Explore the vast range of titles available.

In three phase 3 trials involving patients with ulcerative colitis, tofacitinib (an oral, small-molecule Janus kinase inhibitor) was more effective as induction and maintenance therapy than placebo. Infections were more common with tofacitinib. Ulcerative colitis is characterized by an increased frequency of bowel movements and bloody diarrhea, which has a negative effect on quality of life. 1 Current therapies for ulcerative colitis include mesalamine, glucocorticoids, thiopurines, and antagonists to tumor necrosis factor (TNF) and α4β7 integrin. 1 – 5 Many patients do not have a response to these therapies or have a response that is not sustained. Additional treatment options with new mechanisms of action are needed to increase efficacy rates. The Janus kinase (JAK) family comprises four intracellular tyrosine kinases — JAK1, JAK2, JAK3, and nonreceptor tyrosine-protein kinase 2 — that activate signal transducers and . . .

Therapies for chronic hepatitis delta virus (HDV) infection are unsatisfactory. Prenylation is essential for HDV and inhibition abrogates HDV production in experimental models. In a proof-of-concept study, we aimed to assess the effect on HDV RNA levels, safety, and tolerability of the prenylation inhibitor lonafarnib in patients with chronic delta hepatitis. In this phase 2A double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled study, patients aged 18 years or older with chronic HDV infection were randomly assigned (3:1 in group 1 and 2:1 in group 2) to receive lonafarnib 100 mg (group 1) or lonafarnib 200 mg (group 2) twice daily for 28 days with 6 months' follow-up. Participants were randomised by random-number tables blocked in groups of four without stratification. Both groups enrolled six treatment participants and two placebo participants. Group 1 placebo patients received open-label lonafarnib as group 2 participants. The primary therapeutic endpoint was a decrease in HDV RNA viral titre in serum and the primary safety endpoint was the ability to tolerate the drug at the prescribed dose for the full 4-week duration, defined as drug discontinuation due to intolerance or grade 3/4 adverse events. This trial is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01495585. Between Jan 19, 2012, and April 28, 2014, 14 patients were enrolled, of whom eight were assigned to group 1 and six were assigned to group 2. At day 28, compared with placebo, mean log HDV RNA declines from baseline were −0·73 log IU/mL in group 1 (95% CI 0·17–1·31; p=0·03) and −1·54 log IU/mL in group 2 (1·21–1·93; p<0·0001). Lonafarnib serum concentrations correlated with HDV RNA change (r2=0·78, p<0·0001). Model fits show that hepatitis B surface antigen (HBsAg) remained stable after a short pharmacological delay (0·75 days [SE 0·24]), lonafarnib effectiveness in blocking HDV production was greater in group 2 than in group 1 (0·952 [SE 0·06] vs 0·739 [0·05], p<0·001), and the HDV half-life was 1·62 days (0·07). There was no evidence of virological resistance. Adverse events were mainly mild to moderate with group 1 patients experiencing diarrhoea in three patients (50%) and nausea in two patients (33%) and in group 2 with all patients (100%) experiencing nausea, diarrhoea, abdominal bloating, and weight loss greater than 2 kg (mean of 4 kg). No treatment discontinuations occurred in any treatment groups. Treatment of chronic HDV with lonafarnib significantly reduces virus levels. The decline in virus levels significantly correlated with serum drug levels, providing further evidence for the efficacy of prenylation inhibition in chronic HDV. National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases and National Cancer Institute, National Institutes of Health, and Eiger Biopharmaceuticals Inc.

Background Intraoperation hypotension (IOH) is commonly observed in patients undergoing surgery under general anesthesia, and even a brief episode of IOH can lead to unfavorable outcomes. To reduce the risk, blood pressure is closely measured during general anesthesia, and norepinephrine (NE) is frequently administered if hypotension is detected. Despite its routine application, information on the dose-exposure-response relationship of NE remains limited. Additionally, quantification of the influence of general anesthesia on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of NE is lacking. Objective In this study, we aimed to describe NE PK in healthy volunteers and the influence of general anesthesia on its PK. Methods A single-center, cross-over study was conducted in healthy volunteers. The volunteers received a step-up NE dosing scheme (0.04, 0.08, 0.12, 0.16 and 0.20 mcg –1 /kg –1 /min –1 ) first in the awake state and then under general anesthesia. General anesthesia was administered using a propofol/remifentanil Eleveld target-controlled infusion. During general anesthesia, a 30-second electrical stimulus was given as surrogate for surgical incision to the volunteers at each dosage step. Blood samples were drawn before the initial dosing and after each dosing step, and plasma NE, propofol and remifentanil concentrations were subsequently determined. A population PK model was developed using non-linear mixed effects modelling. Simulations were conducted to predict the plasma NE concentration in patients at different measured propofol concentrations. Results A total of 1219 samples were analyzed from 36 volunteers. A two-compartment model with a first-order elimination best described the data. Weight, age, and session effect (awake vs general anesthesia) were identified as relevant covariates on the clearance (CL) of NE. A 10% decrease in NE CL was observed after general anesthesia induction. This difference between sessions is better explained by the measured concentration of propofol, rather than the anticipated impact of cardiac output. The estimated post-stimulation NE concentration is 0.66 nmol/L –1 (95% CI 0.06–1.20 nmol/L –1 ) lower than the pre-stimulation NE concentration. Model simulation indicates that patients at a higher measured propofol concentration (e.g., 6 mcg/mL –1 ) exhibited higher NE concentrations (95% PI 18.10–43.89 nmol/L –1 ) than patients at a lower measured propofol concentration (e.g., 3 mcg/mL –1 ) (95% PI 16.81–38.91 nmol L –1 ). Conclusion The NE PK is well described with a two-compartment model with a first-order elimination. NE CL exhibiting a 10% decrease under general anesthesia, with this difference being attributed to the measured concentration of propofol. The impact of stimulation on NE PK under general anesthesia is very limited. Clinical Trials Registration Number NL9312.

Background and Objective The combination of niraparib and abiraterone acetate (AA) plus prednisone is under investigation for the treatment of patients with metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC) and metastatic castration-sensitive prostate cancer (mCSPC). Regular-strength (RS) and lower-strength (LS) dual-action tablets (DATs), comprising niraparib 100 mg/AA 500 mg and niraparib 50 mg/AA 500 mg, respectively, were developed to reduce pill burden and improve patient experience. A bioequivalence (BE)/bioavailability (BA) study was conducted under modified fasting conditions in patients with mCRPC to support approval of the DATs. Methods This open-label randomized BA/BE study (NCT04577833) was conducted at 14 sites in the USA and Europe. The study had a sequential design, including a 21-day screening phase, a pharmacokinetic (PK) assessment phase comprising three periods [namely (1) single-dose with up to 1-week run-in, (2) daily dose on days 1–11, and (3) daily dose on days 12–22], an extension where both niraparib and AA as single-agent combination (SAC; reference) or AA alone was continued from day 23 until discontinuation, and a 30-day follow-up phase. Patients were randomly assigned in a parallel-group design (four-sequence randomization) to receive a single oral dose of niraparib 100 mg/AA 1000 mg as a LS-DAT or SAC in period 1, and patients continued as randomized into a two-way crossover design during periods 2 and 3 where they received niraparib 200 mg/AA 1000 mg once daily as a RS-DAT or SAC. The design was powered on the basis of crossover assessment of RS-DAT versus SAC. During repeated dosing (periods 2 and 3, and extension phase), all patients also received prednisone/prednisolone 5 mg twice daily. Plasma samples were collected for measurement of niraparib and abiraterone plasma concentrations. Statistical assessment of the RS-DAT and LS-DAT versus SAC was performed on log-transformed pharmacokinetic parameters data from periods 2 and 3 (crossover) and from period 1 (parallel), respectively. Additional paired analyses and model-based bioequivalence assessments were conducted to evaluate the similarity between the LS-DAT and SAC. Results For the RS-DAT versus SAC, the 90% confidence intervals (CI) of geometric mean ratios (GMR) for maximum concentration at a steady state (C max,ss ) and area under the plasma concentration–time curve from 0–24 h at a steady state (AUC 0–24h,ss ) were respectively 99.18-106.12% and 97.91-104.31% for niraparib and 87.59-106.69 and 86.91-100.23% for abiraterone. For the LS-DAT vs SAC, the 90% CI of GMR for AUC 0–72h of niraparib was 80.31-101.12% in primary analysis, the 90% CI of GMR for C max,ss and AUC 0–24h ,ss of abiraterone was 85.41-118.34% and 86.51-121.64% respectively, and 96.4% of simulated LS-DAT versus SAC BE trials met the BE criteria for both niraparib and abiraterone. Conclusions The RS-DAT met BE criteria (range 80%–125%) versus SAC based on 90% CI of GMR for C max,ss and AUC 0–24h,ss . The LS-DAT was considered BE to SAC on the basis of the niraparib component meeting the BE criteria in the primary analysis for AUC 0–72h ; abiraterone meeting the BE criteria in additional paired analyses based on C max,ss and AUC 0–24h,ss ; and the percentage of simulated LS-DAT versus SAC BE trials meeting the BE criteria for both. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT04577833. Graphical Abstract

Objective To determine women’s satisfaction with pain relief using patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil compared with epidural analgesia during labour.Design Multicentre randomised controlled equivalence trial.Setting 15 hospitals in the Netherlands. Participants Women with an intermediate to high obstetric risk with an intention to deliver vaginally. To exclude a clinically relevant difference in satisfaction with pain relief of more than 10%, we needed to include 1136 women. Because of missing values for satisfaction this number was increased to 1400 before any analysis. We used multiple imputation to correct for missing data.Intervention Before the onset of active labour consenting women were randomised to a pain relief strategy with patient controlled remifentanil or epidural analgesia if they requested pain relief during labour.Main outcome measures Primary outcome was satisfaction with pain relief, measured hourly on a visual analogue scale and expressed as area under the curve (AUC), thus providing a time weighted measure of total satisfaction with pain relief. A higher AUC represents higher satisfaction with pain relief. Secondary outcomes were pain intensity scores, mode of delivery, and maternal and neonatal outcomes. Analysis was done by intention to treat. The study was defined as an equivalence study for the primary outcome.Results 1414 women were randomised, of whom 709 were allocated to patient controlled remifentanil and 705 to epidural analgesia. Baseline characteristics were comparable. Pain relief was ultimately used in 65% (447/687) in the remifentanil group and 52% (347/671) in the epidural analgesia group (relative risk 1.32, 95% confidence interval 1.18 to 1.48). Cross over occurred in 7% (45/687) and 8% (51/671) of women, respectively. Of women primarily treated with remifentanil, 13% (53/402) converted to epidural analgesia, while in women primarily treated with epidural analgesia 1% (3/296) converted to remifentanil. The area under the curve for total satisfaction with pain relief was 30.9 in the remifentanil group versus 33.7 in the epidural analgesia group (mean difference −2.8, 95% confidence interval −6.9 to 1.3). For who actually received pain relief the area under the curve for satisfaction with pain relief after the start of pain relief was 25.6 in the remifentanil group versus 36.1 in the epidural analgesia group (mean difference −10.4, −13.9 to −7.0). The rate of caesarean section was 15% in both groups. Oxygen saturation was significantly lower (SpO2 <92%) in women who used remifentanil (relative risk 1.5, 1.4 to 1.7). Maternal and neonatal outcomes were comparable between both groups.Conclusion In women in labour, patient controlled analgesia with remifentanil is not equivalent to epidural analgesia with respect to scores on satisfaction with pain relief. Satisfaction with pain relief was significantly higher in women who were allocated to and received epidural analgesia.Trial registration Netherlands Trial Register NTR2551.

Background and Objective Vandetanib is a selective inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR), epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR) and rearranged during transfection (RET) signalling, indicated for the treatment of medullary thyroid cancer. We investigated potential drug–drug interactions between vandetanib and metformin [organic cation transporter 2 (OCT2) substrate; NCT01551615]; digoxin [P-glycoprotein (P-gp) substrate; NCT01561781]; midazolam [cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 substrate; NCT01544140]; omeprazole (proton pump inhibitor) or ranitidine (histamine H 2 -receptor antagonist; both NCT01539655). Methods Four open-label, phase I studies were conducted in healthy volunteers: n  = 14 (metformin), n  = 14 (digoxin), n  = 17 (midazolam), n  = 16 (omeprazole), n  = 18 (ranitidine). Three of these comprised the following regimens: metformin 1000 mg ± vandetanib 800 mg, midazolam 7.5 mg ± vandetanib 800 mg, or digoxin 0.25 mg ± vandetanib 300 mg. The randomized study comprised vandetanib 300 mg alone and then either (i) omeprazole 40 mg (days 1–4), and omeprazole + vandetanib (day 5); or (ii) ranitidine 150 mg (day 1), and ranitidine + vandetanib (day 2). The primary objective assessed metformin, digoxin, midazolam and vandetanib pharmacokinetics. Results Vandetanib + metformin increased metformin area under the plasma concentration–time curve from zero to infinity (AUC 0–∞ ) and maximum observed plasma concentration (C max ) by 74 and 50 %, respectively, and decreased the geometric mean metformin renal clearance (CL R ) by 52 % versus metformin alone. Vandetanib + digoxin increased digoxin area under the concentration-time curve from zero to the last quantifiable concentration (AUC 0–last ) and C max by 23 and 29 %, respectively, versus digoxin alone, with only a 9 % decrease in CL R . Vandetanib had no effect on midazolam exposure. Vandetanib exposure was unchanged during co-administration with omeprazole/ranitidine. Treatment combinations were generally well tolerated. Conclusion Patients receiving vandetanib with metformin/digoxin may require additional monitoring of metformin/digoxin, with dose adjustments where necessary. Vandetanib with CYP3A4 substrates or omeprazole/ranitidine is unlikely to result in clinically relevant drug–drug interactions.

Pitolisant (Wakix™) is an inverse agonist of the histamine H 3 receptor that is being developed by Bioproject. Oral pitolisant is approved in the EU for the treatment of narcolepsy with or without cataplexy in adults. Pitolisant has received a Temporary Authorization of Use in France for this indication in case of treatment failure, intolerance or contraindication to currently available treatment. Pitolisant has orphan drug designation in the EU and the USA. In the pivotal HARMONY I trial, pitolisant significantly decreased excessive daytime sleepiness versus placebo in adults with narcolepsy with or without cataplexy (primary endpoint). Pitolisant also significantly decreased cataplexy rate versus placebo in these patients. This article summarizes the milestones in the development of pitolisant leading to this first approval for narcolepsy.

Curcuminoids, the major component of which is curcumin, are natural polyphenolic compounds from the rhizome of Curcuma longa Linn. and possess extensive biopharmacological properties that are limited in humans due to poor bioavailability. Currently, most commercial bioavailable turmeric extracts use synthetic excipients or the addition of piperine to enhance bioavailability, and are needed in multiple daily doses to achieve clinical efficacy. This study was conducted to compare the bioavailability of a natural, water-dispersible turmeric extract containing 60% natural curcuminoids, the test product, WDTE60N (1 × 250 mg per day), with the reference product, turmeric extract capsules (500 mg curcuminoids and 5 mg piperine, CPC; 3 × 500 mg per day). Sixteen healthy adult male subjects fasted overnight for 10 hours and then were dosed with either one capsule of the test product WDTE60N or three capsules of reference product CPC orally (One capsule administered at every 6 hours interval i.e. at 0.00 hrs, 6.00 hrs and at 12.00 hrs) in each study period. Blood sampling before and after dosing was carried out at defined time points at -12.00, -02.00, 00.00 (within 10 minutes prior to dosing) hours in morning before dosing and post-dose (First dose) at 00.50, 01.00, 02.00, 03.00, 04.00, 05.00, 06.50, 07.00, 08.00, 09.00, 10.00, 11.00, 12.50, 13.00, 14.00, 16.00, 18.00, 20.00 and 24.00 hours in each period. Plasma concentration of curcuminoids was determined using a validated liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry bioanalytical method. The Cmax (GLSM) for the test product WDTE60N was observed to be 74.56 ng/mL; and same for the reference CPC was 22.75 ng/mL. AUC0-t (GLSM) for test WDTE60N was 419.00 h∙ng/mL; and for reference CPC it was 359.86 h∙ng/mL for total curcuminoids. The test formulation WDTE60N showed improved relative absorption and equivalent exposure at a 10-fold-lower dose of actives than the reference formulation CPC.

BackgroundCombining poly(ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitors with antiangiogenic agents appeared to enhance activity vs PARP inhibitors alone in a randomized phase II trial.Materials and methodsIn AVANOVA (NCT02354131) part 1, patients with measurable/evaluable high-grade serous/endometrioid platinum-sensitive ovarian cancer received bevacizumab 15 mg/kg every 21 days with escalating doses of niraparib capsules (100, 200, or 300 mg daily) in a 3 + 3 dose-escalation design. Primary objectives were to evaluate safety and tolerability and to determine the recommended phase II dose (RP2D).ResultsThree of 12 enrolled patients had germline BRCA2 mutations. In cycle 1, nine patients experienced grade 3 toxicities: five with hypertension, three with anemia, and one with thrombocytopenia. There was one dose-limiting toxicity (grade 4 thrombocytopenia with niraparib 300 mg), thus the RP2D was bevacizumab 15 mg/kg with niraparib 300 mg. The response rate was 50%; disease was stabilized in a further 42%. Median progression-free survival was 11.6 (95% confidence interval 8.4–20.1) months. Niraparib pharmacokinetics were consistent with historical single-agent data. Overlapping exposure was observed across the dose ranges tested on days 1 and 21.ConclusionsThere was one dose-limiting toxicity; other adverse events were typical PARP inhibitor and antiangiogenic class effects. Niraparib–bevacizumab showed promising activity; Part 2 (vs bevacizumab) was recently reported and phase III comparison with standard-of-care therapy is planned.

Vandetanib is an orally available inhibitor of vascular endothelial growth factor receptor 2 and epidermal growth factor receptor and is rearranged during transfection tyrosine kinase activity. Development has included studies in non–small cell lung cancer and other tumor types. Accurate elimination kinetics were not determined in patient studies, and so the current human volunteer studies were performed to derive detailed kinetic data. The aim of this study was to investigate pharmacokinetics, metabolism, excretion, and elimination kinetics after single oral doses of vandetanib in healthy subjects. Three studies were conducted. In Study A (n = 23), cohorts of 8 subjects were randomized to receive double-blind, ascending doses of vandetanib (300–1200 mg) or placebo (6:2). Study B had a crossover design; subjects (n = 16) received vandetanib 300 mg under fed and fasted conditions. In Study C, subjects (n = 4) received [14C] vandetanib 800 mg. Blood samples were collected for pharmacokinetic analysis for up to 28 days after the dose (Studies A and B) and 42 days after the dose (Study C). Plasma (all studies) and urine (Study A only) samples were collected for determination of vandetanib concentrations. In Study C radioactivity was measured in plasma, blood, urine, and feces, and metabolites were identified chromatographically. Tolerability was evaluated by recording of adverse events, clinical chemistry, hematology and urinalysis parameters, vital signs, and ECGs (all studies). Study A: mean (SD) age 34.4 (6.9) years; 23/23 male; mean (SD; range) weight 80.6 (8.1; 62−97) kg. Study B: mean (SD) age 35.3 (8.4) years; 15/16 male; mean (SD; range) weight 80.7 (11.2; 57−100) kg. Study C: mean (SD) age 60.3 (7.4) years; 4/4 male; mean (SD; range) weight 78.0 (7.7l; 72−87) kg. Pharmacokinetic parameters were consistent across all studies (Studies A and C, vandetanib 800 mg: geometric mean CL/F, 13.1–13.3 L/h; geometric mean apparent volume of distribution at steady state [VSS/F], 3592–4103 L; mean t½, 215.8–246.6 hours). Vandetanib was absorbed and eliminated slowly after single oral doses. AUC0–∞ and Cmax were not significantly affected by ingestion of food. Median (range) Tmax was 8 (3–18) hours after food and 6 (5–18) hours after fasting. In plasma, concentrations of total radioactivity were higher than vandetanib concentrations at all time points, indicating the presence of circulating metabolites. Unchanged vandetanib and 2 anticipated metabolites (N-desmethylvandetanib and vandetanib N-oxide) were detected in plasma, urine, and feces. A further trace minor metabolite (glucuronide conjugate) was found in urine and feces. Approximately two thirds of the dose was recovered in feces (44%) and urine (25%) over 21 days, underlining the importance of both routes of elimination. Adverse events were reported by all subjects in Study A apart from 2 at a vandetanib dose of 300 mg; 12/15 (80%) and 14/16 (88%) subjects who took vandetanib under fed and fasted conditions, respectively, in Study B; and 2/4 (50%) subjects in Study C. No serious adverse events were reported. Increasing doses of vandetanib, in Study A, were associated with variable increases in systolic and diastolic blood pressures and variable increases from baseline in QTc interval. Hematuria was reported by 3 subjects (vandetanib 300 mg) in Study A. Small but consistent increases from baseline in serum creatinine were noted in subjects who received vandetanib in these studies. No other clinically important changes were observed in clinical chemistry, hematology and urinalysis parameters, vital signs, and ECGs in any of the studies. The pharmacokinetics of vandetanib after single oral doses to healthy subjects were defined and the metabolic pathway was proposed. Vandetanib was absorbed and eliminated slowly with a t½ of ∼10 days after single oral doses. The extent of absorption was not significantly affected by the presence of food. Approximately two thirds of the dose was recovered in feces (44%) and urine (25%) over 21 days. Unchanged vandetanib and N-desmethyl and N-oxide metabolites were detected in plasma, urine, and feces. Vandetanib appeared to be was well tolerated in the populations studied.