Explore the vast range of titles available.

Internal tandem duplication mutations in FLT3 are common in acute myeloid leukaemia and are associated with rapid relapse and short overall survival. The clinical benefit of FLT3 inhibitors in patients with acute myeloid leukaemia has been limited by rapid generation of resistance mutations, particularly in codon Asp835 (D835). We aimed to assess the highly selective oral FLT3 inhibitor gilteritinib in patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia. In this phase 1–2 trial, we enrolled patients aged 18 years or older with acute myeloid leukaemia who either were refractory to induction therapy or had relapsed after achieving remission with previous treatment. Patients were enrolled into one of seven dose-escalation or dose-expansion cohorts assigned to receive once-daily doses of oral gilteritinib (20 mg, 40 mg, 80 mg, 120 mg, 200 mg, 300 mg, or 450 mg). Cohort expansion was based on safety and tolerability, FLT3 inhibition in correlative assays, and antileukaemic activity. Although the presence of an FLT3 mutation was not an inclusion criterion, we required ten or more patients with locally confirmed FLT3 mutations (FLT3mut+) to be enrolled in expansion cohorts at each dose level. On the basis of emerging findings, we further expanded the 120 mg and 200 mg dose cohorts to include FLT3mut+ patients only. The primary endpoints were the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics of gilteritinib. Safety and tolerability were assessed in the safety analysis set (all patients who received at least one dose of gilteritinib). Responses were assessed in the full analysis set (all patients who received at least one dose of study drug and who had at least one datapoint post-treatment). Pharmacokinetics were assessed in a subset of the safety analysis set for which sufficient data for concentrations of gilteritinib in plasma were available to enable derivation of one or more pharmacokinetic variables. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT02014558, and is ongoing. Between Oct 15, 2013, and Aug 27, 2015, 252 adults with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia received oral gilteritinib once daily in one of seven dose-escalation (n=23) or dose-expansion (n=229) cohorts. Gilteritinib was well tolerated; the maximum tolerated dose was established as 300 mg/day when two of three patients enrolled in the 450 mg dose-escalation cohort had two dose-limiting toxicities (grade 3 diarrhoea and grade 3 elevated aspartate aminotransferase). The most common grade 3–4 adverse events irrespective of relation to treatment were febrile neutropenia (97 [39%] of 252), anaemia (61 [24%]), thrombocytopenia (33 [13%]), sepsis (28 [11%]), and pneumonia (27 [11%]). Commonly reported treatment-related adverse events were diarrhoea (41 [16%] of 252]), fatigue (37 [15%]), elevated aspartate aminotransferase (33 [13%]), and elevated alanine aminotransferase (24 [10%]). Serious adverse events occurring in 5% or more of patients were febrile neutropenia (78 [31%] of 252; five related to treatment), progressive disease (43 [17%]), sepsis (36 [14%]; two related to treatment), pneumonia (27 [11%]), acute renal failure (25 [10%]; five related to treatment), pyrexia (21 [8%]; three related to treatment), bacteraemia (14 [6%]; one related to treatment), and respiratory failure (14 [6%]). 95 people died in the safety analysis set, of which seven deaths were judged possibly or probably related to treatment (pulmonary embolism [200 mg/day], respiratory failure [120 mg/day], haemoptysis [80 mg/day], intracranial haemorrhage [20 mg/day], ventricular fibrillation [120 mg/day], septic shock [80 mg/day], and neutropenia [120 mg/day]). An exposure-related increase in inhibition of FLT3 phosphorylation was noted with increasing concentrations in plasma of gilteritinib. In-vivo inhibition of FLT3 phosphorylation occurred at all dose levels. At least 90% of FLT3 phosphorylation inhibition was seen by day 8 in most patients receiving a daily dose of 80 mg or higher. 100 (40%) of 249 patients in the full analysis set achieved a response, with 19 (8%) achieving complete remission, ten (4%) complete remission with incomplete platelet recovery, 46 (18%) complete remission with incomplete haematological recovery, and 25 (10%) partial remission. Gilteritinib had a favourable safety profile and showed consistent FLT3 inhibition in patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia. These findings confirm that FLT3 is a high-value target for treatment of relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukaemia; based on activity data, gilteritinib at 120 mg/day is being tested in phase 3 trials. Astellas Pharma, National Cancer Institute (Leukemia Specialized Program of Research Excellence grant), Associazione Italiana Ricerca sul Cancro.

Background and Objectives The proteasome inhibitor bortezomib is approved for the treatment of multiple myeloma (MM) and, in the US, for the treatment of mantle cell lymphoma following at least one prior therapy; the recommended dose and schedule is 1.3 mg/m 2 on days 1, 4, 8 and 11 of 21-day cycles, and the approved routes of administration in the US prescribing information are by intravenous and, following a recent update, subcutaneous injection. Findings from a phase III study demonstrated that subcutaneous administration of bortezomib, using the same dose and schedule, resulted in similar efficacy with an improved systemic safety profile (including significantly lower rates of peripheral neuropathy) versus intravenous bortezomib in patients with relapsed MM. The objectives of this report were to present a comprehensive analysis of the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib, and to evaluate the impact of the subcutaneous administration site, subcutaneous injection concentration and demographic characteristics on bortezomib pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Patients and Methods Data were analysed from the pharmacokinetic substudy of the randomized phase III MMY-3021 study and the phase I CAN-1004 study of subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib in patients aged ≥18 (MMY-3021) or ≤75 (CAN-1004) years with symptomatic relapsed or refractory MM after 1–3 (MMY-3021) or ≥1 (CAN-1004) prior therapies. Patients received up to eight 21-day cycles of subcutaneous or intravenous bortezomib 1.3 mg/m 2 on days 1, 4, 8 and 11. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic (20S proteasome inhibition) parameters of bortezomib following subcutaneous or intravenous administration were evaluated on day 11, cycle 1. Results Bortezomib systemic exposure was equivalent with subcutaneous versus intravenous administration in MMY-3021 [mean area under the plasma concentration–time curve from time zero to the last quantifiable timepoint (AUC last ): 155 vs. 151 ng·h/mL; geometric mean ratio 0.992 (90 % CI 80.18, 122.80)] and comparable in CAN-1004 (mean AUC last : 195 vs. 241 ng·h/mL); maximum (peak) plasma drug concentration (C max ) was lower with subcutaneous administration in both MMY-3021 (mean 20.4 vs. 223 ng/mL) and CAN-1004 (mean 22.5 vs. 162 ng/mL), and time to C max (t max ) was longer with subcutaneous administration in both studies (median 30 vs. 2 min). Blood 20S proteasome inhibition pharmacodynamic parameters were also similar with subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib: mean maximum effect (E max ) was 63.7 versus 69.3 % in MMY-3021 and 57.0 versus 68.8 % in CAN-1004, and mean area under the effect–time curve from time zero to 72 h was 1,714 versus 1,383 %·h in MMY-3021 and 1,619 versus 1,283 %·h in CAN-1004. Time to E max was longer with subcutaneous administration in MMY-3021 (median 120 vs. 5 min) and CAN-1004 (median 120 vs. 3 min). Concentration of the subcutaneous injected solution had no appreciable effect on pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic parameters. There were no apparent differences in bortezomib pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters between subcutaneous administration in the thigh or abdomen. There were also no apparent differences in bortezomib exposure related to body mass index, body surface area or age. Conclusion Subcutaneous administration results in equivalent bortezomib plasma exposure to intravenous administration, together with comparable blood 20S proteasome inhibition pharmacodynamic effects. These findings, together with the non-inferior efficacy of subcutaneous versus intravenous bortezomib demonstrated in MMY-3021, support the use of bortezomib via the subcutaneous route across the settings of clinical use in which the safety and efficacy of intravenous bortezomib has been established.

Summary LY2603618 is an inhibitor of checkpoint kinase 1 (CHK1), an important regulator of the DNA damage checkpoints. Preclinical experiments analyzed NCI-H2122 and NCI-H441 NSCLC cell lines and in vitro/in vivo models treated with pemetrexed and LY2603618 to provide rationale for evaluating this combination in a clinical setting. Combination treatment of LY2603618 with pemetrexed arrested DNA synthesis following initiation of S-phase in cells. Experiments with tumor-bearing mice administered the combination of LY2603618 and pemetrexed demonstrated a significant increase of growth inhibition of NCI-H2122 (H2122) and NCI-H441 (H441) xenograft tumors. These data informed the clinical assessment of LY2603618 in a seamless phase I/II study, which administered pemetrexed (500 mg/m 2 ) and cisplatin (75 mg/m 2 ) and escalating doses of LY2603618: 130–275 mg. Patients were assessed for safety, toxicity, and pharmacokinetics. In phase I, 14 patients were enrolled, and the most frequently reported adverse events included fatigue, nausea, pyrexia, neutropenia, and vomiting. No DLTs were reported at the tested doses. The systemic exposure of LY2603618 increased in a dose-dependent manner. Pharmacokinetic parameters that correlate with the maximal pharmacodynamic effect in nonclinical xenograft models were achieved at doses ≥240 mg. The pharmacokinetics of LY2603618, pemetrexed, and cisplatin were not altered when used in combination. Two patients achieved a confirmed partial response (both non-small cell lung cancer), and 8 patients had stable disease. LY2603618 administered in combination with pemetrexed and cisplatin demonstrated an acceptable safety profile. The recommended phase II dose of LY2603618 was 275 mg.

Purpose In vitro data showed that selexipag and its active metabolite (ACT-333679) have an inductive effect on CYP3A4, CYP2B6, and CYP2C9 at concentrations approximately 100-fold higher than the maximum plasma concentration ( C max ) measured under steady-state conditions. In order to confirm in vivo the lack of induction at the enterocyte level, we assessed the effect of selexipag on midazolam, a substrate of hepatic and intestinal CYP3A4. Methods This study was conducted according to an open-label, randomized, two-way crossover design. A total of 20 subjects received a single oral dose of 7.5 mg midazolam alone (treatment A) or on top of steady-state selexipag (treatment B). Selexipag was administered twice daily using an up-titration scheme consisting of three steps: 400, 600, 1000, and 1600 μg with increments every fourth day. A 24-h pharmacokinetic profile was performed following midazolam administration, and bioequivalence criteria were investigated on an exploratory basis. Results The C max of midazolam and 1-hydroxymidazolam was decreased by approximately 20 and 14%, respectively, following treatment B compared to A. The time to reach C max for midazolam and 1-hydroxymidazolam was similar between treatments. The terminal half-life was reduced in treatment B compared to A for both midazolam (16%) and 1-hydroxymidazolam (20%). Exposure (area under the curve) to midazolam and 1-hydroxymidazolam was similar between treatments, and the 90% confidence intervals of geometric mean ratios were within the bioequivalence interval. Treatment with midazolam, selexipag, and the combination was safe and well tolerated. Conclusion Exposure to midazolam and 1-hydroxymidazolam was not affected by treatment with selexipag.

Purpose The aim of this single-center, open-label study was to assess the absolute bioavailability of an oral (tablet) versus intravenous (i.v.) formulation of selexipag in healthy subjects. Methods A pilot phase in three healthy male subjects, which preceded the main study, consisted of a single 20-minute i.v. infusion of 50 μg selexipag. Its objectives were to ensure the safety of the i.v. formulation and to select the i.v. dose for the main study. The main study had a randomized, two-way crossover design in 16 healthy male subjects. Subjects received a single oral dose of 400 μg selexipag and a single 80-minute i.v. infusion of 200 μg selexipag. Results Three subjects in the pilot and 15 in the main phase completed the study as planned, whereas one subject of the main study withdrew the consent. A geometric mean total body clearance (95% confidence interval (CI)) of 17.9 L/h (15.0–21.5) and a volume of distribution of 11.7 L (10.6–13.0) were determined. The absolute oral bioavailability of selexipag (90% CI) was 49.4% (42.6–57.2). Selexipag was well-tolerated; no adverse event (AE) occurred during the pilot phase, and the main observed AEs were headache, nausea, and vomiting. Conclusion A single i.v. administration of selexipag in healthy subjects was safe and well-tolerated. The bioavailability of selexipag after oral administration is approximately 50%.

Objective: The objective of this study was to assess the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of selexipag, an orally available selective prostacyclin receptor agonist, in development for pulmonary arterial hypertension in healthy subjects. Methods: This was a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomised, multiple-ascending-dose, up-titration study. Male subjects received increasing oral doses of selexipag (400-1,800 µg; n = 12) or placebo (n = 4) twice daily for 3 days each, using incremental steps of 200 µg between each dose level. Standard safety and tolerability data were collected. Blood samples were taken to assess the pharmacokinetics of selexipag and its active metabolite ACT-333679 and possible effects on platelet aggregation. Results: Dose levels of selexipag up to 1,600 μg were well tolerated and this dose was identified as the maximum tolerated dose. Plasma exposure to ACT-333679 was approximately 4 times higher than that to selexipag. Steady-state conditions for both compounds were reached on day 3 of each dose level, and no accumulation of selexipag or ACT-333679 was observed. Based on the area under the curve and the maximum plasma concentration, the pharmacokinetics of selexipag and ACT-333679 were dose proportional. At the highest dose level, the geometric mean terminal half-life of selexipag and ACT-333679 was 1.4 and 8.7 h, respectively. The observed effects on platelet aggregation were variable without obvious drug- or dose-dependent pattern. Conclusions: Oral administration of increasing doses of selexipag was well tolerated. The present results support the conduct of future clinical trials.

Background and Objective: Bortezomib, an antineoplastic agent with proteasome inhibitory activity, is extensively metabolized by the hepatic microsomal cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes CYP3A4 and CYP2C19. Drugs that affect these enzymes may therefore have an impact on the pharmacological profile of bortezomib. This study evaluated the effects of co-administration of a potent CYP3A4 inducer (rifampicin [rifampin]) and a weak CYP3A4 inducer (dexamethasone) on the pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and safety profiles of bortezomib. Patients and Methods: Patients aged ≥18 years with relapsed or refractory multiple myeloma or non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma received intravenous bortezomib 1.3 mg/m 2 , administered on days 1, 4, 8 and 11 of a 21-day cycle, for 3 cycles. In stage 1, patients were randomized (1:1) to receive bortezomib alone or in combination with oral rifampicin 600 mg once daily on days 4–10 during cycle 3 only. If the mean area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) of bortezomib was reduced by ≥30% during rifampicin co-administration, then stage 2 was initiated, in which patients received bortezomib with dexamethasone 40 mg once daily on days 1–4 and days 9–12 during cycle 3 only. Blood samples were collected on days 11 through 14 of cycles 2 and 3 before and after bortezomib administration, at prespecified time points, for pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic (proteasome inhibition) assessments. Results: Twelve patients in the bortezomib-alone arm, six patients in the bortezomib plus rifampicin arm and seven patients in the bortezomib plus dexamethasone arm were included in the pharmacokinetics-evaluable set. Rifampicin reduced the mean AUC from 0 to 72 hours (AUC 72h ) of bortezomib by approximately 45% (223 ng · h/mL in cycle 2 vs 123 ng · h/mL in cycle 3), while dexamethasone had no effect (mean AUC 72h : 179 ng · h/mL in cycle 2 vs 170 ng · h/mL in cycle 3). Proteasome inhibition parameters in peripheral blood were unaffected by rifampicin or dexamethasone. Safety profiles were similar across the treatment arms and consistent with previous experience of bortezomib. Conclusions: In patients with multiple myeloma or non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma, co-administration of rifampicin decreased the exposure to bortezomib but did not affect the proteasome inhibition or safety profiles; co-administration of dexamethasone did not affect the exposure to bortezomib, proteasome inhibition or safety profiles. Concomitant administration of bortezomib with strong CYP3A4 inducers such as rifampicin is not recommended, as it may result in a reduction of the clinical effect, whereas concomitant administration of weak CYP3A4 inducers such as dexamethasone does not affect the pharmacological profile of bortezomib.

Selexipag (Uptravi) is an oral selective IP prostacyclin receptor agonist approved for the treatment of pulmonary arterial hypertension (PAH). The pivotal GRIPHON study was the largest clinical study ever conducted in PAH patients, providing long‐term data from 1,156 patients. PAH comedication did not affect exposure to selexipag, while exposure to its active metabolite ACT‐333679 was reduced by 30% when taken in combination, clinically not relevant in the context of individual dose up‐titration. Using log‐linear regression models linking model‐predicted steady‐state exposure to pharmacodynamics (PD), exposure to selexipag and ACT‐333679 showed some statistically significant, albeit not clinically relevant, effects on exercise capacity, laboratory values, and the occurrence of prostacyclin‐related adverse events, but not on vital signs or adverse events denoting hemorrhage. Using suitable modeling techniques, the GRIPHON study yielded clinically relevant data with limited burden of pharmacokinetics (PK) blood sampling, demonstrating that PK/PD modeling enables firm conclusions even with sparse PK and PD sampling.

Objectives The objectives of this study were to determine if ABCB1 polymorphisms are associated with interindividual variability in sitagliptin pharmacokinetics and if atorvastatin alters the pharmacokinetic disposition of sitagliptin in healthy volunteers. Methods In this open-label, randomized, two-phase crossover study, healthy volunteers were prospectively stratified according to ABCB1 1236/2677/3435 diplotype ( n  = 9, CGC/CGC; n  = 10, CGC/TTT; n  = 10, TTT/TTT). In one phase, participants received a single 100 mg dose of sitagliptin; in the other phase, participants received 40 mg of atorvastatin for 5 days, with a single 100 mg dose of sitagliptin administered on day 5. A 24-h pharmacokinetic study followed each sitagliptin dose, and the study phases were separated by a 14-day washout period. Results Sitagliptin pharmacokinetic parameters did not differ significantly between ABCB1 CGC/CGC, CGC/TTT, and TTT/TTT diplotype groups during the monotherapy phase. Atorvastatin administration did not significantly affect sitagliptin pharmacokinetics, with geometric mean ratios (90 % confidence intervals) for sitagliptin maximum plasma concentration, plasma concentration–time curve from zero to infinity, renal clearance, and fraction of sitagliptin excreted unchanged in the urine of 0.93 (0.86–1.01), 0.96 (0.91–1.01), 1.02 (0.93–1.12), and 0.98 (0.90–1.06), respectively. Conclusions ABCB1 CGC/CGC, CGC/TTT, and TTT/TTT diplotypes did not influence sitagliptin pharmacokinetics in healthy volunteers. Furthermore, atorvastatin had no effect on the pharmacokinetics of sitagliptin in the setting of ABCB1 CGC/CGC, CGC/TTT, and TTT/TTT diplotypes.

Purpose To study the impact of gemfibrozil co-administration on the pharmacokinetics of sitagliptin in healthy Indian male volunteers. Methods A randomized open label two-period crossover study involving 12 healthy Indian male volunteers was conducted at a single center. In each phase, the volunteers were administered sitagliptin as 100 mg tablets, either alone or co-administered with gemfibrozil as 600 mg tablets twice daily for 3 days. There was a 2-week washout period between phases. The venous blood samples were serially collected at 0–12 h post-dose, and plasma concentrations of the study drugs were estimated by a validated high-performance liquid chromatography-ultraviolet method. Results Relative to the administration of sitagliptin alone, co-administration with gemfibrozil increased the AUC 0-12 (2,167 ± 82.9 vs. 2,970 ± 76.4 ng h/ml; p  < 0.0001), AUC 0-∞ (3,621 ± 222.5 vs. 5,574 ± 249.6 ng h/ml; p < 0.0002), C max (282.9 ± 7.7 vs. 344.1 ± 5.9 ng/ml; p  < 0.0001), and t ½ (7.4 ± 0.6 vs. 10 ± 0.6 h; p  = 0.0076) to statistically significant levels. The interindividual differences in the pharmacokinetic parameters of sitagliptin were found to be within acceptable limits (coefficient of variation <20%). No adverse drug events associated with sitagliptin occurred in the subjects during the study period. Conclusion Although the bioavailability of sitagliptin was increased by 54% when co-administered with gemfibrozil, this interaction may not have any clinical significance as sitagliptin has a wide therapeutic index. Hence, in clinical practice, sitagliptin as 100 mg tablets and gemfibrozil as 600 mg tablets may be co-prescribed without much threat of sitagliptin toxicity. However, these results may not hold if the dose of sitagliptin is increased or if is co-prescribed with other antidiabetic drugs and/or cytochrome P450 2C8/human organic anion transporter-3 inhibitors. Further studies are needed to confirm these results in patients.