Search

Teddy Kosoglou,1 James Hubbell,2 Fengjuan Xuan,3 David L Cutler,1 Alan G Meehan,4 Bhavna Kantesaria,5 Bret A Wittmer6,† 1Clinical Pharmacology, 2Exploratory Drug Metabolism, 3Early Development Statistics, 4Medical Communications, 5Drug Metabolism/Pharmacokinetics, Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp, Whitehouse Station, NJ, USA; 6Commonwealth Biomedical Research, LLC, Madisonville, KY, USA†Dr Bret A Wittmer passed away on May 9, 2012.Background: Coadministration of mometasone furoate (MF) and formoterol fumarate (F) produces additive effects for improving symptoms and lung function and reduces exacerbations in patients with asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). The present study assessed the relative systemic exposure to MF and characterized the pharmacokinetics of MF and formoterol in patients with COPD.Methods: This was a single-center, randomized, open-label, multiple-dose, three-period, three-treatment crossover study. The following three treatments were self-administered by patients (n = 14) with moderate-to-severe COPD: MF 400 µg/F 10 µg via a metered-dose inhaler (MF/F MDI; DULERA®/ZENHALE®) without a spacer device, MF/F MDI with a spacer, or MF 400 µg via a dry-powder inhaler (DPI; ASMANEX® TWISTHALER®) twice daily for 5 days. Plasma samples for MF and formoterol assay were obtained predose and at prespecified time points after the last (morning) dose on day 5 of each period of the crossover. The geometric mean ratio (GMR) as a percent and the corresponding 90% confidence intervals (CI) were calculated for treatment comparisons.Results: Systemic MF exposure was lower (GMR 77%; 90% CI 58, 102) following administration by MF/F MDI compared to MF DPI. Additionally, least squares geometric mean systemic exposures of MF and formoterol were lower (GMR 72%; 90% CI 61, 84) and (GMR 62%; 90% CI 52, 74), respectively, following administration by MF/F MDI in conjunction with a spacer compared to MF/F MDI without a spacer. MF/F MDI had a similar adverse experience profile as that seen with MF DPI. All adverse experiences were either mild or moderate in severity; no serious adverse experience was reported.Conclusion: Systemic MF exposures were lower following administration by MF/F MDI compared with MF DPI. Additionally, systemic MF and formoterol exposures were lower following administration by MF/F MDI with a spacer versus without a spacer. The magnitude of these differences with respect to systemic exposure was not clinically relevant.Keywords: mometasone furoate, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pharmacokinetics, systemic exposure, metered-dose inhaler, dry-powder inhaler

This open-label, single-period study evaluated the single-dose pharmacokinetics of ezetimibe (EZE) 10 mg in the setting of steady-state cyclosporine (CyA) dosing in renal transplant patients. A single 10-mg dose of EZE was coadministered with the morning dose of CyA (75-150 mg twice a day). Total EZE (sum of unconjugated, parent EZE and EZE-glucuronide; EZE-total) AUC(0-last) and Cmax were compared to values derived from a prespecified database of healthy volunteers. Geometric mean ratios (90% CIs) for (EZE + CyA)/EZE alone for EZE-total AUC((0-last)) and Cmax were 3.41 (2.55, 4.56) and 3.91 (3.13, 4.89), respectively. Compared to healthy controls, EZE-total AUC((0-last)) was 3.4-fold higher in transplant patients receiving CyA; similar exposure levels were seen in a prior multiple-dose study in which EZE 50 mg was administered to healthy volunteers without dose-related toxicity. Because the long-term safety implications of both higher EZE exposures and undetermined effect on CyA are not yet understood, the clinical significance of this interaction is unknown. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This single-center, open-label, 2-period crossover study investigated the effects of multiple-dose ezetimibe (EZE) on a single dose of cyclosporine (CyA). Healthy subjects received 2 treatments in random order with a 14-day washout: (1) CyA 100 mg alone and (2) EZE 20 mg for 7 days with CyA 100 mg coadministered on day 7; EZE 20 mg alone was administered on day 8. AUC(0-last) and Cmax geometric mean ratios (90% confidence interval) for ([CyA + EZE]/CyA alone) were 1.15 (1.07, 1.25) and 1.10 (0.97, 1.26), respectively. Tmax (approximately 1.3 hours) was similar with and without EZE (P >.200). Mean CyA exposure slightly increased (approximately 15%) with multiple-dose EZE 20 mg; however, this value was contained within (0.80, 1.25). The implications for chronic EZE dosing within the usual clinical paradigm of chronic CyA dosing have not been established; caution is recommended when using these agents concomitantly. CyA concentrations should be monitored in patients receiving EZE and CyA. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To assess the bioequivalence of an ezetimibe/simvastatin (EZE/SIMVA) combination tablet compared to the coadministration of ezetimibe and simvastatin as separate tablets (EZE + SIMVA). Methods: In this open-label, randomized, 2-part, 2-period cross over study, 96 healthy subjects were randomly assigned to participate in each part of the study (Part I or II), with each part consisting of 2 single-dose treatment periods separated by a 14-day washout. Part I consisted of Treatments A (EZE 10 mg + SIMVA 10 mg) and B (EZE/SIMVA 10/10 mg/mg) and Part II consisted of Treatments C (EZE 10 mg + SIMVA 80 mg) and D (EZE/SIMVA 10/80 mg/mg). Blood samples were collected up to 96 hours post-dose for determination of ezetimibe, total ezetimibe (ezetimibe + ezetimibe glucuronide), simvastatin and simvastatin acid (the most prevalent active metabolite of simvastatin) concentrations. Ezetimibe and simvastatin acid AUC(0-last) were predefined as primary endpoints and ezetimibe and simvastatin acid Cmax were secondary endpoints. Bioequivalence was achieved if 90% confidence intervals (CI) for the geometric mean ratios (GMR) (single tablet/coadministration) of AUC(0-last) and Cmax fell within prespecified bounds of (0.80, 1.25). Results: The GMRs of the AUC(0-last) and Cmax for ezetimibe and simvastatin acid fell within the bioequivalence limits (0.80, 1.25). EZE/SIMVA and EZE + SIMVA were generally well tolerated. Conclusions: The low est and highest dosage strengths of EZE/SIMVA tablet were bioequivalent to the individual drug components administered together. Given the exact weight multiples of the EZE/SIMVA tablet and linear pharmacokinetics of simvastatin across the marketed dose range, bioequivalence of the intermediate tablet strengths (EZE/SIMVA 10/20 mg/mg and EZE/SIMVA 10/40 mg/mg) was inferred, although these dos ages were not tested directly. These results indicate that the safety and efficacy profile of EZE + SIMVA coadministration therapy can be applied to treatment with the EZE/SIMVA tab let across the clinical dose range. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Study Objectives: To investigate the potential for mometasone furoate (MF) to exert systemic effects following administration by dry powder inhaler (DPI) or metered-dose inhaler (MDI).Design: Three randomized, evaluator-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, 28-day studies.Patients: Adults with mild-to-moderate persistent asthma.Interventions: Study 1 (12 patients per treatment group; MF DPI at 200 microg bid, 400 microg qd, 800 microg qd, or 1,200 microg qd). Study 2 (16 patients per treatment group; MF DPI at 400 microg bid or 800 microg bid, or oral prednisone at 10 mg qd). Study 3 (16 patients per treatment group; MF MDI at 400 microg bid or 800 microg bid, or fluticasone propionate [FP] at 880 microg bid by MDI).Measurements and Results: Study 1. Plasma concentrations were near the lower limit of quantitation (50 pg/mL) at the MF DPI 400-microg qd dosage and approximately 250 pg/mL at the 1,200-microg qd dosage. The area under the curve for serum cortisol concentrations over 24 h (AUC(24)) was essentially unaltered at all doses. Study 2. Plasma levels over days 7 to 28 were 100.3 +/- 5.9 pg/mL (mean +/- SEM) for MF DPI 400 microg bid, and 181.0 +/- 10.9 pg/mL for 800 microg bid. Although there were relatively low levels of suppression (19 to 25%) at earlier time points for MF DPI 400 microg bid, serum cortisol AUC(24) levels at day 28 were similar to placebo. MF DPI 800 microg bid and oral prednisone both decreased serum cortisol AUC(24) levels at days 7 to 28 by 28.0 +/- 8.3% and 67.2 +/- 3.6%, respectively. The response to cosyntropin was normal in 15, 14, 11, and 1 of the patients in the placebo, MF DPI 400 microg bid, MF DPI 800 microg bid, and prednisone groups, respectively. Study 3. MF MDI caused even less systemic exposure than by DPI. MF MDI 800 microg bid (24.0 +/- 3.1%) and FP (51.7 +/- 3.8%) caused a significant decrease in serum cortisol AUC(24) on days 14 to 28. MF MDI 400 microg bid was similar to placebo treatment at all time points.Conclusions: The MF 800-microg bid dosage (1,600 microg/d), which is twice the highest projected clinical dosage, represents the lower limit for consistently detectable systemic effects of MF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The interleukin (IL)-23 pathway is a pathogenic driver in psoriasis, psoriatic arthritis, and inflammatory bowel disease. Currently, no oral therapeutics selectively target this pathway. JNJ-77242113 is a peptide targeting the IL-23 receptor with high affinity (K D : 7.1 pM). In human cells, JNJ-77242113 potently and selectively inhibited proximal IL-23 signaling (IC 50 : 5.6 pM) without impacting IL-12 signaling. JNJ-77242113 inhibited IL-23-induced interferon (IFN)γ production in NK cells, and in blood from healthy donors and psoriasis patients (IC 50 : 18.4, 11 and 9 pM, respectively). In a rat trinitrobenzene sulfonic acid-induced colitis model, oral JNJ-77242113 attenuated disease parameters at doses ≥ 0.3 mg/kg/day. Pharmacologic activity beyond the gastrointestinal tract was also demonstrated. In blood from rats receiving oral JNJ-77242113, dose-dependent inhibition of ex vivo IL-23-stimulated IL-17A production was observed. In an IL-23-induced rat skin inflammation model, JNJ-77242113 inhibited IL-23-induced skin thickening and IL-17A, -17F and -22 gene induction. Oral dosing of JNJ-77242113 in healthy human volunteers inhibited ex vivo IL-23-stimulated IFNγ production in whole blood. Thus, JNJ-77242113 provided selective, systemic IL-23 pathway inhibition in preclinical models which translated to pharmacodynamic activity in healthy human volunteers, supporting the potential for JNJ-77242113 as a selective oral therapy for IL-23-driven immune-mediated diseases., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Both the elderly and individuals with comorbidities are at increased risk of developing influenza-related complications. Novel influenza antivirals are required, given limitations of current drugs (eg, resistance emergence and poor efficacy). Pimodivir is a first-in-class antiviral for influenza A under development for these patients., Methods: Hospitalized patients with influenza A infection were randomized 2:1 to receive pimodivir 600 mg plus oseltamivir 75 mg or placebo plus oseltamivir 75 mg twice daily for 7 days in this phase 2b study. The primary objective was to compare pimodivir pharmacokinetics in elderly (aged 65-85 years) versus nonelderly adults (aged 18-64 years). Secondary end points included time to patient-reported symptom resolution., Results: Pimodivir pharmacokinetic parameters in nonelderly and elderly patients were similar. Time to influenza symptom resolution was numerically shorter with pimodivir (72.45 hours) than placebo (94.15 hours). There was a lower incidence of influenza-related complications in the pimodivir group (7.9%) versus placebo group (15.6%). Treatment was generally well tolerated., Conclusions: No apparent relationship was observed between pimodivir pharmacokinetics and age. Our data demonstrate the need for a larger study of pimodivir in addition to oseltamivir to test whether it results in a clinically significant decrease in time-to-influenza-symptom alleviation and/or the frequency of influenza complications., Clinical Trials Registration: NCT02532283., Competing Interests: Potential conflicts of interest . B. O’N. reports personal fees from Seqirus. M. G. I. reports personal fees from Celltrion, Genentech/Roche, GlaxoSmithKlein, Janssen, Seqirus, Shionogi, Viracor Eurofins, and VirBio; grants from Emergent BioSolutions, Genentech/Roche, and Janssen; payments to Northwestern University by AiCuris, Chimerix, Gilead, and Shire for research; and he was a nonpaid consultant for GlaxoSmithKlein, Romark, and Vertex. A. C. N. reports payments to Skåne University Hospital by Janssen. W. v. D., I. V. D., D. A., S. D., T. K., J. V., S. R., and L. L. are employees of Johnson & Johnson and may be stock holders. All other authors report no potential conflicts., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America.)

Background: Pimodivir, a first-in-class inhibitor of influenza virus polymerase basic protein 2, is being developed for hospitalized and high-risk patients with influenza A., Methods: In this double-blinded phase 2b study, adults with acute uncomplicated influenza A were randomized 1:1:1:1 to receive one of the following treatments twice daily for 5 days: placebo, pimodivir 300 mg or 600 mg, or pimodivir 600 mg plus oseltamivir 75 mg. Antiviral activity, safety, and pharmacokinetics of pimodivir alone or in combination were evaluated., Results: Of 292 patients randomized, 223 were treated and had confirmed influenza A virus infection. The trial was stopped early because the primary end point was met; the area under the curve of the viral load, determined by quantitative reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction analysis, in nasal secretions from baseline to day 8 significantly decreased in the active treatment groups, compared with the placebo group (300 mg group, -3.6 day*log10 copies/mL [95% confidence interval {CI}, -7.1 to -0.1]; 600 mg group, -4.5 [95%CI -8.0 to -1.0]; and combination group, -8.6 [95% CI, -12.0 to -5.1]). Pimodivir plus oseltamivir yielded a significantly lower viral load titer over time than placebo and a trend for a shorter time to symptom resolution than placebo. Pimodivir plasma concentrations increased in a dose-proportional manner. The most commonly reported adverse event was mild or moderate diarrhea., Conclusions: Pimodivir (with or without oseltamivir) resulted in significant virologic improvements over placebo, demonstrated trends in clinical improvement, and was well tolerated. Pimodivir 600 mg twice daily is in further development., Clinical Trials Registration: NCT02342249, 2014-004068-39, and CR107745., (© The Author(s) 2018. Published by Oxford University Press for the Infectious Diseases Society of America. All rights reserved. For permissions, e-mail: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Vorapaxar is a first-in-class antagonist of the protease-activated receptor-1, the primary thrombin receptor on human platelets, which mediates the downstream effects of thrombin in hemostasis and thrombosis. Prasugrel is a platelet inhibitor that acts as a P2Y12 receptor antagonist through an active metabolite, R-138727. This study investigated the interaction of these 2 platelet antagonists when coadministered. This was a randomized, open-label, multiple-dose study in 54 healthy volunteers consisting of a fixed-sequence crossover and a parallel group design. In sequence 1, 36 subjects received prasugrel 60 mg on day 1 and then prasugrel 10 mg once daily on days 2 to 7, followed by vorapaxar 40 mg and prasugrel 10 mg on day 8 and then vorapaxar 2.5 mg and prasugrel 10 mg orally once daily on days 9 to 28. In sequence 2, 18 subjects received vorapaxar 40 mg on day 1 and then vorapaxar 2.5 mg once daily on days 2 to 21. The geometric mean ratios (90% confidence intervals) for AUCτ and C max of coadministration/monotherapy for vorapaxar (0.93 ng·h/mL[0.85-1.02 ng·h/mL] and 0.95 ng/mL [0.86-1.05 ng/mL]) and R-138727 (0.91 ng·h/mL [0.85- 0.99 ng·h/mL] and 1.02 ng/mL [0.89-1.17 ng/mL]) were within prespecified bounds, demonstrating the absence of a pharmacokinetic interaction between vorapaxar and prasugrel. There was no specific safety or tolerability risk associated with multiple-dose coadministration of vorapaxar and prasugrel. In conclusion, in this study in healthy volunteers, there was no pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction between vorapaxar and prasugrel. Multiple-dose coadministration of the 2 drugs was generally well tolerated., (© 2017, The Authors. Clinical Pharmacology in Drug Development published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of The American College of Clinical Pharmacology.)

Purpose: To evaluate the potential effects of vorapaxar on the pharmacokinetics and safety of rosiglitazone., Methods: This was an open-label, two-period, two-treatment, fixed-sequence study in 18 healthy subjects. On Day 1, Period 1, subjects received a single dose of rosiglitazone 8 mg. In Period 2, subjects received vorapaxar 40 mg on Day 1, vorapaxar 7.5 mg once-daily on Days 2-7, and a single dose of rosiglitazone 8 mg on Day 7. Rosiglitazone and N-desmethylrosiglitazone pharmacokinetics were assessed alone (Period 1) and after coadministration with vorapaxar (Period 2). Vorapaxar and its M20 metabolite pharmacokinetics were assessed on Day 7, Period 2. Safety and tolerability were assessed throughout the study., Results: Coadministration of rosiglitazone with vorapaxar had no effect on rosiglitazone or N-desmethylrosiglitazone pharmacokinetics. The ratio of geometric means (GMR) and 90% confidence intervals (CI) of the coadministration versus monotherapy for Cmax (GMR 95; 90% CI 88, 103) and AUC0-24 h (GMR 103; 90% CI 98, 108) were within the 80-125% bioequivalence criteria. The metabolite-to-parent exposure ratio with and without vorapaxar was unaltered. Coadministration of vorapaxar with rosiglitazone was generally well tolerated., Conclusion: Coadministration of vorapaxar with rosiglitazone or drugs metabolized via CYP2C8 is unlikely to cause a significant pharmacokinetic interaction., (© 2014, The American College of Clinical Pharmacology.)

Aim: Vorapaxar is a proteaseactivated receptor (PAR)-1 antagonist being developed for the prevention and treatment of thrombotic vascular events. To evaluate race/ethnic differences between Caucasians and Chinese in the pharmacokinetics of vorapaxar and its active metabolite SCH 2046273 (M20) or in the metabolite/parent ratio, we conducted a cross-study comparison on pharmacokinetic data of vorapaxar and M20 obtained from two similarly designed studies: one in healthy Chinese subjects and the other in a healthy Western (United States, [U.S.]) population., Methods: The pharmacokinetic profiles of vorapaxar and M20 were characterized using open label, two treatment parallel group designs in men and women aged 18 - 45 years. Vorapaxar was administered orally as a single dose of 40 mg in Chinese subjects (n = 14) or 120 mg in U.S. subjects (n = 14), or 2.5 mg QD for 6 weeks in both studies (Chinese, n = 14; U.S., n = 23)., Results: Vorapaxar was rapidly absorbed in both Chinese and U.S. subjects. Vorapaxar and M20 had similar elimination half-lives. The range of metabolite/parent ratios after single dose or daily administration was largely overlapped in Chinese and U.S. subjects. Steady state was attained by day 21 for vorapaxar and M20 in both race/ethnic groups. The accumulation ratios for vorapaxar and M20 during daily administration were similar in Chinese and U.S. subjects. Vorapaxar was well-tolerated in Chinese and U.S. subjects., Conclusion: The pharmacokinetic profiles of vorapaxar and M20 and the metabolite/parent ratios in healthy Chinese were generally comparable to those in a healthy Western population.

A fixed-dose combination (FDC) containing mometasone furoate (MF) and formoterol fumarate (F) in a pressurized metered dose inhaler (MDI) is approved for asthma and is being developed for COPD. This randomized, open-label, 4-period crossover study compared single-dose pharmacokinetics of MF 800 µg; F 20 µg; MF 800 µg + F 20 µg coadministered (MF + F); and MF 800 µg/F 20 µg (MF/F) FDC in healthy subjects. MF, F, and MF + F were administered from single-ingredient MDI devices. MF and formoterol plasma samples were obtained predose and up to 48 hours post dose for estimation of AUC0-tf (primary endpoint) and Cmax . Treatments were deemed comparable if the 90% CIs for the geometric mean ratios (GMRs) fell within 70-143%. MF AUC0-tf was comparable following treatment with MF + F versus MF (GMR 98%; 90% CI 85-113%) and MF/F versus MF + F (GMR 95%; 90% CI 82-109%). Similarly, formoterol AUC0-tf was comparable following treatment with MF + F versus F (GMR 98%; 90% CI 77-124%) and MF/F versus MF + F (GMR 108%; 90% CI 85-136%). The 90% CIs for MF and formoterol Cmax fell within the prespecified comparability bounds for all comparisons. Systemic exposures to MF and formoterol were similar following treatment with the FDC MDI device versus individual or concomitant use of single-ingredient MDI devices., (© 2014, The American College of Clinical Pharmacology.)

Purpose: This randomized, open-label, multiple-dose, two-period, crossover study compared the systemic bioavailability of mometasone furoate (MF) administered from a metered-dose inhaler containing MF and formoterol fumarate (F) (MF/F-MDI) versus MF administered from a single-ingredient dry-powder inhaler (MF-DPI)., Methods: Healthy, non-smoking adults, 18-65 years with body mass index 18-29 kg/m(2) (N = 12) received MF 800 µg/F 20 µg via MF/F-MDI or MF 800 µg via MF-DPI twice daily for 5 days separated by a 7-day period. MF pharmacokinetics (AUC(0-12 hour) , Cmax , and Tmax ) were measured at Day 1 and 5 after each treatment. Safety and tolerability were assessed., Results: Systemic exposure to MF based on AUC(0-12 hour) was ∼25% lower following MDI versus DPI administration. The Day 5 geometric mean ratio (MDI/DPI) estimates (90% confidence intervals [CI]) for AUC(0-12 hour) and Cmax were 0.747 (0.61, 0.91) and 0.606 (0.49, 0.75), respectively. The accumulation index (R) value for MF was higher following MDI (3.81-fold) versus DPI administration (2.34-fold) indicative of prolonged absorption. The most common adverse events were tremor, headache, and catheter site pain., Conclusions: Systemic exposure to MF was lower following multiple-dose MF/F-MDI administration versus MF-DPI administration. The magnitude of this difference is not considered to be clinically important. MF/F-MDI was safe and generally well tolerated., (© 2014, The American College of Clinical Pharmacology.)

In a randomized, double-blind (vorapaxar and placebo), placebo- and positive-controlled (moxifloxacin 400 mg) parallel group study, the effect of single-dose vorapaxar 120 mg on QT/QTc interval was assessed in 120 adults 18-50 years. Twelve-lead digital ECGs were obtained in triplicate using Mortara H12+ Holter monitors at 9 timepoints over 24 hours. If the largest upper bound of the 95% one-sided CI for the mean difference in QTcF between vorapaxar and placebo was <10 milliseconds, vorapaxar was considered to have no potential for QT/QTc prolongation of regulatory concern. Vorapaxar was well-tolerated. The lower bound of the 95% CI for the difference in QTcF between moxifloxacin and placebo was >5 milliseconds, confirming study sensitivity. Vorapaxar had no significant effect on QTcF. At all timepoints the upper 95% CI for the mean difference between placebo and vorapaxar was ≤3.8 milliseconds (mean difference ≤1.0 milliseconds). Vorapaxar does not prolong the QT/QTc interval in healthy subjects., (© 2013, The American College of Clinical Pharmacology.)

Background: The effects of mometasone furoate and fluticasone propionate on the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal axis were compared when administered from combination metered-dose inhaler (MDI) products., Methods: In a randomized, open-label, placebo-controlled, parallel group study, 66 patients with mild to moderate asthma received one of the following four treatments bid through an MDI for 42 days: mometasone furoate/formoterol (MF/F) 200 μg/10 μg, MF/F 400 μg/10 μg, fluticasone propionate/salmeterol (FP/S) 460 μg/42 μg, or placebo. Plasma cortisol concentrations were measured over 24 h on days -1 (baseline) and 42. Geometric mean ratio (GMR) and 90% CI for mean change from baseline to day 42 in 24-h plasma cortisol area under the curve (AUC) were calculated for each treatment. If the 90% CI for the GMRs fell within 70% to 143%, treatments were deemed comparable., Results: Mean baseline cortisol AUCs were similar across groups. Mean cortisol effects (change from baseline) were similar for MF/F 400 μg/10 μg and FP/S 460 μg/42 μg (GMR, 119%; 90% CI, 101%-140%). Effects of MF/F 200 μg/10 μg on cortisol AUC were similar to placebo (GMR, 92%; 90% CI, 78%-110%), whereas MF/F 400 μg/10 μg and FP/S 460 μg/42 μg lowered cortisol AUC vs placebo (GMR, 78% [90% CI, 66%-92%] and 66% [90% CI 56%-78%], respectively). All treatments were generally well tolerated., Conclusions: MF/F 400 μg/10 μg or FP/S 460 μg/42 μg bid through an MDI led to similar reductions from baseline in mean cortisol AUC (22% and 34% lower than placebo, respectively), whereas the effect of MF/F 200 μg/10 μg was similar to placebo.

In this open-label, randomized, 2-period crossover study, 16 healthy subjects received a single oral 2.5-mg dose of vorapaxar in the fed (i.e., standardized high-fat breakfast) and fasted (i.e., an overnight fast) state with a 6-week washout. Plasma samples for vorapaxar assay were obtained pre-dose and up to 72 hours post-dose. Least squares (LS) geometric mean AUC0-72 hr and Cmax were analyzed by ANOVA. If 90% confidence intervals (CI) for the geometric mean ratios (GMRs; fed/fasted) of AUC0-72 hr and Cmax were within the 50-200% range, then food was deemed not to have a clinically important effect. The LS geometric mean (90% CI) AUC0-72 hr and Cmax of vorapaxar in the fasted state were 314 (284-348) ng hr/mL and 23.4 (20.7-26.4) ng/mL, respectively. The GMRs (fed/fasted) and 90% CIs for AUC0-72 hr and Cmax were 96.9 (92.2-102) and 79.1 (67.6-92.5), respectively. Vorapaxar was generally safe and well tolerated in the presence and absence of food. Concomitant food decreased the rate (i.e., 21% reduction in Cmax and 45-min delay in Tmax ) with no effect on the extent of vorapaxar absorption when administered as a single 2.5-mg dose. Thus, vorapaxar can be administered without regard to food., (© 2013, The American College of Clinical Pharmacology.)

This randomized, open-label, parallel group study examined the effects of food, antacid, and age on the pharmacokinetics of vorapaxar. In total, 101 subjects were enrolled including 83 young adults (18-45 years) and 18 elderly subjects (>65 years). Subjects received single-dose vorapaxar 40 mg after a 10-hour fast (young and elderly) or with extra-strength antacid, food, or 1 or 2 hours after food (young only). Vorapaxar 40 mg was rapidly absorbed after a fast (median Tmax : 1 hour). Administration with food or 1 or 2 hours post-meal modestly increased vorapaxar mean area under the curve (AUC) and Cmax and prolonged median Tmax by 1 hour. Concomitant food modestly increased vorapaxar AUC from time zero to infinity [AUC(I)] and Cmax 43% and 31%, respectively. Antacid modestly decreased vorapaxar AUC(I) by 15% and Cmax by 38%, and increased median Tmax by 1 hour. Vorapaxar AUC(I) and Cmax were 41% and 29% higher, respectively, in elderly versus young subjects. Concomitant food and older age were associated with modest increases, and antacid was associated with a small decrease in vorapaxar exposure, which are not expected to affect the drug's safety or efficacy., (© The Author(s) 2013.)

This randomized, open-label, parallel-group study evaluated the effects of multiple-dose ketoconazole or rifampin on the single- and multiple-dose pharmacokinetics of vorapaxar. Healthy subjects randomly received one of the following three treatments (N = 12/group): (1) ketoconazole 400 mg once daily (QD) for 28 days (Days 1-28) and single-dose vorapaxar 20 mg on Day 7 followed by vorapaxar 2.5 mg QD for 21 days (Days 8-28); (2) rifampin 600 mg QD for 28 days (Days 1-28) and single-dose vorapaxar 20 mg on Day 7 followed by vorapaxar 2.5 mg QD for 21 days (Days 8-28); and (3) placebo QD for 28 days (Days 1-28) and single-dose vorapaxar 20 mg on Day 7 followed by vorapaxar 2.5 mg QD for 21 days (Days 8-28). Ketoconazole increased the steady-state vorapaxar AUC(0-24 h) and C(max) by approximately twofold (GMR [90% CI]: 196% [173,222]; 193% [166,223], respectively), while rifampin decreased vorapaxar AUC(0-24 h) and C(max) by approximately 50% (GMR [90% CI]: 45.5% [40,52]; 61.4% [52,72], respectively) versus vorapaxar alone. Potent CYP3A4 inhibitors or inducers may cause moderate increases or decreases in vorapaxar exposure, respectively, which may have safety and/or efficacy implications; therefore, their concomitant use with vorapaxar is not recommended., (© The Author(s) 2013.)

Vorapaxar is a novel orally active thrombin receptor antagonist selective for the PAR-1 receptor. This open-label, single-center, fixed-sequence, 2-period, 2-treatment study assessed the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of single-dose digoxin in the presence/absence of multiple-dose vorapaxar. Eighteen healthy adult subjects received two treatments in a fixed sequence separated by ≥8-day washout: (A) digoxin 0.5 mg (Day 1); (B) vorapaxar 2.5 mg/day Days 1-6 and single-dose vorapaxar 40 mg administered with single-dose digoxin 0.5 mg Day 7. The geometric mean ratio (%; GMR) for the two treatments (digoxin alone and digoxin plus vorapaxar) and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for and AUCtf and Cmax of digoxin were calculated. Pharmacodynamics of digoxin was assessed by measuring changes in electrocardiogram (ECG) parameters. The GMR (90% CIs) estimates for digoxin AUCtf and Cmax were 105% (91, 121) and 154% (130, 181), respectively. Except for differences in peak plasma concentrations, the pharmacokinetics of digoxin were similar between the two treatments. Coadministration of vorapaxar plus digoxin had no effect on digoxin Tmax or ECG parameters. The results of this study suggest that the coadministration of vorapaxar and digoxin is unlikely to cause a clinically significant drug-drug interaction., (© The Author(s) 2013.)