Search

Study Design A controlled laboratory study, with a single-blind, block-randomization crossover design. Objectives To compare the electrically elicited knee extensor torque produced by 3 clinically available waveforms: 2500-Hz burst-modulated alternating current (BMAC), 1000-Hz BMAC, and 1000-Hz burst-modulated biphasic square-wave pulsed current (BMBPC). Background Neuromuscular electrical stimulation (NMES) is the therapeutic use of electrical current to strengthen muscle. Muscle torque produced by NMES is limited by discomfort. Methods The knee extensor maximal volitional isometric torque (KEMVIT) of 33 able-bodied participants (18 female) was measured and used to normalize the electrically elicited knee extensor torque to produce a percent of KEMVIT (%KEMVIT). Electrically elicited isometric knee extensor torque was measured in response to each of the waveforms at the participants' maximum tolerance. Results The average maximum tolerated stimulation produced 32.0 ± 16.7 %KEMVIT with 2500-Hz BMAC, 38.2 ± 18.4 %KEMVIT with 1000-Hz BMAC, and 42.2 ± 17.1 %KEMVIT with 1000-Hz BMBPC. Tukey honest significant difference (HSD) post hoc testing revealed a statistically significant difference between 2500-Hz BMAC and 1000-Hz BMAC (P = .046), and between 2500-Hz BMAC and 1000-Hz BMBPC (P.001). No statistically significant difference was found between 1000-Hz BMAC and 1000-Hz BMBPC (P = .267). Conclusion For eliciting maximum knee extensor muscle torque, 1000-Hz BMBPC and 1000-Hz BMAC were similarly effective, and 2500-Hz BMAC was less effective. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 2018;48(3):217-224. Epub 19 Dec 2017. doi:10.2519/jospt.2018.7601.

Rolapitant, a selective and long-acting neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist, is approved in an oral formulation for the prevention of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in adults. The objective of this pivotal study was to assess the bioequivalence of a single intravenous infusion of rolapitant versus a single oral dose of rolapitant. In this randomized, open-label phase 1 study, healthy volunteers were administered rolapitant as a 180-mg oral dose or a 30-minute 166.5-mg intravenous infusion. Blood samples for pharmacokinetic analysis were collected predose and at points up to 912 hours postdose. Criteria for bioequivalence of the intravenous dose versus the oral dose were met if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the geometric least-squares means (GLSMs) for the area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) from time 0 to the time of the last quantifiable concentration (AUC0-t ) and AUC from time 0 extrapolated to infinity (AUC0-∞ ) for rolapitant were within 0.80-1.25. Mean rolapitant systemic exposure and half-lives were similar in the oral (n = 62) and intravenous (n = 61) rolapitant groups. The 90%CIs of the ratio of GLSMs were within the 0.80-1.25 range for AUC0-t (0.94-1.09) and AUC0-∞ (0.93-1.10). The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events, all mild or moderate in severity, was similar in the intravenous and oral groups. A 166.5-mg intravenous infusion of rolapitant met the bioequivalence criteria based on AUC to a 180-mg oral dose and was well tolerated.

Rolapitant is a selective and long-acting neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist approved in an oral formulation in combination with other antiemetic agents for the prevention of delayed chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting in adults. Four open-label phase 1 studies evaluated the safety and drug-drug interactions of a single dose of rolapitant given intravenously (166.5 mg) or orally (180 mg) with oral digoxin (0.5 mg) or sulfasalazine (500 mg), probe substrates for the P-glycoprotein (P-gp) and breast cancer resistance protein (BCRP), respectively. Administration of intravenous rolapitant with the substrates did not result in clinically significant effects on digoxin and sulfasalazine pharmacokinetics. In contrast, peak concentration and area under the curve for last quantifiable plasma concentrations increased by 71% (geometric mean ratio [GMR], 1.71; 90% confidence interval [CI], 1.49-1.95) and 30% (GMR, 1.30; 90%CI, 1.19-1.42), respectively, when rolapitant was coadministered orally with digoxin compared with digoxin alone; they increased by 140% (GMR, 2.40; 90%CI, 2.02-2.86) and 127% (GMR, 2.27; 90%CI, 1.94-2.65), respectively, when rolapitant was given orally with sulfasalazine compared with sulfasalazine alone. Adverse events were mild to moderate in severity in the absence or presence of rolapitant. There were no abnormal clinical laboratory or electrocardiogram findings. Thus, whether administered orally or intravenously, rolapitant was safe and well tolerated. Patients taking oral rolapitant with P-gp and BCRP substrates with a narrow therapeutic index should be monitored for potential adverse events; although increased plasma concentrations of these substrates may raise the risk of toxicity, they are not contraindicated.

Anaplastic lymphoma kinase (ALK) gene rearrangements are oncogenic drivers in non-small-cell lung cancer (NSCLC). TSR-011 is a dual ALK and tropomyosin-related kinase (TRK) inhibitor, active against ALK inhibitor resistant tumours in preclinical studies. Here, we report the safety, tolerability and recommended phase 2 dose (RP2D) of TSR-011 in patients with relapsed or refractory ALK- and TRK-positive advanced cancers. Methods: In this sequential, open-label, phase 1 trial (NCT02048488), patients received doses of 30 mg, escalated to 480 mg every 24 hours (Q24h), followed by an expansion cohort of patients with ALK-positive cancers. The primary objective was to evaluate safety and tolerability. Secondary objectives included pharmacokinetics. Results: TSR-011 320- and 480-mg Q24h doses exceeded the maximum tolerated dose. At the RP2D of 40 mg every 8 hours (Q8h), the most common grade 3–4 treatment-emergent adverse events occurred in 3.2–6.5% of patients. Of 14 ALK inhibitor-naive patients with ALK-positive NSCLC, 6 experienced partial responses and 8 had stable disease. Conclusions: At the RP2D (40 mg Q8h), TSR-011 demonstrated a favourable safety profile with acceptable QTc changes. Limited clinical activity was observed. Based on the competitive ALK inhibitor landscape and benefit/risk considerations, further TSR-011 development was discontinued, This clinical trial was funded by TESARO