Pharmacokinetic Interactions Between Gemigliptin and Metformin, and Potential Differences in the Pharmacokinetic Profile of Gemigliptin Between the Mexican and Korean Populations: A Randomized, Open-label Study in Healthy Mexican Volunteers.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study was to assess the pharmacokinetic interactions between a newly developed dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitor, gemigliptin, and metformin in healthy Mexican male volunteers, and the differences in the pharmacokinetic profile of gemigliptin between Korean and Mexican healthy volunteers. METHODS: This was a multiple-dose, randomized, open-label, 3-way, 3-period crossover study. Subjects were randomized to 1 of 3 treatment sequences and received gemigliptin 50mg once a day, metformin1000mg BID, or both drugs during a 7-day treatment period, and underwent sampling for pharmacokinetic analysis and tolerability assessments. Point estimates and 90% CIs of Cmax,ss and AUCτ,ss least squares mean (LSM) ratios of the concurrent administration of gemigliptin + metformin to the administration of monotherapy with either drug were obtained, and the pharmacokinetic profile of gemigliptin observed was compared with that in healthy Korean volunteers studied during the initial development of gemigliptin. FINDINGS: The coadministration of gemigliptin + metformin did not affect the pharmacokinetic characteristics of gemigliptin (LSM ratio [90% CI] for Cmax,ss and AUCτ,ss: 0.98 [0.87-1.10] and 0.94 [0.91-0.98], respectively) or metformin (LSM ratio [90% CI] for Cmax,ss and AUCτ,ss: 0.97 [0.88-1.08] and 1.02 [0.93-1.12], respectively) when administered as monotherapy and was well tolerated. In contrast with Korean healthy volunteers, Mexican subjects showed a modestly higher gemigliptin exposure (LSM ratio [90% CI] for AUCτ,ss: 1.22 [1.14-1.31]). IMPLICATIONS: The results of this study support, in ethnically different populations, the absence of drug-drug interactions between gemigliptin and metformin previously shown in Korean healthy volunteers. Considering the flat effect-concentration curve and wide therapeutic range of gemigliptin, the pharmacokinetic profile of gemigliptin observed in healthy Mexican and Korean subjects suggests that gemigliptin use in Mexican patients may be associated with outcomes, in terms of efficacy and tolerability, similar to those observed in the Korean population. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03310749.

Safety and efficacy of fimasartan in Mexican patients with grade 1-2 essential hypertension / Seguridad y eficacia de fimasartán en pacientes mexicanos con hipertensión esencial de grados 1-2

Abstract: Objective: To evaluate efficacy and safety of 60 mg and 120 mg Fimasartan (FMS) alone or combined with 12.5 mg hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in a Mexican population. Methods: A six month, treat-to-target, open study was conducted on subjects with grade 1-2 hypertension. The subjects were initially treated with 60 mg FMS once daily. In week 8, those with Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP) <90 mmHg continued on the same FMS dose during the rest of the study, while those with DBP ≥90 mmHg were randomised to either 120 mg FMS or 60 mg FMS + 12.5 mg HCTZ once daily. In week 12, randomised subjects with DBP ≥90 mmHg received 120 mg FMS + 12.5 mg HCTZ, while those achieving target continued with their assigned treatment until the end of the study. Results: FMS 60 mg (n = 272) decreased both DBP and Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP) by 11.3 ± 8.9 (p<.0001) and 16.0 ± 14.1 (p<.0001) mmHg, respectively, with 75.4% of subjects reaching the treatment target. Subjects assigned to FMS 120 mg, FMS 60 mg + HCTZ 12.5 mg, or FMS 120 mg + HCTZ 12.5 mg once daily, showed significant reductions in DBP and SBP with their assigned treatment. At the end of the study, 237/272 subjects (87.1%) achieved a DBP < 90 mmHg and an SBP<140 mmHg. The most frequently reported adverse reactions included headache (3.7%), dry mouth (1.1%), transient liver enzyme increase (1.1%), and dizziness (0.7%). Conclusion: Fimasartan is safe and effective in Mexican subjects with grade 1-2 essential hypertension.

Resumen: Objetivo: Evaluar la eficacia y la seguridad de 60 y 120 mg de fimasartán (FMS) solo o combinado con 12.5 mg de hidroclorotiazida (HCTZ) en población mexicana. Métodos: Estudio abierto, de 24 semanas, con tratamiento escalado hasta el objetivo terapéutico en sujetos hipertensos grados 1-2. Tratamiento inicial: FMS 60 mg una vez al día; en la semana 8, los sujetos con presión arterial diastólica (PAD) <90 mmHg mantuvieron su tratamiento inicial durante el estudio, mientras que los sujetos con PAD ≥90 mmHg fueron aleatorizados a 120 mg de FMS o a 60 mg de FMS + 12.5 mg de HCTZ. En la semana 12, los sujetos aleatorizados con PAD ≥90 mmHg recibieron 120 mg de FMS + 12.5 mg de HCTZ; quienes alcanzaron el objetivo terapéutico mantuvieron su tratamiento asignado hasta finalizar el estudio. Resultados: FMS 60 mg (n = 272) disminuyó la PAD y la presión arterial sistólica (PAS) en 11.3 ± 8.9 (p < 0.0001) y 16.0 ± 14.1 (p < 0.0001) mmHg, respectivamente, con logro del objetivo de tratamiento en el 75.4% de los sujetos. Los sujetos asignados a 120 mg de FMS, a 60 mg de FMS + 12.5 mg de HCTZ 12.5 y a 120 mg de FMS + 12.5 mg de HCTZ mostraron reducciones significativas de PAD y PAS; al final del estudio, 237/272 sujetos (87.1%) lograron PAD <90 y PAS <140 mmHg. Las reacciones adversas más frecuentemente reportadas fueron: cefalea (3.7%), boca seca (1.1%), incremento de enzimas hepáticas (1.1%) y mareo (0.7%). Conclusión: FMS es seguro y eficaz en sujetos mexicanos con hipertensión esencial de grados 1-2.

Safety and efficacy of fimasartan in Mexican patients with grade 1-2 essential hypertension.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate efficacy and safety of 60mg and 120mg Fimasartan (FMS) alone or combined with 12.5mg hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ) in a Mexican population. METHODS: A six month, treat-to-target, open study was conducted on subjects with grade 1-2 hypertension. The subjects were initially treated with 60mg FMS once daily. In week 8, those with Diastolic Blood Pressure (DBP) <90mmHg continued on the same FMS dose during the rest of the study, while those with DBP ≥90mmHg were randomised to either 120mg FMS or 60mg FMS + 12.5mg HCTZ once daily. In week 12, randomised subjects with DBP ≥90mmHg received 120mg FMS+12.5mg HCTZ, while those achieving target continued with their assigned treatment until the end of the study. RESULTS: FMS 60mg (n=272) decreased both DBP and Systolic Blood Pressure (SBP) by 11.3±8.9 (p<.0001) and 16.0±14.1 (p<.0001)mmHg, respectively, with 75.4% of subjects reaching the treatment target. Subjects assigned to FMS 120mg, FMS 60mg+HCTZ 12.5mg, or FMS 120mg+HCTZ 12.5mg once daily, showed significant reductions in DBP and SBP with their assigned treatment. At the end of the study, 237/272 subjects (87.1%) achieved a DBP<90mmHg and an SBP<140mmHg. The most frequently reported adverse reactions included headache (3.7%), dry mouth (1.1%), transient liver enzyme increase (1.1%), and dizziness (0.7%). CONCLUSION: Fimasartan is safe and effective in Mexican subjects with grade 1-2 essential hypertension.

Intraluminal aortoplasty vs. surgical aortic resection in congenital aortic coarctation. A clinical random study in pediatric patients.

BACKGROUND: Our objective was to compare results of two therapeutic modalities to treat congenital aortic coarctation: intraluminal aortoplasty without endoluminal stent installation (patients in group A) vs. surgical aortic resection (patients in group B). Trans-coarctation gradient pressure was evaluated prior to and immediately after treatment. Re-coarctation, aneurysm formation, in-hospital morbidity and mortality, and complications related to treatment were also evaluated. METHODS: A clinical, randomized, multicenter study was performed in pediatric patients with congenital aortic coarctation. Immediate and mid- to late therapeutic results were evaluated. With regard to statistics, we evaluated event variations by Kaplan-Meier model, nonparametric Wilcoxon test, Mann-Whitney U test, two-tailed Student t and chi-square tests, and Fisher analysis. Significance was considered relevant when p<0.05. RESULTS: There were no differences in demographic variables, procedure failure, complications, mortality, or aortic aneurysm between groups A and B, respectively. Intraluminal angioplasty and surgical aortic resection were similarly effective in reducing trans-coarctation pressure gradient, as well as arterial systemic pressure. However, differences were found between groups A and B at follow-up. Group A showed higher re-coarctation (50 vs. 21%). Absence of peripheral arterial pulses in limbs was higher in group A (50 vs. 21%), as well as persistence of arterial hypertension (49 vs. 19%); these differences were significant (p<0.05). On the other hand, complications observed after surgical aortic resection were more serious than post-angioplasty complications, but these differences were not statistically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Although re-coarctation and persistency of arterial hypertension were less frequent after surgical aortic resection, complications observed with this procedure are more serious than complications related to angioplasty, although these differences are not statistically significant.