-
1.
Evaluation of Potential Drug-Drug Interaction Risk of Pexidartinib With Substrates of Cytochrome P450 and P-Glycoprotein.
Zahir, H, Kobayashi, F, Zamora, C, Gajee, R, Gordon, MS, Babiker, HM, Wang, Q, Greenberg, J, Wagner, AJ
Journal of clinical pharmacology. 2021;(3):298-306
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
Pexidartinib is approved for treatment of adults with symptomatic tenosynovial giant cell tumor. In vitro data showed pexidartinib's potential to inhibit and induce cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A, inhibit CYP2C9, CYP2C19 and P-glycoprotein (P-gp). Herein, 2 open-label, single-sequence, crossover studies evaluated the drug-drug interaction potential of pexidartinib on CYP enzymes (CYP2C9, CYP2C19, and CYP3A) and P-gp. Thirty-two subjects received single oral doses of midazolam (CYP3A substrate) and tolbutamide (CYP2C9 substrate) alone and after single and multiple oral doses of pexidartinib. Twenty subjects received single oral doses of omeprazole (CYP2C19 substrate) and digoxin (P-gp substrate) alone or with pexidartinib. Analysis of variance was conducted to determine the effect of pexidartinib on various substrates' pharmacokinetics. No drug-drug interaction was concluded if the 90% confidence interval of the ratio of test to reference was within the range 80% to 125%. Coadministration of single and multiple doses of pexidartinib resulted in 21% and 52% decreases, respectively, in the area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to the last measurable time point (AUClast ) of midazolam, whereas AUClast values of tolbutamide increased 15% and 36%, respectively. Omeprazole exposure decreased on concurrent administration with pexidartinib, the metabolite-to-parent ratio was similar following omeprazole administration alone vs coadministration with pexidartinib; pexidartinib did not affect CYP2C19-mediated metabolism. Maximum plasma concentrations of digoxin slightly increased (32%) with pexidartinib coadministration; no significant effect on digoxin AUClast . These results indicate that pexidartinib is a moderate inducer of CYP3A and a weak inhibitor of CYP2C9 and does not significantly affect CYP2C19-mediated metabolism or P-gp transport.
-
2.
Maintenance for healed erosive esophagitis: Phase III comparison of vonoprazan with lansoprazole.
Ashida, K, Iwakiri, K, Hiramatsu, N, Sakurai, Y, Hori, T, Kudou, K, Nishimura, A, Umegaki, E
World journal of gastroenterology. 2018;(14):1550-1561
Abstract
AIM: To compare vonoprazan 10 and 20 mg vs lansoprazole 15 mg as maintenance therapy in healed erosive esophagitis (EE). METHODS A total of 607 patients aged ≥ 20 years, with endoscopically-confirmed healed EE following 8 wk of treatment with vonoprazan 20 mg once daily, were randomized 1:1:1 to receive lansoprazole 15 mg (n = 201), vonoprazan 10 mg (n = 202), or vonoprazan 20 mg (n = 204), once daily. The primary endpoint of the study was the rate of endoscopically-confirmed EE recurrence during a 24-wk maintenance period. The secondary endpoint was the EE recurrence rate at Week 12 during maintenance treatment. Additional efficacy endpoints included the incidence of heartburn and acid reflux, and the EE healing rate 4 wk after the initiation of maintenance treatment. Safety endpoints comprised adverse events (AEs), vital signs, electrocardiogram findings, clinical laboratory results, serum gastrin and pepsinogen I/II levels, and gastric mucosa histopathology results. RESULTS Rates of EE recurrence during the 24-wk maintenance period were 16.8%, 5.1%, and 2.0% with lansoprazole 15 mg, vonoprazan 10 mg, and vonoprazan 20 mg, respectively. Vonoprazan was shown to be non-inferior to lansoprazole 15 mg (P < 0.0001 for both doses). In a post-hoc analysis, EE recurrence at Week 24 was significantly reduced with vonoprazan at both the 10 mg and the 20 mg dose vs lansoprazole 15 mg (5.1% vs 16.8%, P = 0.0002, and 2.0% vs 16.8%, P < 0.0001, respectively); by contrast, the EE recurrence rate did not differ significantly between the two doses of vonoprazan (P = 0.1090). The safety profiles of vonoprazan 10 and 20 mg were similar to that of lansoprazole 15 mg in patients with healed EE. Treatment-related AEs were reported in 11.4%, 10.4%, and 10.3% of patients in the lansoprazole 15 mg, vonoprazan 10 mg, and vonoprazan 20 mg arms, respectively. CONCLUSION Our findings confirm the non-inferiority of vonoprazan 10 and 20 mg to lansoprazole 15 mg as maintenance therapy for patients with healed EE.
-
3.
Cytokeratin-18 fragments predict treatment response and overall survival in gastric cancer in a randomized controlled trial.
Nagel, M, Schulz, J, Maderer, A, Goepfert, K, Gehrke, N, Thomaidis, T, Thuss-Patience, PC, Al-Batran, SE, Hegewisch-Becker, S, Grimminger, P, et al
Tumour biology : the journal of the International Society for Oncodevelopmental Biology and Medicine. 2018;(3):1010428318764007
Abstract
BACKGROUND Gastric cancer is common malignancy and exhibits a poor prognosis. At the time of diagnosis, the majority of patients present with metastatic disease which precludes curative treatment. Non-invasive biomarkers which discriminate early from advanced stages or predict the response to treatment are urgently required. This study explored the cytokeratin-18 fragment M30 and full-length cytokeratin-18 M65 in predicting treatment response and survival in a randomized, placebo-controlled trial of advanced gastric cancer. METHODS Patients enrolled in the SUN-CASE study received sunitinib or placebo as an adjunct to standard therapy with leucovorin (Ca-folinate), 5-fluorouracil, and irinotecan in second or third line. Treatment response rates, progression-free survival and overall survival were assessed during a follow-up period of 12 months. Cytokeratin-18 fragments were analyzed in 52 patients at baseline and day 14 of therapy. RESULTS Levels of M30 correlated with the presence of metastasis and lymph node involvement and decreased significantly during chemotherapy. Importantly, baseline levels of M30 were significantly higher in patients who failed therapy. In addition, patients who did not respond to treatment were also identifiable at day 14 based on elevated M30 levels. By stepwise regression analysis, M30 at day 14 was identified as independent predictor of treatment response. Likewise, serum levels of full-length cytokeratin-18 M65 at baseline also correlated with treatment failure and progression-free survival. The addition of sunitinib did not exert any effects on serum levels of M30 or M65. CONCLUSION The cytokeratin-18 fragment M30 at day 14 identifies patients that fail to second- or third-line therapy for advanced gastric cancer. Validation of this non-invasive biomarker in gastric cancer is warranted.
-
4.
Pharmacokinetic Drug-Drug Interactions Between Vonoprazan and Low-Dose Aspirin or Nonsteroidal Anti-inflammatory Drugs: A Phase 2, Open-Label, Study in Healthy Japanese Men.
Sakurai, Y, Shiino, M, Horii, S, Okamoto, H, Nakamura, K, Nishimura, A, Sakata, Y
Clinical drug investigation. 2017;(1):39-49
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Gastroprotective agents are recommended for patients receiving low-dose aspirin (LDA) or nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs). Vonoprazan is a potassium-competitive acid blocker recently approved for the prevention of peptic ulcer recurrence in patients receiving LDA or NSAIDs. METHODS This phase 2, open-label, single-center study in healthy Japanese males evaluated drug-drug interactions between vonoprazan 40 mg and LDA (100 mg) or NSAIDs [loxoprofen sodium (60 mg), diclofenac sodium (25 mg), or meloxicam (10 mg)] and vice versa. Subjects were allocated to one of eight cohorts and received their orally administered treatment regimen (to assess the effect of vonoprazan vs. NSAID or LDA, or vice versa) once daily. Endpoints were the pharmacokinetics of plasma concentrations of the study drugs alone and in combination (primary), safety (secondary), and vonoprazan effects on aspirin-mediated inhibition of platelet-aggregation. RESULTS Of 109 subjects screened, 64 were assigned to one of eight cohorts (n = 8 per cohort) and received treatment, one subject discontinued due to a treatment-emergent adverse event (TEAE), and 63 completed the study. There were few differences in the pharmacokinetics of vonoprazan when administered with LDA or NSAIDs, and few differences in the pharmacokinetics of LDA or NSAIDs when administered with vonoprazan. The differences were small and not clinically meaningful. Inhibition of arachidonic-induced platelet aggregation by LDA was not influenced by vonoprazan. Six patients experienced a TEAE, all were mild and were deemed unrelated to study drugs. One subject withdrew due to infection (tonsillitis). CONCLUSIONS No clinically meaningful drug-drug interactions were observed and vonoprazan was well tolerated when administered with LDA or NSAIDs. STUDY REGISTRATION JapicCTI-153100.
-
5.
Sunitinib added to FOLFIRI versus FOLFIRI in patients with chemorefractory advanced adenocarcinoma of the stomach or lower esophagus: a randomized, placebo-controlled phase II AIO trial with serum biomarker program.
Moehler, M, Gepfner-Tuma, I, Maderer, A, Thuss-Patience, PC, Ruessel, J, Hegewisch-Becker, S, Wilke, H, Al-Batran, SE, Rafiyan, MR, Weißinger, F, et al
BMC cancer. 2016;(1):699
Abstract
BACKGROUND As a multi-targeted anti-angiogenic receptor tyrosine kinase (RTK) inhibitor sunitinib (SUN) has been established for renal cancer and gastrointestinal stromal tumors. In advanced refractory esophagogastric cancer patients, monotherapy with SUN was associated with good tolerability but limited tumor response. METHODS This double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter, phase II clinical trial was conducted to evaluate the efficacy, safety and tolerability of SUN as an adjunct to second and third-line FOLFIRI (NCT01020630). Patients were randomized to receive 6-week cycles including FOLFIRI plus sodium folinate (Na-FOLFIRI) once every two weeks and SUN or placebo (PL) continuously for four weeks followed by a 2-week rest period. The primary study endpoint was progression-free survival (PFS). Preplanned serum analyses of VEGF-A, VEGF-D, VEGFR2 and SDF-1α were performed retrospectively. RESULTS Overall, 91 patients were randomized, 45 in each group (one patient withdrew). The main grade ≥3 AEs were neutropenia and leucopenia, observed in 56 %/20 % and 27 %/16 % for FOLFIRI + SUN/FOLFIRI + PL, respectively. Median PFS was similar, 3.5 vs. 3.3 months (hazard ratio (HR) 1.11, 95 % CI 0.70-1.74, P = 0.66) for FOLFIRI + SUN vs. FOLFIRI + PL, respectively. For FOLFIRI + SUN, a trend towards longer median overall survival (OS) compared with placebo was observed (10.4 vs. 8.9 months, HR 0.82, 95 % CI 0.50-1.34, one-sided P = 0.21). In subgroup serum analyses, significant changes in VEGF-A (P = 0.017), VEGFR2 (P = 0.012) and VEGF-D (P < 0.001) serum levels were observed. CONCLUSIONS Although sunitinib combined with FOLFIRI did not improve PFS and response in chemotherapy-resistant gastric cancer, a trend towards better OS was observed. Further biomarker-driven studies with other anti-angiogenic RTK inhibitors are warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION This study was registered prospectively in the NCT Clinical Trials Registry (ClinicalTrials.gov) under NCT01020630 on November 23, 2009 after approval by the leading ethics committee of the Medical Association of Rhineland-Palatinate, Mainz, in coordination with the participating ethics committees (see Additional file 2) on September 16, 2009.
-
6.
Vonoprazan prevents bleeding from endoscopic submucosal dissection-induced gastric ulcers.
Kagawa, T, Iwamuro, M, Ishikawa, S, Ishida, M, Kuraoka, S, Sasaki, K, Sakakihara, I, Izumikawa, K, Yamamoto, K, Takahashi, S, et al
Alimentary pharmacology & therapeutics. 2016;(6):583-91
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
BACKGROUND Vonoprazan, a potassium-competitive acid blocker, is expected to improve the healing of endoscopic submucosal dissection (ESD)-induced gastric ulcers compared with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). AIM: To compare the healing status of ESD-induced gastric ulcers and the incidence of post-ESD bleeding between subjects treated with vonoprazan for 5 weeks and those treated with PPIs for 8 weeks. METHODS Patients in the vonoprazan group (n = 75) were prospectively enrolled, whereas patients in the PPI group (n = 150) were selected for a 2:1 matched historical control cohort according to baseline characteristics including gastric ulcer size immediately following ESD, age, sex and status of Helicobacter pylori infection. Two controls per case of vonoprazan-treated group were matched with a margin of 20% in terms of ulcer size and a margin of 5 years in terms of their age. RESULTS Although a higher number of completely healed ulcers was observed in the PPI group (95/150, 63.3%) than that in the vonoprazan group (14/75, 18.7%; P < 0.001), the ulcer size reduction rates, which were 96.0 ± 6.7% in the vonoprazan group and 94.7 ± 11.6% in the PPI group, were not significantly different (P = 0.373). The post-ESD bleeding incidence in the vonoprazan group (1/75, 1.3%) was less than that in the PPI group (15/150, 10.0%; P = 0.01). The factors affecting post-ESD bleeding incidence were the type of acid secretion inhibitor (P = 0.016) and use of an anti-thrombotic agent (P = 0.014). CONCLUSION Vonoprazan significantly reduced post-endoscopic submucosal dissection bleeding compared with PPIs.
-
7.
SWITCH: A Randomised, Sequential, Open-label Study to Evaluate the Efficacy and Safety of Sorafenib-sunitinib Versus Sunitinib-sorafenib in the Treatment of Metastatic Renal Cell Cancer.
Eichelberg, C, Vervenne, WL, De Santis, M, Fischer von Weikersthal, L, Goebell, PJ, Lerchenmüller, C, Zimmermann, U, Bos, MM, Freier, W, Schirrmacher-Memmel, S, et al
European urology. 2015;(5):837-47
Abstract
BACKGROUND Understanding how to sequence targeted therapies for metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC) is important for maximisation of clinical benefit. OBJECTIVES To prospectively evaluate sequential use of the multikinase inhibitors sorafenib followed by sunitinib (So-Su) versus sunitinib followed by sorafenib (Su-So) in patients with mRCC. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The multicentre, randomised, open-label, phase 3 SWITCH study assessed So-Su versus Su-So in patients with mRCC without prior systemic therapy, and stratified by Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center risk score (favourable or intermediate). INTERVENTION Patients were randomised to sorafenib 400mg twice daily followed, on progression or intolerable toxicity, by sunitinib 50mg once daily (4 wk on, 2 wk off) (So-Su), or vice versa (Su-So). OUTCOME MEASUREMENTS AND STATISTICAL ANALYSIS The primary endpoint was improvement in progression-free survival (PFS) with So-Su versus Su-So, assessed from randomisation to progression or death during second-line therapy. Secondary endpoints included overall survival (OS) and safety. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS In total, 365 patients were randomised (So-Su, n=182; Su-So, n=183). There was no significant difference in total PFS between So-Su and Su-So (median 12.5 vs 14.9 mo; hazard ratio [HR] 1.01; 90% confidence interval [CI] 0.81-1.27; p=0.5 for superiority). OS was similar for So-Su and Su-So (median 31.5 and 30.2 mo; HR 1.00, 90% CI 0.77-1.30; p=0.5 for superiority). More So-Su patients than Su-So patients reached protocol-defined second-line therapy (57% vs 42%). Overall, adverse event rates were generally similar between the treatment arms. The most frequent any-grade treatment-emergent first-line adverse events were diarrhoea (54%) and hand-foot skin reaction (39%) for sorafenib; and diarrhoea (40%) and fatigue (40%) for sunitinib. CONCLUSIONS Total PFS was not superior with So-Su versus Su-So. These results demonstrate that sorafenib followed by sunitinib and vice versa provide similar clinical benefit in mRCC. PATIENT SUMMARY We investigated if total progression-free survival (PFS) is improved in patients with advanced/metastatic kidney cancer who are treated with sorafenib and then with sunitinib (So-Su), compared with sunitinib and then sorafenib (Su-So). We found that total PFS was not improved with So-Su compared with Su-So, but both treatment options were similarly effective in patients with advanced/metastatic kidney cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov identifier NCT00732914, www.clinicaltrials.gov.
-
8.
Changes in LDL particle concentrations after treatment with the cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor anacetrapib alone or in combination with atorvastatin.
Krauss, RM, Pinto, CA, Liu, Y, Johnson-Levonas, AO, Dansky, HM
Journal of clinical lipidology. 2015;(1):93-102
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
OBJECTIVES Our aim was to assess the effects of the cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) inhibitor anacetrapib and atorvastatin, both as monotherapy and in combination, on particle concentrations of low-density lipoproteins (LDL), very low-density lipoproteins (VLDL), and intermediate-density lipoproteins in dyslipidemic patients. BACKGROUND Although increases in high-density lipoproteins with CETP inhibition are well-documented, effects on atherogenic lipoprotein particle subclasses in dyslipidemic patients have not been extensively characterized. METHODS Ion mobility was performed on stored plasma samples collected from patients before and after treatment with anacetrapib alone (150 and 300 mg/d) or in combination with atorvastatin (20 mg/d) in a previously conducted 8-week phase IIb study. RESULTS Anacetrapib produced significant placebo-adjusted reductions of total LDL particles and all subfractions except for increases in very small LDL 4a and 4b. Atorvastatin reduced all LDL subfractions except LDL 4b. Results were generally additive for anacetrapib + atorvastatin. For patients treated with anacetrapib, the placebo-adjusted reduction in LDL 3a was attenuated and there was an increase in LDL 3b and 4a for those with low vs high triglyceride (TG) levels. For the atorvastatin alone vs placebo treatment comparison, there were small reductions in LDL 3a, 3b, and 4a for those with low vs high TG levels. CONCLUSIONS Anacetrapib and atorvastatin produced similar reductions from baseline in total LDL particles, but did not have comparable effects on all LDL particle subfractions, and neither drug reduced the smallest LDL 4b particles. The clinical significance of these changes and the differential effects on very small LDL 4a in patients with higher vs lower TG remain to be determined (clinicaltrials.gov, NCT00325455).
-
9.
Efficacy and safety of tofacitinib as monotherapy in Japanese patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: a 12-week, randomized, phase 2 study.
Tanaka, Y, Takeuchi, T, Yamanaka, H, Nakamura, H, Toyoizumi, S, Zwillich, S
Modern rheumatology. 2015;(4):514-21
-
-
Free full text
-
Abstract
OBJECTIVES To evaluate oral tofacitinib versus placebo for treatment of active rheumatoid arthritis in Japanese patients with inadequate response to disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs. METHODS In this double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, parallel-group, 12-week, phase 2 study (clinicaltrials.gov NCT00687193), 317 patients received tofacitinib: 1, 3, 5, 10, or 15 mg as monotherapy or placebo twice daily (BID). PRIMARY ENDPOINT response rate by American College of Rheumatology (ACR) ≥ 20% improvement criteria (ACR20) at week 12. RESULTS ACR20 response rates: 37.7% (20/53), 67.9% (36/53), 73.1% (38/52), 84.9% (45/53), and 90.7% (49/54) with tofacitinib: 1, 3, 5, 10, and 15 mg BID, respectively, versus 15.4% (8/52) with placebo (p < 0.01; all doses). Dose-dependent ACR20 responses with tofacitinib versus placebo occurred from week 2 onward (p < 0.05). Changes from baseline in 28-joint disease activity score using erythrocyte sedimentation rate improved with tofacitinib versus placebo from week 4 (p < 0.01; all doses). Six tofacitinib patients experienced treatment-related serious adverse events (AEs). Most common treatment-emergent AEs: nasopharyngitis (10% vs 12%) and hyperlipidemia (5% vs 0%). Serum creatinine, hemoglobin, and total-, low-, and high-density lipoprotein-cholesterol levels increased with tofacitinib. CONCLUSIONS Tofacitinib produced dose-dependent ACR20 responses and reduced disease activity. The safety profile was consistent with that reported from global monotherapy trials.
-
10.
Efficacy and safety of alirocumab as add-on therapy in high-cardiovascular-risk patients with hypercholesterolemia not adequately controlled with atorvastatin (20 or 40 mg) or rosuvastatin (10 or 20 mg): design and rationale of the ODYSSEY OPTIONS Studies.
Robinson, JG, Colhoun, HM, Bays, HE, Jones, PH, Du, Y, Hanotin, C, Donahue, S
Clinical cardiology. 2014;(10):597-604
Abstract
The phase 3 ODYSSEY OPTIONS studies (OPTIONS I, NCT01730040; OPTIONS II, NCT01730053) are multicenter, multinational, randomized, double-blind, active-comparator, 24-week studies evaluating the efficacy and safety of alirocumab, a fully human monoclonal antibody targeting proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9, as add-on therapy in ∼ 650 high-cardiovascular (CV)-risk patients whose low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels are ≥100 mg/dL or ≥70 mg/dL according to the CV-risk category, high and very high CV risk, respectively, with atorvastatin (20-40 mg/d) or rosuvastatin (10-20 mg/d). Patients are randomized to receive alirocumab 75 mg via a single, subcutaneous, 1-mL injection by prefilled pen every 2 weeks (Q2W) as add-on therapy to atorvastatin (20-40 mg) or rosuvastatin (10-20 mg); or to receive ezetimibe 10 mg/d as add-on therapy to statin; or to receive statin up-titration; or to switch from atorvastatin to rosuvastatin (OPTIONS I only). At week 12, based on week 8 LDL-C levels, the alirocumab dose may be increased from 75 mg to 150 mg Q2W if LDL-C levels remain ≥100 mg/dL or ≥70 mg/dL in patients with high or very high CV risk, respectively. The primary efficacy endpoint in both studies is difference in percent change in calculated LDL-C from baseline to week 24 in the alirocumab vs control arms. The studies may provide guidance to inform clinical decision-making when patients with CV risk require additional lipid-lowering therapy to further reduce LDL-C levels. The flexibility of the alirocumab dosing regimen allows for individualized therapy based on the degree of LDL-C reduction required to achieve the desired LDL-C level.