Multiple use applicator for vaginal tablets/vaginal inserts: compliance verification and suitability studies.

BACKGROUND: A newly developed multiple use applicator for vaginal tablets/vaginal inserts* was evaluated for its general suitability. There are no standard procedures described in guidelines or general accepted publications as to how this kind of product should be tested for suitability of purpose. METHODS: Due to the lack of existing standard procedures, three separate tests were designed and successful executed: (a) First, a patient acceptability evaluation was carried out as part of a phase III trial (registered in EudraCT on 9 Jan 2017, number 2017-000142-22 2. https://www.clinicaltrialsregister.eu/ctr-search/search?query=eudract_number%3A2017-000142-22 ). (b) Secondly, a cleaning procedure for the applicator after simulated multiple use was developed and verified in order to prove a minimized risk of microbiological contamination of the device. A newly developed vaginal fluid to simulate multiple applications was applied for this trial. (c) Lastly, a third trial evaluated the mechanical stability and proper functionality of the applicator after multiple simulated uses. Even potential abrasion of material of the device was checked. RESULTS: Acceptable patient compliance of the new multiple use applicator was verified after 2 weeks of daily use. Furthermore, diary data assessments of patients participating in the Pharmacodynamic part of the trial were evaluated as well. Overall, patient acceptability of the new applicator was proven. The easy-to-use cleaning procedure for the applicator, which can even be carried out in a domestic environment, was developed and successfully verified for effectiveness, meeting all microbiological acceptance criteria for vaginal products of the European Pharmacopeia. The mechanical stability and proper functionality of the applicator after 50 simulated uses was also evaluated. All tested applicator batches (fresh and aged) passed the final evaluation, with no limitations in functionality. CONCLUSION: The tests developed and executed consider various compliance aspects of the newly developed applicator. Results of these individual tests met the expectations and/or the predefined acceptance criteria. All included trials performed produced results justifying and qualifying the applicator for the intended multiple-use. The procedures outlined may also be a guide as to how this kind of medical device can be tested for suitability. Trial registration Registered in EudraCT, number 2017-000142-22, start date 24 May 2017.

Effect of food and tablet-dissolution characteristics on the bioavailability of linagliptin fixed-dose combination with metformin: evidence from two randomized trials.

OBJECTIVE: The objectives of the studies reported here were to determine the relative bioavailability of linagliptin and metformin when administered in a fixed-dose combination (FDC) tablet with and without food, and to investigate the relative bioavailability of linagliptin and metformin FDC tablets from two treatment batches with different dissolution behavior. METHODS: These studies were open-label, single-dose, randomized, two-way crossover trials. After an overnight fast, healthy volunteers received an FDC tablet once (with/without food in the food-effect study; or from one of two batches with differing dissolution behavior in the tablet-dissolution study). On a separate visit, following a washout period of 35 days, participants received the alternative treatment. In the food-effect study the primary endpoints were maximum measured concentration in plasma (C(max)) for linagliptin and metformin, area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to 72 hours (AUC(0-72)) for linagliptin and from 0 to infinity (AUC(0-inf)) for metformin. In the tablet-dissolution study the primary endpoints were Cmax for both analytes, AUC(0-72) for linagliptin, and from 0 to the time of the last quantifiable data point (AUC(0-t)) for metformin. RESULTS: The administration of the FDC tablet with food had no influence on the relative bioavailability of linagliptin and metformin with regard to the extent of exposure as determined by AUC(0-72) (linagliptin) and AUC(0-inf) (metformin) compared with FDC tablet administration while fasting. After food intake, peak plasma concentrations of linagliptin were slightly lowered (from 4.99 to 4.56 nmol L⁻¹), but the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean test/reference ratio was still located within the generally applied bioequivalence acceptance limits of 80 - 125%. The median time from dosing to the maximum concentration of linagliptin in plasma (t(max)) was similar under both conditions. Administration with food reduced the rate of absorption of metformin indicated by a prolongation in median tmax (from 2 to 4 hours) and a decrease in Cmax by ~ 18%. There were no notable differences between the two treatment groups with respect to safety and tolerability. In the tablet-dissolution study, bioequivalence was demonstrated between linagliptin/metformin FDC tablets with normal and slower dissolution characteristics. For both linagliptin and metformin, the 90% CI of all pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters were well within the bioequivalence acceptance limits of 80 - 125%. Tablets from both batches were well tolerated with no unexpected adverse events. CONCLUSIONS: Food did not have a relevant impact on the bioavailability of linagliptin from the FDC tablet. The effect of food on the metformin component was comparable to that previously demonstrated. Furthermore, differences in tablet-dissolution characteristics did not have an impact on the bioavailability of linagliptin or metformin from the FDC tablet.

Almorexant effects on CYP3A4 activity studied by its simultaneous and time-separated administration with simvastatin and atorvastatin.

PURPOSE: To characterise further the previously observed cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4) interaction of the dual orexin receptor antagonist almorexant. METHODS: Pharmacokinetic interactions were investigated (n = 14 healthy male subjects in two treatment groups) between almorexant at steady-state when administered either concomitantly or 2 h after administration of single doses of simvastatin (40 mg) or atorvastatin (40 mg). RESULTS: Almorexant dose-dependently increased simvastatin exposure (AUC0-∞) when administered concomitantly [geometric mean ratios (90 % CI): 2.5 (2.1, 2.9) (100 mg), 3.9 (3.3, 4.6) (200 mg)], but not Cmax [3.7 (3.0, 4.5) for both doses]. Time-separated administration resulted in relevant reductions of the interaction [AUC0-∞: 1.4 (1.2, 1.7) (100 mg), 1.7 (1.5, 2.0) (200 mg); Cmax: 1.5 (1.3, 1.9) (100 mg), 1.9 (1.6, 2.4) (200 mg)]. Similar results were obtained for hydroxyacid simvastatin. Independent of almorexant dose and relative time of administration, AUC0-∞ and Cmax of atorvastatin increased (ratios ranged from 1.1 to 1.5). AUC0-∞ and Cmax of o-hydroxy atorvastatin decreased dose-independently [AUC0-∞: 0.8 (0.8, 0.9) (100 mg), 0.6 (0.5, 0.6) (200 mg); Cmax: 0.3 (0.3, 0.4) (100 mg), 0.2 (0.2, 0.3) (200 mg)] when atorvastatin was concomitantly administered. Cmax of o-hydroxy atorvastatin slightly decreased (0.8 for both doses) following time-separated administration; AUC0-∞ was unchanged. CONCLUSIONS: Whereas almorexant increased simvastatin exposure dose- and relative time of administration-dependently, atorvastatin exposure increased to a smaller extent and irrespective of dose and time. This suggests that the observed interaction of almorexant with simvastatin is mainly caused by intestinal CYP3A4 inhibition, whereas the interaction with atorvastatin is more due to hepatic CYP3A4 inhibition.

Pharmacokinetic interactions of almorexant with midazolam and simvastatin, two CYP3A4 model substrates, in healthy male subjects.

PURPOSE: Pre-clinical experiments have shown that almorexant, a dual orexin receptor antagonist, is able to inhibit cytochrome P450 3A4 (CYP3A4). Therefore, a study was conducted to investigate the effects of multiple-dose almorexant on the pharmacokinetics of midazolam and simvastatin, two CYP3A4 model substrates. METHODS: Fourteen healthy male subjects were enrolled in an open-label, randomized, two-way crossover study. Treatment period A consisted of a single oral dose of 2 mg midazolam on day 1 and 40 mg simvastatin on day 3. In treatment period B, subjects received 200 mg almorexant once daily for 9 days together with a single oral dose of midazolam on day 7 and simvastatin on day 9. RESULTS: Concomitant administration of midazolam with almorexant at steady-state levels, achieved within 4-5 days, resulted in an increase of 1.2-fold [90 % confidence interval (CI) 1.0-1.4], 1.4-fold (90 % CI 1.2-1.6), and 1.3-fold (90 % CI 1.2-1.4) in the maximum plasma concentration (C(max)), area under the concentration-time curve from time 0 to infinity (AUC(0-∞)), and terminal half-life (t(1/2)), respectively, of midazolam; the time to peak plasma concentration (t(max)) was unchanged. Whereas C(max) and t(max) were not influenced by almorexant, the AUC(0-∞) of hydroxy-midazolam increased by 1.2-fold (90 % CI 1.1-1.4) and the t(1/2) by 1.3-fold (90 % CI 1.0-1.5). Concomitant administration of simvastatin with almorexant at steady-state resulted in an increase of 2.7-fold (90 % CI 2.0-3.7) and 3.4-fold (90 % CI 2.6-4.4) in C(max) and AUC(0-∞), respectively, for simvastatin; the t(1/2) and t(max) were unchanged. The C(max) and AUC(0-∞) of hydroxyacid simvastatin both increased by 2.8-fold, with 90 % CIs of 2.3-3.5 and 2.2-3.5, respectively; the t(max) increased by 2 h and the t(1/2) was unchanged. The urinary 6-ß-hydroxycortisol/cortisol ratio was unaffected by almorexant. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the observed interaction was caused by the inhibition of CYP3A4 activity, most probably at the gut level.

Setipiprant, a selective oral antagonist of human CRTH2: relative bioavailability of a capsule and a tablet formulation in healthy female and male subjects.

BACKGROUND: CRTH2 is a prostaglandin D2 receptor that plays an important role in allergic inflammation. Setipiprant is a potent CRTH2 antagonist under development for the treatment of allergic diseases. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the tolerability and pharmacokinetics of a single oral dose of a setipiprant capsule (reference) and a tablet formulation. METHODS: This was an open-label, 2-period, 2-way crossover, randomized study in which 20 healthy women and men (1:1 ratio) received either 2 250-mg capsules or a 500-mg tablet of setipiprant. Subjects were between 18 and 45 years old, with a body mass index of 18.0 to 28.0 kg/m(2). Differences in pharmacokinetics of setipiprant formulations were explored overall and by sex. RESULTS: All subjects completed the study. Both formulations were well tolerated, with headache the most frequently reported adverse event (25% of subjects), followed by flatulence (15%) and somnolence and fatigue (10%). The adverse event profile in men and women and between formulations was similar. The ratios of geometric means for Cmax (0.94; 95% CI, 0.79-1.12) and AUC0-∞ (1.01; 95% CI, 0.92-1.12) were mostly within the limits of 0.80 to 1.25. When corrected for weight, the differences observed between sexes, within each treatment, for Cmax (capsules: 1.01; 95% CI, 0.71-1.44; tablet: 0.89; 95% CI, 0.62-1.26) and AUC0-∞ (capsules: 1.12; 95% CI, 0.86-1.47; tablet: 0.96; 95% CI, 0.73-1.25) were minor. CONCLUSION: Both the setipiprant formulations were well tolerated. Setipiprant pharmacokinetics were similar between formulations, overall, and between sexes. The new tablet formulation may constitute a valid alternative to the capsule formulation for later clinical development phases. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01877629.