Cedirogant is an inverse agonist of retinoic acid-related orphan receptor gamma thymus developed for the treatment of chronic plaque psoriasis. Cedirogant induces cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 while inhibiting P-glycoprotein (P-gp), breast cancer resistance protein (BCRP), organic anion transporting polypeptide (OATP) 1B1, and OATP1B3 in vitro. Static drug-drug interactions (DDIs) predictions suggested possible clinical induction of CYP3A4, and inhibition of P-gp, BCRP, and OATP1B1, leading to challenges in interpreting DDI studies between cedirogant and substrates of CYP3A, P-gp, BCRP, and OATP1B1/3. Here the effects of cedirogant on the pharmacokinetics of two statin drugs were investigated in healthy participants. Coproporphyrin-I (CP-I), a selective endogenous OATP1B biomarker, was used to assess the impact of cedirogant on OATP1B. Cedirogant (375 mg once daily) increased rosuvastatin maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) and area under the plasma concentration curve (AUCtau) by 141% and 55%, respectively when co-administered, whereas atorvastatin Cmax increased by 40% with no effect on its AUCtau compared with administration of rosuvastatin/atorvastatin alone. Cedirogant did not increase CP-I exposures, indicating no clinical OATP1B inhibition. The increased rosuvastatin exposure and minimal change in atorvastatin exposure with co-administration of cedirogant is attributed to BCRP inhibition and interplay between P-gp/BCRP inhibition and CYP3A induction, respectively. Correlation analysis with data from two investigational drugs (glecaprevir and flubentylosin) demonstrated that OATP1B1 R-value of > 1.5 and [Cmax,u]/[OATP1B1 IC50] of > 0.1 are associated with > 1.25-fold increase in CP-I Cmax ratio. This demonstrates the utility of CP-I in disentangling mechanisms underlying a complex DDI involving multiple transporters and enzymes and proposes refined criteria for static OATP1B inhibition predictions.

Background The parasitic filariae responsible for onchocerciasis and lymphatic filariasis are host to an endosymbiotic bacterium, Wolbachia , which is essential to the fertility and development of the parasites. We performed a Phase-I pharmacokinetic, safety and food-effect study on single and multiple ascending doses of flubentylosin (ABBV-4083), a macrolide antibacterial with activity against Wolbachia , intended to sterilize and eliminate the parasites. Methods Seventy-eight healthy adults were exposed to flubentylosin; 36 were exposed to single ascending 40, 100, 200, 400 or 1000 mg doses; 12 received 1000 mg in the food-effect part; and 30 received multiple ascending daily doses of 100 mg for 7 days, 200 mg for 7 or 14 days, or 400 mg for 7 or 14 days. Twenty-two subjects received placebo. Results Maximum concentrations (C max ) of flubentylosin were reached after 1–2 hours, with a half-life < 4 hours at doses ≤ 400 mg. C max and AUC increased in a more than dose-proportional manner, with similar exposure after multiple dose administration. The most frequently reported adverse events were nausea (8/78, 10%) and headache (6/78, 8%). Two subjects given a single dose of flubentylosin 1000 mg in the food-effect part experienced reversible asymptomatic ALT and AST elevations at Grade 2 or Grade 4, with no elevation in bilirubin, deemed related to study drug. The effect of food on exposure parameters was minimal. No treatment-related serious adverse events were reported. Discussion Flubentylosin 400 mg for 14 days was the maximum tolerated dose in this first-in-human, Phase-I study in healthy adults. Based on preclinical pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling, flubentylosin 400 mg once daily for 7 or 14 days is expected to be an effective dose. A Phase-II, proof-of-concept study with flubentylosin using these regimens is currently ongoing in patients with onchocerciasis in Africa.

Two pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic studies were conducted to evaluate the potential drug–drug interaction between elagolix, an oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone receptor antagonist, and an oral contraceptive (ethinylestradiol [EE] 0.035 mg and norgestimate 0.18/0.215/0.25 mg) or progestin-only contraceptive (norethindrone 0.35 mg) in healthy premenopausal women. These phase I studies used a two-period, sequential design, where period 1 included treatment with oral contraceptives, followed by period 2 with contraceptives coadministered with elagolix 150 mg once daily. In study 1, pharmacokinetic exposures for EE in period 2 increased by 30% and the norgestimate metabolites decreased by approximately 15% when coadministered with elagolix. Mean hormone exposure appeared lower for follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH; 31%), luteinizing hormone (LH; 38%), and estradiol (E2; 16%). The percentage of women with consecutive progesterone (P) concentrations above 5 nmol/L was similar in both periods. Norethindrone pharmacokinetic exposures were comparable in both periods. The hormone exposure for LH and FSH was similar, and mean E2 exposure was 32% lower in period 2. The percentage of subjects with consecutive ovulatory P concentrations was also similar in both periods (study 2). Safety and tolerability profiles were unremarkable in both studies. Coadministration of elagolix 150 mg once daily with oral contraceptives containing EE and norgestimate, or norethindrone, resulted in small pharmacokinetic changes in the oral contraceptive components. Similar or lower FSH, LH, and E2 exposures were observed during coadministration, with ovulatory P concentrations also comparable in both periods. The pharmacodynamic profiles of the oral contraceptives were maintained when coadministered with elagolix.

Context: Elagolix is an oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist recently approved for the treatment of endometriosis-associated pain and being developed for heavy menstrual bleeding associated with uterine fibroids. Objective: The objective was to evaluate the effects of elagolix on ovulation and ovarian sex hormones. Design and Setting: This was a randomized, open-label, multicenter study. Participants: Participants were healthy ovulatory women aged 18 to 40 years. Interventions Elagolix was administered orally for 3 continuous 28-day dosing intervals at 100 to 200 mg once daily (QD), 100 to 300 mg twice daily (BID), and 300 mg BID plus estradiol/norethindrone acetate (E2/NETA) 1/0.5 mg QD. Main Outcome Measures: The main outcomes measures were ovulation rates measured by transvaginal ultrasound, progesterone concentrations, and hormone suppression. Results: Elagolix suppressed ovulation in a dose-dependent manner. The percentage of women who ovulated was highest at 100 mg QD (78%), intermediate at 150 and 200 mg QD and 100 mg BID (47%-57%), and lowest at 200 and 300 mg BID (32% and 27%, respectively). Addition of E2/NETA to elagolix 300 mg BID further suppressed the ovulation rate to 10%. Elagolix also suppressed luteinizing hormone and follicle stimulating hormone in a dose-dependent manner, leading to dose-dependent suppression of estradiol and progesterone. Elagolix had no effect on serum biomarker of ovarian reserve, and reduced endometrial thickness compared to the screening cycle. Conclusion: Women being treated with elagolix may ovulate and should use effective methods of contraception. The rate of ovulation was lowest with elagolix 300 mg BID plus E2/NETA 1/0.5 mg QD.

The clinical pharmacology of elagolix was extensively evaluated in clinical studies in healthy subjects and in women with endometriosis. Elagolix pharmacokinetics (PK) show significant population variability, however they are minimally affected by patients’ baseline characteristics and demographics, except for clinically relevant extrinsic and intrinsic factors such as coadministrated strong organic anion transporting polypeptide (OATP) 1B1 inhibitors and severe hepatic impairment, which are contraindications for the use of elagolix. These studies enabled a comprehensive understanding of elagolix mechanism of action and the downstream pharmacodynamic (PD) effects on gonadotropin and ovarian hormones, as well as full characterization of the PK/PD (PKPD) relationships of elagolix at various dosages, including the approved 150 mg once daily and 200 mg twice daily dosing regimens for the management of moderate to severe pain associated with endometriosis. Several model-based analyses have contributed to understanding of the benefit–risk profile of elagolix in patients with endometriosis, through characterization of the exposure relationship with responder rates, with changes in bone mineral density over time, as well as the interaction with coadministered drugs. Collectively, these studies and analyses served as supportive evidence for the effectiveness of the approved dosages and provided general dosing instructions of the first approved oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone receptor antagonist.

Purpose: Methotrexate (MTX) and adalimumab are well-recognized treatments of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), the efficacy of which may be driven by intracellular polyglutamates (PGs). The aim of this analysis was to characterize MTX PG concentrations and adalimumab pharmacokinetics in the CONCERTO trial. In addition, the relationships between MTX dose/pharmacokinetics, adalimumab pharmacokinetics, and efficacy were evaluated. Methods: CONCERTO was a double-blind, parallel-arm study in patients with early RA randomized to adalimumab 40 mg SC every other week plus blinded MTX 2.5, 5, 10, or 20 mg PO once weekly, for 26 weeks. Blood samples were obtained through week 26 for the determination of concentrations of MTX PG, adalimumab, and anti-adalimumab antibody (AAA). Clinical outcomes were also assessed. Findings: A total of 395 patients were included in the analysis (MTX, 329; adalimumab, 395). The mean time to steady-state MTX PG concentration was increased with MTX dose, from 8 to > 26 weeks, depending on PG chain length. Dose proportionality changed with PG chain length. As MTX dose was increased, the percentage of short-chain PGs increased less than dose proportionally, while the percentage of long-chain PGs increased more than dose proportionally. For very-long-chain PGs, dose proportionality could not be assessed due to the nonmeasurable concentrations in the 2.5- and 5-mg MTX dose groups. As MTX dose increased, mean adalimumab concentrations also increased (P < 0.001). The percentage of patients with AAA decreased with increasing MTX dose, and at week 26, AAA(+) status was significantly correlated with MTX dose level (P = 0.005). In general, rates of response, defined using the 28-joint count disease activity score based on C-reactive protein (DAS28[CRP]; response, <3.2), were greater in the subgroup without AAA. The likelihood of a patient achieving a DAS28(CRP) response was related to the baseline measurement (P < 0.001) and to the concentration of adalimumab (P = 0.001), but not to the MTX regimen (P = 0.689). (C) 2018 Elsevier HS Journals, Inc. All rights reserved.

IntroductionElagolix is a novel, orally active, non-peptide, competitive gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) receptor antagonist in development for the management of endometriosis with associated pain and heavy menstrual bleeding due to uterine fibroids. The pharmacokinetics of elagolix have been well-characterized in phase I studies; however, elagolix population pharmacokinetics have not been previously reported. Therefore, a robust model was developed to describe elagolix population pharmacokinetics and to evaluate factors affecting elagolix pharmacokinetic parameters.MethodsThe data from nine clinical studies (a total of 1624 women) were included in the analysis: five phase I studies in healthy, premenopausal women and four phase III studies in premenopausal women with endometriosis.ResultsElagolix population pharmacokinetics were best described by a two-compartment model with a lag time in absorption. Of the 15 covariates tested for effect on elagolix apparent clearance (CL/F) and/or volume of distribution only one covariate, organic anion transporting polypeptide (OATP) 1B1 genotype status, had a statistically significant, but not clinically meaningful, effect on elagolix CL/F.ConclusionElagolix pharmacokinetics were not affected by patient demographics and were similar between healthy women and women with endometriosis.Clinical Trial Registration Numbers NCT01403038, NCT01620528, NCT01760954, NCT01931670, NCT02143713.

The aim of these studies was to assess the safety and pharmacokinetics of elagolix, an oral nonpeptide gonadotropin-releasing hormone antagonist following oral administration in women with renal or hepatic impairment. Two phase 1 studies were conducted in adult women with normal renal function versus renal impairment (reduced study), and normal hepatic function versus hepatic impairment (full study design). All women received a single dose of elagolix 200 mg (renal) or 150 mg (hepatic). Intensive pharmacokinetic blood samples were collected. Elagolix exposures were comparable in women with normal renal function and those with moderate/severe renal impairment or end-stage renal disease. Elagolix exposures also appeared to be similar in women with normal hepatic function and women with mild hepatic impairment. Elagolix area under the curve in women with moderate hepatic impairment and with severe hepatic impairment was approximately 3-fold and 7-fold higher than in women with normal hepatic function. The adverse event incidence was low, with the main events being mild nausea and headache. No dosage adjustment was needed in women with renal impairment or women with mild hepatic impairment. Although an elagolix dose of 150 mg once daily may be used in women with moderate hepatic impairment for up to 6 months, this elagolix dose should not be used in women with severe hepatic impairment.

PURPOSE:The objective of the current analyses was to characterize the pharmacokinetic properties of atrasentan and the exposure-response relationships for the efficacy end point, urinary albumin to creatinine ratio (UACR), and the treatment-emergent adverse event, peripheral edema, during 8 or 12 weeks of treatment.METHODS:Results from 3 Phase II, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies (N = 257) were used for the population pharmacokinetic and exposure-response models. Concentration-time and response data for efficacy and tolerability were analyzed using a nonlinear mixed-effects population analysis and logistic regression approaches.FINDINGS:The pharmacokinetic data were adequately described by a 2-compartment model with first-order absorption and elimination. After weight was accounted for, no clinically meaningful differences were found in CL/F or Vd/F of the central compartment between Western and Japanese patients. Exposure-response analyses confirmed the efficacy of atrasentan in reducing UACR, with an estimated decrease in UACR of ≥37% when the atrasentan dose was 0.75 mg or higher. No significant association between atrasentan exposure and the rate of edema was identified at atrasentan doses of 0.5, 0.75, and 1.25 mg. The rates of peripheral edema were comparable in patients receiving active treatment and placebo.IMPLICATIONS:The exposure-response relationships for efficacy and tolerability were consistent between Western and Japanese patients. On the basis of these analyses, a dose of 0.75 mg/d was selected for the Phase III trial. ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT01356849, NCT01399580, and NCT01424319.

Context: Elagolix is a nonpeptide, oral gonadotropin-releasing hormone (GnRH) antagonist being developed for sex-hormone-dependent diseases in women.Objective: We evaluated the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of elagolix.Design, Setting, and Participants: This study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multiple-ascending dose study in 45 healthy premenopausal women at a research unit.Interventions: Elagolix [150 mg once daily or 100, 200, 300, or 400 mg twice daily (BID)] or placebo was administered for 21 days.Main Outcome Measures: Main outcome measures were elagolix pharmacokinetics, suppression of gonadotropics [follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinizing hormone (LH)] and ovarian hormones [estradiol (E2), progesterone (P)], and adverse events.Results: Elagolix was rapidly absorbed after oral dosing, reaching maximum concentrations at 1.0 to 1.5 hours, with a half-life of 4 to 6 hours. FSH, LH, and E2 were suppressed within hours of elagolix administration on day 1. Dose-dependent suppression of E2 was observed, with maximum suppression achieved with elagolix 200mgBID. Dose-dependent suppression of FSH and LH was also observed, with maximal or near-maximal suppression achieved at 300 mg BID and 200 mg BID, respectively. At elagolix doses >= 100 mg BID, P concentrations remained at anovulatory levels throughout 21 days of dosing. The most frequently reported adverse events were headache and hot flush.Conclusions: Elagolix administration allows for modulation of gonadotropin and ovarian hormone concentrations, from partial suppression at lower doses to nearly full suppression at higher doses. The results of this study provide a rationale for elagolix dose selection for treatment of sex hormone-dependent diseases in women.

ABSTRACTLopinavir-ritonavir is frequently prescribed to HIV-1-infected women during pregnancy. Decreased lopinavir exposure has been reported during pregnancy, but the clinical significance of this reduction is uncertain. This analysis aimed to evaluate the need for lopinavir dose adjustment during pregnancy. We conducted a population pharmacokinetic analysis of lopinavir and ritonavir concentrations collected from 84 pregnant and 595 nonpregnant treatment-naive and -experienced HIV-1-infected subjects enrolled in six clinical studies. Lopinavir-ritonavir doses in the studies ranged between 400/100 and 600/150 mg twice daily. In addition, linear mixed-effect analysis was used to compare the area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 12 h (AUC0–12) and concentration prior to dosing (Cpredose) in pregnant women and nonpregnant subjects. The relationship between lopinavir exposure and virologic suppression in pregnant women and nonpregnant subjects was evaluated. Population pharmacokinetic analysis estimated 17% higher lopinavir clearance in pregnant women than in nonpregnant subjects. Lopinavir clearance values postpartum were 26.4% and 37.1% lower than in nonpregnant subjects and pregnant women, respectively. As the tablet formulation was estimated to be 20% more bioavailable than the capsule formulation, no statistically significant differences between lopinavir exposure in pregnant women receiving the tablet formulation and nonpregnant subjects receiving the capsule formulation were identified. In the range of lopinavir AUC0–12orCpredosevalues observed in the third trimester, there was no correlation between lopinavir exposure and viral load or proportion of subjects with virologic suppression. Similar efficacy was observed between pregnant women and nonpregnant subjects receiving lopinavir-ritonavir at 400/100 mg twice daily. The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic results support the use of a lopinavir-ritonavir 400/100-mg twice-daily dose during pregnancy.

BACKGROUND:A novel ritonavir oral powder formulation has been developed to eliminate the alcohol and propylene glycol contents in the current ritonavir oral solution for paediatric use. Two clinical studies were conducted to assess the bioequivalence of the powder formulation to the marketed oral solution and to evaluate the effect of food and vehicles on bioavailability.METHODS:Study 1 was a randomized, partial-crossover, 4-period study in 48 subjects. Regimens included: oral solution under moderate-fat conditions, powder formulation in water under fasting, moderate-fat or high-fat conditions, and powder formulation in chocolate milk or pudding under moderate-fat conditions. Study 2 was a randomized, crossover, 4-period study in 24 subjects. Subjects were randomized to a sequence of the oral solution and powder formulation in water, infant formula and apple sauce, all under moderate-fat conditions. Bioavailability comparisons were assessed by the 90% CIs for the geometric least-squares mean ratios.RESULTS:Ritonavir powder formulation in water was found to be bioequivalent to the marketed oral solution. Ritonavir powder formulation administered in chocolate milk, pudding, infant formula or apple sauce was bioequivalent to the powder formulation administered in water. Compared with fasting conditions, moderate-fat and high-fat meals were associated with approximately 25-40% and 35-50% reduction in ritonavir concentrations, respectively.CONCLUSIONS:The novel ritonavir powder formulation is bioequivalent to marketed ritonavir oral solution under moderate-fat conditions with a similar effect of meals. None of the vehicles tested negatively affected the bioavailability, which suggests the potential for use of a broad range of vehicles for dose preparation.

Paricalcitol injection and capsules are approved for the prevention and treatment of secondary hyperparathyroidism. Exposure‐response analyses were performed to describe paricalcitol pharmacokinetics and the relationship to clinical responses (intact parathyroid hormone [iPTH], serum calcium, and phosphorus) following administration of paricalcitol capsules or injection to patients with chronic kidney disease (stage 5). Paricalcitol pharmacokinetics were similar following intravenous and oral administration with mean oral clearance of 1.75 L/h and bioavailability of 75.1%. Exposure—clinical response was best described by an indirect effects model where serum iPTH, calcium, and phosphorus production rates were directly affected by paricalcitol. Significant covariates in the response model included screening iPTH, calcium, and phosphorus on their corresponding synthesis rates; age on iPTH EC50; and bone—specific alkaline phosphatase on calcium EC50 (CRIT). This exposure‐response model was used in extensive clinical trial simulations to assess alternative dose regimens for CKD stage 5 patients.

A study was conducted in healthy adults (n = 19) to evaluate the pharmacokinetics of lopinavir/ritonavir when coadministered with efavirenz. Participants were administered lopinavir/ritonavir 400/100 mg alone twice daily (bid) from the morning of day 1 through the morning of day 10, and then lopinavir/ritonavir 500/125 mg bid was coadministered with efavirenz 600 mg every evening (qhs) from the evening of day 10 through day 20. Lopinavir and ritonavir exposures when administered alone versus with efavirenz were determined on days 10 and 20 and compared using point estimates and 90% confidence intervals. The point estimates for the ratios of lopinavir maximum observed plasma concentration (Cmax), plasma concentration prior to morning dosing (Ctrough), and area under the plasma concentration‐time curve over a dosing interval (AUC12) were 1.121, 0.954, and 1.060, respectively. The lopinavir/ritonavir dose of 500/125 mg bid administered with efavirenz most closely approximates the pharmacokinetic exposure of lopinavir/ritonavir 400/100 mg bid administered alone.

Previous studies have demonstrated that lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy maintained plasma HIV-1 RNA suppression in a large proportion of antiretroviral naive subjects. However, more subjects receiving lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy experienced confirmed virologic rebound > 50 copies/ml compared to a standard three-drug HAART regimen. In this study, we sought to determine the factors associated with maintenance of virologic suppression in subjects receiving lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy. Antiretroviral-naive HIV-1-infected volunteers were randomized 2: 1 to initiate a lopinavir/ritonavir-based combination regimen followed by simplification to lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy or an efavirenz-based triple combination therapy and followed for 96 weeks. Potential predictors of time to loss of virologic response included baseline demographics, baseline HIV-1 RNA levels, baseline CD4(+) T cell counts, adherence as determined by 4-day subject recall, duration of HIV-1 RNA < 50 copies/ml prior to simplification, and lopinavir concentrations. By the Cox proportional hazards model, higher reported adherence levels and higher baseline CD4(+) T cell counts were associated with a greater likelihood of maintaining virologic suppression while receiving lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy. Lopinavir concentrations, including trough concentrations, were not significantly associated with virologic outcomes. This analysis suggests that adherence and higher baseline CD4(+) T cell counts may help to predict who will sustain virologic suppression with lopinavir/ritonavir monotherapy. The data also suggest that measuring lopinavir concentrations is not useful in predicting virologic response in these patients.

A total of 71 HIV‐negative healthy adults were randomized to 1 of 6 regimens to receive lopinavir/ritonavir tablets 400/100 mg twice daily (bid) or 800/200 mg once daily (qd) or atazanavir 300 mg + ritonavir 100 mg qd from study days 1 to 15 with a moderate‐fat meal. One hour before breakfast, either omeprazole 40 mg qd was administered on study days 11 through 15, or a single dose of ranitidine 150 mg was administered on study day 11. Lopinavir, atazanavir, and ritonavir pharmacokinetics were determined on study days 10, 11, and 15 and compared using point estimates and 90% confidence intervals (CIs). The point estimates for lopinavir Cmax and AUCτ were in the range of 0.92 to 1.08, with 90% CI contained within the range of 0.80 to 1.25 after coadministration of omeprazole or ranitidine. The point estimates for atazanavir Cmax and AUCτ were decreased by 48% to 62% with the upper bound of the 90% CI 0.55 after coadministration of omeprazole or ranitidine. The results indicated that lopinavir bioavailability was not affected by the coadministration of omeprazole or ranitidine. In contrast, atazanavir bioavailability was decreased by 48% to 62% when coadministered with ritonavir and either omeprazole or ranitidine.