single dose of COC; period 2, pradigastat 100 mg x 3 days followed by 40 mg x 7 days; and period 3, both pradigastat 40 mg and a single dose of COC) study involving 24 healthy female subjects of childbearing potential was conducted. RESULTS: The pharmacokinetic parameters of EE were similar when administered alone or in combination with pradigastat, as the 90% confidence interval (CI) of geometric mean ratios for EE exposure (AUC and C(max)) were all within the range of 0.80 - 1.25. The AUC(∞), AUC(last), and C(max) of LVG were slightly increased in the presence of pradigastat, the geometric mean ratios (90% CI) were 1.25 (1.16, 1.35), 1.24 (1.15, 1.34), and 1.16 (1.06, 1.27), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Pradigastat did not elicit clinically relevant changes in the magnitude of Levora-28® exposure. Therefore, dose adjustment is not required for Levora-28® when co-administered with pradigastat.

Effect of mavoglurant (AFQ056), a selective mGluR5 antagonist, on the pharmacokinetics of a combined oral contraceptive containing ethinyl estradiol and levonorgestrel in healthy women.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the pharmacokinetics (PKs) of a combination oral contraceptive (OC) when given alone or concomitantly with the selective metabotropic glutamate receptor 5 antagonist mavoglurant (AFQ056). METHODS: This open-label, fixed-sequence, two-period study included 30 healthy female subjects aged 18-40 years. In period 1, a single oral dose of an OC containing 30 µg ethinyl estradiol (EE)/150 µg levonorgestrel (LNG) was administered alone. In period 2, the OC was administered with a clinically relevant multiple dose of mavoglurant 100 mg b.i.d. under steady-state conditions. Plasma concentrations of EE and LNG were measured up to 72 hours post administration, and the PK parameters Cmax and AUClast were estimated using noncompartmental methods. RESULTS: The geometric mean ratios of EE Cmax and AUClast obtained with and without mavoglurant were 0.97 (90% confidence interval (CI): 0.90-1.06) and 0.94 (90% CI: 0.86-1.03), respectively. The corresponding Cmax and AUClast for LNG were 0.81 (90% CI: 0.75-0.87) and 0.68 (90% CI: 0.63-0.73), respectively. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, EE PK was unchanged, whereas Cmax and AUClast of LNG were 19% and 32% lower, respectively, when given with mavoglurant Further investigation regarding the impact on contraceptive efficacy is warranted.

Abuse and dependence potential of sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P) receptor modulators used in the treatment of multiple sclerosis: a review of literature and public data.

Abuse and misuse of prescription drugs remains an ongoing concern in the USA and worldwide; thus, all centrally active new drugs must be assessed for abuse and dependence potential. Sphingosine-1-phosphate (S1P) receptor modulators are used primarily in the treatment of multiple sclerosis. Among the new S1P receptor modulators, siponimod, ozanimod, and ponesimod have recently been approved in the USA, European Union (EU), and other countries. This review of literature and other public data has been undertaken to assess the potential for abuse of S1P receptor modulators, including ozanimod, siponimod, ponesimod, and fingolimod, as well as several similar compounds in development. The S1P receptor modulators have not shown chemical or pharmacological similarity to known drugs of abuse; have not shown abuse or dependence potential in animal models for subjective effects, reinforcement, or physical dependence; and do not have adverse event profiles demonstrating effects of interest to individuals who abuse drugs (such as sedative, stimulant, mood-elevating, or hallucinogenic effects). In addition, no reports of actual abuse, misuse, or dependence were identified in the scientific literature for fingolimod, which has been on the market since 2010 (USA) and 2011 (EU). Overall, the data suggest that S1P receptor modulators are not associated with significant potential for abuse or dependence, consistent with their unscheduled status in the USA and internationally.

Safety, Tolerability, Pharmacodynamics and Pharmacokinetics of Intravenous Siponimod: A Randomized, Open-label Study in Healthy Subjects.

PURPOSE: The goal of this study was to assess the safety, tolerability, pharmacodynamics (PD) and pharmacokinetics (PK) of intravenous (IV) siponimod in healthy subjects. METHODS: This randomized, open-label study was conducted in 2 parts. In Part 1, a total of 16 eligible subjects received either a single oral dose of siponimod (0.25 mg) followed by a single IV infusion (0.25 mg/3 h) in Sequence 1, or vice versa in Sequence 2. In Part 2, a total of 17 eligible subjects received single IV infusions of siponimod (1 mg/24 h). FINDINGS: No clinically relevant effect on mean 5-minute or hourly average heart rate was observed following the siponimod IV dosing regimens and both remained above 50 beats/min. Observed atrioventricular blocks and sinus pauses were asymptomatic. The mean change in absolute lymphocyte count from baseline was comparable for the siponimod 0.25 mg oral regimen and the two IV siponimod regimens. Oral siponimod displayed a good absolute bioavailability of 84%. The mean peak exposure of oral siponimod was approximately 48% lower than that of IV siponimod. The M17 metabolite was found to be the most prominent systemic metabolite of siponimod in humans. IMPLICATIONS: Siponimod IV infusions were well tolerated, with safety and PD (absolute lymphocyte count) profiles similar to those of oral siponimod. The PD/PK findings supported the development of an innovative rapid IV titration regimen for patients with intracerebral hemorrhage.

Safety, Tolerability, Pharmacokinetics, and Pharmacodynamics of the Novel Non-Bile Acid FXR Agonist Tropifexor (LJN452) in Healthy Volunteers.

Tropifexor (LJN452) is a potent, orally available, non-bile acid farnesoid X receptor agonist under clinical development for chronic liver diseases. Here, we present results from a first-in-human study of tropifexor following single- and multiple-ascending doses (SAD/MAD) and food effect substudy in healthy volunteers. The SAD study included 6 fasted cohorts receiving 10- to 3000-µg tropifexor or placebo and 1 cohort receiving 300-µg tropifexor with a high-fat meal. The MAD study included 4 lean cohorts receiving 10 to 100 µg and 1 obese cohort receiving 30-µg once-daily doses or placebo for 14 days. Pharmacodynamic assessment of fibroblast growth factor 19 and fasting plasma lipids was performed after dosing. Overall, 95 volunteers received at least 1 tropifexor or placebo dose. Tropifexor was well tolerated up to 3000 µg and 100 µg in the SAD and MAD studies, respectively; however, 2 subjects discontinued the MAD study due to asymptomatic elevation of liver transaminases. At single doses, tropifexor showed a moderate rate of absorption (median time to maximum concentration, 4 hours), dose-proportional increases in exposure, and elimination half-life of 13.5 to 21.9 hours. When taken with food, tropifexor exposure increased by ∼60%. With multiple dosing, steady state was reached on day 4 with <2-fold accumulation. Single and multiple doses showed dose-dependent increases in fibroblast growth factor 19. No changes in serum lipids were observed in tropifexor- vs placebo-treated obese subjects. In conclusion, tropifexor was well tolerated, had a pharmacokinetic profile suitable for once-daily dosing and showed dose-dependent target engagement without altering plasma lipids in healthy volunteers.

Pharmacokinetics, Safety, and Tolerability of Fevipiprant (QAW039), a Novel CRTh2 Receptor Antagonist: Results From 2 Randomized, Phase 1, Placebo-Controlled Studies in Healthy Volunteers.

We evaluated the pharmacokinetics (PK), safety, and tolerability of a novel oral CRTh2 antagonist, fevipiprant (QAW039), in healthy subjects. Peak concentrations of fevipiprant in plasma were observed 1-3 hours postdosing. Concentrations declined in a multiexponential manner, followed by an apparent terminal phase (t1/2 , ∼20 hours). Steady state was achieved in 4 days with <2-fold accumulation. Elimination was partly by renal excretion (≤30% of the dose) and glucuronidation. Food had minimal impact on the PK of fevipiprant, and it was well tolerated at single and multiple oral doses up to 500 mg/day. No dose-dependent adverse events were observed, and all the events were mild or moderate in severity. Systemic concentrations were sufficiently high to achieve relevant target occupancy, considering in vitro pharmacology data. In summary, the data support further development as a once-daily oral therapy for allergic diseases.

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.

Assessment of pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction between pradigastat and atazanavir or probenecid.

Pradigastat, a novel diacylglycerol acyltransferase-1 inhibitor, has activity in common metabolic diseases associated with abnormal accumulation of triglycerides. In vitro studies suggest that glucuronidation is the predominant metabolism pathway for elimination of pradigastat in humans and confirmed the role of uridine 5'-diphosphoglucuronosyltransferase (UGT) enzymes, UGT1A1, -1A3, and -2B7. The in vitro studies using atazanavir as a selective inhibitor of UGT1A1 and -1A3 indicated that these enzymes contribute ∼55% toward the overall glucuronidation pathway. Therefore, a clinical study was conducted to assess the potential for drug interaction between pradigastat and probenecid (purported general UGT inhibitor) or atazanavir (selective UGT1A1, -1A3 inhibitor). The study included 2 parallel cohorts, each with 3 sequential treatment periods and 22 healthy subjects per cohort. The 90%CI of the geometric mean ratios for Cmax,ss and AUCτ,ss of pradigastat were within 0.80-1.25 when administered in combination with probenecid. However, the Cmax,ss and AUCτ,ss of pradigastat decreased by 31% (90%CI: 0.62-0.78) and 26% (0.67-0.82), respectively, when administered in combination with atazanavir. This magnitude of decrease in pradigastat steady-state exposure is not considered clinically relevant. Pradigastat was well tolerated by all subjects, either alone or in combination with atazanavir or probenecid.

Pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction assessment of LCZ696 (an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor) with omeprazole, metformin or levonorgestrel-ethinyl estradiol in healthy subjects.

LCZ696 is a novel angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor in development for the treatment of cardiovascular diseases. Here, we assessed the potential for pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction of LCZ696 (400 mg, single dose or once daily [q.d.]) when co-administered with omeprazole 40 mg q.d. (n = 28) or metformin 1000 mg q.d. (n = 27) or levonorgestrel-ethinyl estradiol 150/30 µg single dose (n = 24) in three separate open-label, single-sequence studies in healthy subjects. Pharmacokinetic parameters of LCZ696 analytes (sacubitril, LBQ657, and valsartan), metformin, and levonorgestrel-ethinyl estradiol were assessed. Omeprazole did not alter the AUCinf of sacubitril and pharmacokinetics of LBQ657; however, 7% decrease in the Cmax of sacubitril, and 11% and 13% decreases in AUCinf and Cmax of valsartan were observed. Co-administration of LCZ696 with metformin had no significant effect on the pharmacokinetics of LBQ657 and valsartan; however, AUCtau,ss and Cmax,ss of metformin were decreased by 23%. Co-administration of LCZ696 with levonorgestrel-ethinyl estradiol had no effect on the pharmacokinetics of ethinyl estradiol and LBQ657 or AUCinf of levonorgestrel. The Cmax of levonorgestrel decreased by 15%, and AUCtau,ss and Cmax,ss of valsartan decreased by 14% and 16%, respectively. Co-administration of LCZ696 with omeprazole, metformin, or levonorgestrel-ethinyl estradiol was not associated with any clinically relevant pharmacokinetic drug interactions.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic drug-drug interaction assessment between pradigastat and digoxin or warfarin.

Pradigastat, a novel diacylglycerol acyltransferase-1 inhibitor, was evaluated for both pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) drug-drug interactions when co-administered with digoxin or warfarin in healthy subjects. This open-label study included two parallel subject cohorts each with three sequential treatment periods. Forty subjects were enrolled in the study with 20 subjects allocated to each cohort. PK and PD (PT/INR for warfarin only) samples were collected in each period. The statistical analysis results showed that the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratios of digoxin, R-warfarin, and S-warfarin PK parameters (AUC and Cmax) were all within 0.80-1.25 interval. The 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratios of pradigastat PK parameters (AUC and Cmax) were within 0.80-1.25 interval when co-administered with warfarin; while co-administration with digoxin slightly reduced pradigastat exposure (∼15%). The results also showed that 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratios of warfarin PD parameters (AUC(PT), PTmax, AUC(INR), and INRmax) were within 0.80-1.25 interval. Pradigastat and digoxin or warfarin had no relevant clinical PK or PD drug-drug interactions. Administration of pradigastat and warfarin or pradigastat and digoxin as a mono or combined treatment appears to be safe and tolerated.

Bioavailability of valsartan oral dosage forms.

The oral bioavailability of valsartan from extemporaneous suspension and solution formulations were evaluated relative to tablet formulation in two separate open-label, randomized crossover studies in healthy adults. In both studies, the plasma concentrations of valsartan after oral administration were analyzed using validated liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) methods, and the corresponding pharmacokinetic parameters were estimated using noncompartmental analysis. The peak plasma concentration (Cmax ) and area under the concentration time-curves (AUC(0-∞) ) of valsartan from the extemporaneous suspension were higher by 1.93- and 1.56-fold, respectively, relative to the tablet formulation (P < .001). The Cmax and AUC(0-∞) of valsartan from the oral solution were higher by 2.21- and 1.74-fold, respectively, relative to the tablet formulation (P < .001). These results indicate that both rate and extent of absorption of valsartan are higher in the two liquid dosage forms (extemporaneous suspension and solution formulations) relative to the solid oral dosage form (tablet formulation).