Pharmacokinetics and safety of nifedipine GITS/candesartan fixed-dose combination in subjects with hepatic impairment
.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles and safety of nifedipine and candesartan after a single oral dose of nifedipine gastrointestinal therapeutic system (GITS) 30 mg/candesartan cilexetil 8 mg (N30/C8 mg) fixed-dose combination (FDC) in adults with mild to moderate hepatic impairment. METHODS: A phase I, single-center, non-randomized, non-controlled, non-blinded, observational study (N = 32). PK profiles for nifedipine and candesartan were assessed in patients with mild (Child-Pugh A; group 1) or moderate (Child-Pugh B; group 2) hepatic impairment and compared with age- and gender-matched healthy controls (groups 3 and 4) following a single dose of N30/C8 FDC. Safety and tolerability were assessed throughout the study. RESULTS: On average, area under the plasma concentration vs. time curves (AUC) for nifedipine increased 93% and 253% in mild and moderate hepatic impairment, while maximum plasma concentrations (Cmax) increased 64% and 171%, respectively. AUC values for candesartan increased 19% and 92%, while Cmax values increased 3% and 11%, respectively. In subjects with or without liver impairment, adverse event rates were similar and consistent with the known side-effect profiles of nifedipine GITS and candesartan as monotherapies. CONCLUSIONS: Careful monitoring, and, if necessary, dose adjustment according to response and tolerability may be required for nifedipine GITS/candesartan FDC in patients with mild and moderate hepatic impairment.
.

Investigation of bioequivalence of a new fixed-dose combination of nifedipine and candesartan with the corresponding loose combination as well as the drug-drug interaction potential between both drugs under fasting conditions.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the bioequivalence of a nifedipine and candesartan fixed-dose combination (FDC) with the corresponding loose combination, and to investigate the pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction potential between both drugs. METHODS: 49 healthy, white, male subjects received: 60 mg nifedipine and 32 mg candesartan FDC, the loose combination of 60 mg nifedipine GITS and 32 mg candesartan, 60 mg nifedipine GITS alone, or 32 mg candesartan alone in a randomized, non-blinded, 4-period, 4-way crossover design with each dosing following overnight fasting. Treatment periods were separated by washout periods of ≥ 5 days. Plasma samples were collected for 48 hours after dosing and assayed using a validated LC-MS/MS method. RESULTS: Bioequivalence between the FDC and the loose combination as well as the impact of combined treatment with both drugs on candesartan pharmacokinetics was evaluated in 47 subjects, while the corresponding impact of treatment with both drugs on nifedipine pharmacokinetics was assessed in 46 patients. For AUC(0-tlast) and Cmax the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the ratios of the FDC vs. the corresponding loose combination were within the acceptance range for bioequivalence of 80 - 125%. When comparing AUC(0-tlast) and Cmax of nifedipine and candesartan after dosing with the loose combination vs. each drug alone, the 90% CIs remained within the range of 80 - 125% indicating the absence of a clinically relevant pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction. Nifedipine and candesartan as well as the combinations were well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: The FDC containing 60 mg nifedipine and 32 mg candesartan was bioequivalent to the corresponding loose combination following single oral doses under fasting conditions. No clinically relevant pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction between nifedipine and candesartan was observed.

Phase I trial to investigate the safety, pharmacokinetics and efficacy of sorafenib combined with docetaxel in patients with advanced refractory solid tumours.

AIM: The safety, pharmacokinetics and efficacy of sorafenib plus docetaxel in patients with advanced refractory cancer were investigated in a phase I, dose-escalation trial. METHODS: Twenty-seven patients in four cohorts received docetaxel on day 1 (cohorts 1 and 4: 75 mg/m2; cohorts 2 and 3: 100 mg/m2) plus sorafenib on days 2-19 (cohorts 1 and 2: 200 mg twice-daily (bid); cohorts 3 and 4: 400 mg bid) in 21-day cycles. RESULTS: Most common adverse events (AEs) (grade 3-5) included neutropenia (89%), leucopaenia (81%), hand-foot skin reaction (30%) and fatigue (30%). The most common drug-related AEs leading to dose reduction/interruption or permanent discontinuation were dermatologic (41%), gastrointestinal (26%) and constitutional (22%). Coadministration of sorafenib altered the pharmacokinetics of docetaxel. On average, docetaxel area under the concentration-time curve (AUC)(0-24) increased by 5% (cohort 1), 54% (cohort 2), 36% (Cohort 3) and 80% (cohort 4) with docetaxel plus sorafenib, while C(max) increased by 16-32%, independent of sorafenib/docetaxel doses. Three of 25 evaluable patients (11%) had partial responses; 14 (52%) had stable disease. CONCLUSION: Dose-limiting dermatologic AEs were more common than expected for either therapy alone. A starting dose of docetaxel 75 mg/m2 plus sorafenib 400mg bid (with dose reductions for dermatological toxicities) is proposed for phase II.

Phase I trial of sorafenib in combination with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin in advanced solid tumors.

This dose escalation, uncontrolled phase I study evaluated the tolerability, pharmacokinetics (PK), and antitumor activity of oral sorafenib 100, 200, or 400 mg twice daily (bid, continuous regimen) in combination with 5-fluorouracil/leucovorin (5-FU/LCV, intravenous infusion or bolus) in patients with advanced, solid tumors. A total of 47 patients (median age 57 years; colon cancer, 55%; pancreatic cancer, 21%; prior systemic therapy, 96%) received treatment; 24 were included in the PK analyses, and 38 were evaluable for tumor response. Treatment-emergent adverse events were observed in 98% of patients (≥grade 3, 55%); the most frequently reported were fatigue (51%), stomatitis/pharyngitis (47%), and hand-foot skin reaction (45%). Concomitant 5-FU/LCV resulted in no clinically relevant changes in the area under the plasma concentration-time curve in the dosing interval (AUC(0-12)) and maximum plasma concentration (C(max)) of sorafenib (100-400 mg bid) at steady state. Although the start of infusion until the last quantifiable plasma concentration (AUC(0-tn)) and C(max) of 5-FU were increased by concomitant sorafenib 100 to 200 mg, no consistent effect was observed with 400 mg sorafenib. Two (5%) patients with colon cancer achieved partial response; 16 (42%) patients (the majority with colon and pancreatic cancer) had stable disease. Sorafenib plus 5-FU/LCV was generally well tolerated with encouraging antitumor activity and no clinically relevant drug-drug interactions in patients with advanced solid tumors.

Safety and pharmacokinetics of sorafenib combined with capecitabine in patients with advanced solid tumors: results of a phase 1 trial.

Sorafenib (twice daily [bid]) plus capecitabine (2 weeks on schedule/1 week off schedule) safety and pharmacokinetics were investigated in patients with advanced solid tumors (N = 35). Cohort 1 (n = 13) included sorafenib 200 mg bid and capecitabine 1050 mg/m(2) bid; cohort 2 (n = 4), sorafenib 400 mg bid and capecitabine 1050 mg/m(2) bid; cohort 3 (n = 6), sorafenib 200 mg bid and capecitabine 1050 mg/m(2) bid (cycles 1 and 2), then 400 mg bid and capecitabine 1050 mg/m(2) bid (cycle 3 onwards); and cohort 4 (n = 12), sorafenib 400 mg bid and capecitabine 850 mg/m(2) bid. The combination of sorafenib and capecitabine was generally well tolerated. Most frequent drug-related adverse events were hand-foot skin reaction (HFSR, 89%), diarrhea (71%), and fatigue (69%). The HFSR was dose-limiting toxicities in 6 patients. Sorafenib exposure (C(max) and AUC(0-12)) was unaffected by concomitant capecitabine. Concomitant sorafenib moderately increased capecitabine and 5-fluorouracil (metabolite) exposure when the capecitabine dose was 1050 mg/m(2) bid. Simultaneous administration of 400 mg bid sorafenib and 850 mg/m(2) bid capecitabine, however, had only minor effects on the exposure to capecitabine and 5-fluorouracil. Based on the overall toxicity profile and pharmacokinetic parameters, the recommended phase 2 doses were therefore sorafenib 400 mg bid and capecitabine 850 mg/m(2) bid, as scheduled above.

Pharmacokinetic results of a phase I trial of sorafenib in combination with dacarbazine in patients with advanced solid tumors.

PURPOSE: Sorafenib, a multikinase inhibitor of Raf and several growth factor receptors, is under investigation in combination with dacarbazine, a commonly used chemotherapeutic agent for the treatment of many cancers. The current phase I study investigates the effects of sorafenib on the pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of dacarbazine and its metabolite 5-amino-imidazole-4-carboxamide (AIC). (AIC is formed in amounts equimolar to the active alkylating moiety, methane diazohydroxide, which is undetectable by known validated assays.) METHODS: Patients with advanced solid tumors received intravenous dacarbazine 1,000 mg/m(2) on day 1 of a 21-day cycle to evaluate the PK of dacarbazine alone. Sorafenib 400 mg was administered twice daily continuously starting at day 2 of cycle 1. The PK of dacarbazine in the presence of sorafenib was assessed on day 1 of cycle 2. Sorafenib PK was also assessed at steady state. RESULTS: PK data were available for 15 of 23 patients. With concomitant administration of sorafenib, the mean AUC and C (max) values of dacarbazine were reduced by 23 and 16%, respectively. Mean AUC and C (max) values of AIC were increased by 41 and 45%, respectively, with individual increases of up to 106 and 136%, respectively. The apparent terminal half-lives of the two compounds were not significantly influenced by sorafenib. Based on coefficients of variation, the AUC and C (max) values for sorafenib and its three metabolites were highly variable with dacarbazine coadministration. CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant administration of sorafenib and dacarbazine as described above may result in decreased dacarbazine exposure but increased AIC exposure.

Workshop/conference report on EMA draft guideline on validation of bioanalytical methods.

This is a summary report of the workshop on the EMA Draft Guideline on Validation of Bioanalytical Methods held April 15-16th 2010 in Brussels (Belgium) and jointly organised by the European Bioanalysis Forum (EBF) and the European Federation for Pharmaceutical Sciences (EUFEPS). Aim of the workshop was to discuss the current scientific knowledge in the area of bioanalysis, the regulatory requirements with special focus on the new Draft Guideline and their subsequent implementation to the work in bioanalytical laboratories. Comments on the Draft Guideline were presented and discussed with representatives from regulatory authorities in Europe. The workshop started with discussions on the scope of the Guideline and the need for implementation of GLP. A special focus was set on method validation of chromatographic procedures and subsequent study sample analysis. In addition, requirements for ligand-binding assays were briefly addressed. Intention of this Conference Report is to summarise important aspects of the discussions in order to draw certain conclusions, and to identify points which remain open and may require clarification at a later stage.

Phase I evaluation of telatinib, a vascular endothelial growth factor receptor tyrosine kinase inhibitor, in combination with irinotecan and capecitabine in patients with advanced solid tumors.

PURPOSE: We studied the safety and tolerability of telatinib, an orally available, small-molecule tyrosine kinase inhibitor of the vascular endothelial growth factor receptor (VEGFR-2/VEGFR-3), platelet-derived growth factor receptor beta, and c-Kit in combination with capecitabine and irinotecan. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Telatinib twice daily continuously, irinotecan once every 3 weeks, and capecitabine oral twice daily on day 1 to 14 were administered in cycles of 21 days in escalating doses in successive cohorts. Toxicity was evaluated to conform to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events version 3.0. Pharmacokinetic and (circulating) endothelial (progenitor) cell measurements were done. Tumor efficacy was evaluated using the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumors. RESULTS: Twenty-three patients were included in this phase I trial. Most frequently (>25%) reported adverse events of any grade were vomiting, nausea, fatigue, diarrhea, alopecia, and hand-foot syndrome. A silent myocardial infarction and two cases of decreased left ventricular ejection fraction were reported; both were reversible. Cardiac monitoring of the subsequent patients did not reveal other abnormalities. The study was terminated when the recommended single agent phase II doses of telatinib (900 mg twice daily) and capecitabine/irinotecan was reached. Pharmacokinetic profiles showed no clinically relevant changes upon coadministration of the three drugs. (Circulating) endothelial (progenitor) cell levels stabilized during treatment. Five of 23 patients had partial remission and 9 of 23 patients showed stable disease. CONCLUSIONS: Continuous administration of 900 mg telatinib twice daily can be safely combined with irinotecan (180 mg/m(2)) and capecitabine (1,000 mg/m(2) twice daily, day 1-14) and is the recommended schedule for further phase II studies. Tumor shrinkage and disease stabilization was observed. Cardiac toxicity needs further investigation in following studies.

Comparison of two marketed nifedipine modified-release formulations: an exploratory clinical food interaction study.

OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study was to compare the in vitro and in vivo characteristics of 2 nifedipine modified-release tablet formulations for once-daily dosing marketed in the European community, which were expected to be bioequivalent. METHODS: In vitro dissolution was tested at different pH values prior to the clinical part of the study. Either 1 tablet of a test formulation or of the reference formulation, both containing 30 mg nifedipine, were administered to healthy white male volunteers immediately after a high-fat breakfast in a randomized, open-label, 2-period crossover design. Plasma samples obtained over the subsequent period of 48 hours were analyzed using a validated LC-MS/MS method. Safety profile and tolerability of the study medications were assessed by analysis of adverse events obtained by vital sign measurements, electrocardiography, and clinical laboratory analysis. RESULTS: Twelve volunteers were enrolled (median age, 28.0 years [range, 21-42 years]; mean body mass index, 24.2 kg/m(2) [range, 19.3-27.0 kg/m(2)]). In vitro dissolution experiments revealed a significant pH dependency in drug release from the investigational tablets, while the reference tablets were found to have pH-independent dissolution. After oral administration of both tablet formulations in the fed state, marked differences in rate and extent of bioavailability were observed. Geometric mean of AUC(0-last)(test, 504.21 h x ng/mL; reference, 361.28 h x ng/mL) was significantly higher for the test product, with a point estimate of 140% and a corresponding 90% CI of 121% to 161%. For the comparison of Cmax values, geometric means were: test, 76.46 ng/mL; reference, 19.20 ng/mL, with a point estimate of 398% and a CI of 316% to 503%. Thus, a significant difference in rate and extent of bioavailability was observed between the 2 products. CONCLUSIONS: Although both treatments were well tolerated by all volunteers, the test and reference tablets were found to have different pharmacokinetic properties when administered after a high-fat meal.

Pupillography as a sensitive, noninvasive biomarker in healthy volunteers: first-in-man study of BAY 63-9044, a new 5-HT1A-receptor agonist with dopamine agonistic properties.

OBJECTIVE: BAY 63-9044 is a new full 5-HT(1A)-agonist with functional dopamine agonist properties aimed for the treatment of Parkinson's disease. This first-in-man study investigated the pharmacodynamics, safety and tolerability as well as the pharmacokinetics of BAY 63-9044 in a randomized, single-blind, placebo-controlled group-comparison dose escalation study. METHODS: 45 healthy men received BAY 63-9044 as an oral solution in single doses of 0.25 mg, 0.5 mg, 1.2 mg, 2.5 mg and 5.0 mg. Pupil reaction (baseline pupil diameter (DIAM), constriction amplitude (CA)), body temperature, electroencephalography (EEG) and prolactin, cortisol and adrenocorticotrophic hormone (ACTH) served as pharmacodynamic measures and were monitored up to 24 h after drug intake. Safety, tolerability and plasma samples for determination of BAY 63-9044 were followed up to 72 h. RESULTS: Up to a dose of 2.5 mg, BAY 63-9044 was safe and well tolerated. Dose-limiting adverse events (nausea, vomiting, and dizziness) occurred in 5 out of 6 volunteers at the 5 mg dose. Adverse events resolved spontaneously in all but one volunteers who was treated with an antihistaminergic for vomiting. Dose-dependent changes of DIAM and CA were observed at doses higher than 0.5 mg and 1.2 mg, respectively. Body temperature showed a trend for reduction starting at C(max) in the highest two doses only. No clear effect was found on prolactin, cortisol and ACTH levels. The pharmacokinetics of BAY 63-9044 showed a dose-dependent increase with maximum plasma concentrations reached within 1 h. Plasma concentrations declined in a bi-phased manner with an apparent terminal half-life of 5.2-8.1 h. CONCLUSION: Up to the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of 2.5 mg BAY 63-9044 was safe and well tolerated and showed predictable linear pharmacokinetics. Pupil reaction may serve as a non-invasive biomarker for pharmacodynamic effects of 5-HT(1A)-compounds with DIAM being the most sensitive parameter.

Results of a phase I trial of sorafenib (BAY 43-9006) in combination with oxaliplatin in patients with refractory solid tumors, including colorectal cancer.

BACKGROUND: Sorafenib (BAY 43-9006), a multiple kinase inhibitor, has been shown to inhibit tumor growth and tumor angiogenesis by targeting Raf kinase, vascular endothelial growth factor receptor, and platelet-derived growth factor receptor. In phase I studies, sorafenib demonstrated single-agent activity in patients with advanced solid tumors and was successfully combined with oxaliplatin in preclinical studies. This phase I study investigated the safety, pharmacokinetics, and efficacy of sorafenib in combination with oxaliplatin. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Twenty-seven patients with refractory solid tumors were enrolled in the initial dose-escalation part (cohorts 1, 2A, and 2B) and 10 additional patients with oxaliplatin-refractory colorectal cancer were subsequently enrolled in an extension part (cohort 3). Oxaliplatin 130 mg/m2 was given on day 1 of a 3-week cycle and oral sorafenib was administered continuously from day 4 of cycle 1 at 200 mg twice daily (cohort 1) or 400 mg twice daily (cohorts 2A, 2B, and 3). RESULTS: Adverse events were generally mild to moderate and the maximum tolerated dose was not reached. Common adverse events were diarrhea (52% of patients in the dose-escalation part and 20% in the extension part), sensory neuropathy (44% and 20%), and dermatologic toxicities (41% and 80%). No pharmacokinetic interaction between sorafenib and oxaliplatin was detectable. Two patients with gastric cancer had a partial response. Forty-three percent of patients in cohorts 1 and 2A/B and 78% of patients in cohort 3 exhibited stable disease for >or=10 weeks. CONCLUSION: Continuous oral sorafenib 400 mg twice daily was safely combined with oxaliplatin without detectable drug interactions and showed preliminary antitumor activity in this phase I study. This dose is recommended for phase II studies.

Phase I clinical and pharmacokinetic study of the Novel Raf kinase and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitor BAY 43-9006 in patients with advanced refractory solid tumors.

PURPOSE: BAY 43-9006 is a novel dual-action Raf kinase and vascular endothelial growth factor receptor inhibitor that inhibits tumor cell proliferation and angiogenesis. This study established the safety and pharmacokinetics of BAY 43-9006 in 69 patients with advanced refractory solid tumors. PATIENTS AND METHODS: BAY 43-9006 (50 to 800 mg) was administered once or twice daily on a varying weekly schedule. Pharmacokinetic sampling was performed in all patients; preliminary tumor response was also assessed. The effect of BAY 43-9006 on phorbol myristate acetate-stimulated ERK phosphorylation in peripheral blood lymphocytes was studied using flow cytometry. RESULTS: Mild to moderate diarrhea was the most common (55%) treatment-related adverse event. The maximum-tolerated dose was 400 mg bid continuous. Dose-limiting toxicities were grade 3 diarrhea and fatigue at 800 mg bid, and grade 3 skin toxicity at 600 mg bid. BAY 43-9006 pharmacokinetics were highly variable for single and multiple dosing, and toxicity did not appear to be dose dependent. Significant decreases of phorbol myristate acetate-stimulated ERK phosphorylation (P < .01) were identified at doses >/= 200 mg bid continuous. Forty-five patients were assessable for efficacy; one patient had a partial response (hepatocellular carcinoma at 400 mg bid continuous), 25 patients had stable disease, with eight lasting > 6 months and five for >12 months. Eighteen patients had progressive disease, and tumor response could not be evaluated in one patient. CONCLUSION: Oral BAY 43-9006 was well tolerated and appeared to provide some clinical benefits. Based on the results of this study, BAY 43-9006 at 400 mg bid continuous is recommended for ongoing and future studies.

Simultaneous determination of capecitabine and its metabolite 5-fluorouracil by column switching and liquid chromatographic/tandem mass spectrometry.

A liquid chromatographic/tandem mass spectrometric method was developed and validated for the quantitation of capecitabine and its metabolite 5-fluorouracil in human plasma. The simultaneous determination of both analytes was achieved by a column switching method using a trapping column and two analytical columns with different stationary phases. Isocratic elution was used for the separation of capecitabine on a C18 column whereas 5-fluorouracil was separated using gradient elution on an non-polar carbon phase. The calibration curves were linear for both compounds with a correlation factor (R2) > 0.9993 for 5-fluorouracil and >0.9942 for capecitabine. The assay was validated in the concentration range 5.00-1000 ng ml(-1) for both compounds. The intra-day precision was better than 10% for 5-fluorouracil and better than 11% for capecitabine whereas the inter-day precision was better than 8% for 5-fluorouracil and better than 14% for capecitabine.

Formulation-dependent food effects demonstrated for nifedipine modified-release preparations marketed in the European Union.

The objective of this study was a comparative investigation of the influence of concomitant food intake on the bioavailability of two nifedipine-containing controlled-release formulations. Adalat OROS and CORAL were compared in a randomised, non-blind, four-way crossover design in 24 healthy, male subjects after single dose administration following a high fat American breakfast or an overnight fast of 12 h, respectively. Plasma samples were withdrawn until 48 h post-dose. In the fasted state, the bioavailability (AUC and C(max) values) was lower for CORAL than for Adalat OROS. Under fed conditions, differences in bioavailability between both products were markedly increased. With respect to the therapeutic use of both products, the most important finding was the significant dose-dumping effect observed after fed administration of CORAL, resulting in nifedipine plasma concentrations of nearly three- to four-fold in 11 of 24 volunteers. The mean ratio of C(max) was 235% comparing CORAL with Adalat OROS under these conditions. The formulation-dependent food interaction observed in this study may be therapeutically relevant, especially in the case of changing administration conditions or switching from one product to the other.