Single-dose and multi-dose delivery systems for intranasal fentanyl spray are bioequivalent as demonstrated in a replicate pharmacokinetic study.

BACKGROUND: Intranasal fentanyl spray (INFS, Instanyl®) was developed to treat cancer patients with Breakthrough Pain (BTP). INFS is delivered via a multi-dose delivery system (MDS) that is available in various dose strengths. The aim of this study was to demonstrate the pharmacokinetic bioequivalence of INFS single dose delivery system (SDS) in relation to the currently marketed MDS device. METHODS: In a randomized, single-center, single-dose, open label, comparative, four-period, two-sequence, replicate cross-over study, 48 healthy subjects (24 male and 24 female, mean age of 28.1 years, mean bodyweight 69.8 kg) received 200 µg/100 µl fentanyl administered via SDS and via MDS in one of two alternating treatment sequences. Naltrexone was given to all subjects to prevent potential fentanyl adverse drug reactions. Blood samples were frequently taken up to 72 hours post INFS administration and analyzed by liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometric detection. Primary pharmacokinetic parameters were area under the curve extrapolated to infinity (AUC0-∞) and peak plasma concentration (Cmax). Statistical analyses of the primary pharmacokinetic parameters were performed using a linear mixed effect model applied to the natural log-transformed data. RESULTS: Healthy subjects showed very similar plasma concentration over time profiles for both delivery systems. The mean fentanyl Cmax and AUC0-∞ values for SDS and MDS were 948 pg/ml, 949 pg/ml and 4,439 pg×h/ml, 4,489 pg×h/ml. respectively. Point estimates (and 90% confidence intervals) for AUC and Cmax were 0.97 (0.93 - 1.02) and 1.00 (0.92 - 1.09) and therefore in the bioequivalence range of 0.80 - 1.25. CONCLUSIONS: Results of this study show that SDS and MDS met the pre-defined regulatory criteria for bioequivalence. Safety profiles were consistent between both devices and no safety concerns were identified with INFS administered in combination with oral naltrexone.

Lack of a meaningful effect of anacetrapib on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of warfarin in healthy subjects.

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT THIS SUBJECT: • Inhibition of cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) is a potential new mechanism for the treatment of dyslipidaemia. Anacetrapib is a novel CETP inhibitor in development. Warfarin is a commonly prescribed anticoagulant that has a narrow therapeutic index. A drug interaction study for warfarin with a novel CETP inhibitor is expected to be helpful in defining dosing regimens. WHAT THIS STUDY: ADDS • This is the first study to show that there is no clinically meaningful pharmacokinetic interaction between anacetrapib and warfarin. The single dose pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of orally administered warfarin were not meaningfully affected by multiple dose administration of anacetrapib, indicating that anacetrapib does not affect CYP 2C9 clinically. Thus, no dosage adjustment for warfarin is necessary when co-administered with anacetrapib. AIM: Anacetrapib is currently being developed for the treatment of dyslipidaemia. Since warfarin, an anticoagulant with a narrow therapeutic index, is expected to be commonly prescribed in this population, a drug interaction study was conducted. METHODS: In a randomized, open-label, two-period fixed-sequence design, 12 healthy male subjects received two different treatments (treatment A followed by treatment B). In treatment A, a single oral dose of 30 mg warfarin (3 × 10 mg Coumadin(TM) ) was administered on day 1. After a washout interval, subjects began treatment B, where they were given daily 100 mg doses of anacetrapib (1 × 100 mg) beginning on day -14 and continuing through day 7, with concomitant administration of 30 mg warfarin (3 × 10 mg) on day 1. All anacetrapib and warfarin doses were administered with a standard low fat breakfast. After warfarin concentrations and prothrombin time were measured, standard pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and statistical (linear mixed effects model) analyses were applied. RESULTS: Anacetrapib was generally well tolerated when co-administered with warfarin in the healthy males in this study. The geometric mean ratios (GMRs) for warfarin + anacetrapib : warfarin alone and 90% confidence interval (CIs) for warfarin AUC((0-∞)) were 0.94 (0.90, 0.97) for the R(+) warfarin enantiomer and 0.93 (0.87, 0.98) for the S(-) warfarin enantiomer, both being contained in the interval (0.80, 1.25), supporting the primary hypothesis of the study. The GMRs warfarin + anacetrapib : warfarin alone and 90% CIs for the statistical comparison of warfarin C(max) were 1.01 (0.97, 1.05) for both the R(+) warfarin and the S(-) warfarin enantiomers, and were also contained in the interval (0.80, 1.25). The GMR (warfarin + anacetrapib : warfarin alone) and 90% CI for the statistical comparison of INR AUC((0-168 h)) was 0.93 (0.89, 0.96). CONCLUSION: The single dose pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of orally administered warfarin were not meaningfully affected by multiple dose administration of anacetrapib, indicating that anacetrapib does not affect CYP 2C9 clinically. Thus, no dosage adjustment for warfarin is necessary when co-administered with anacetrapib.

Lack of an effect of anacetrapib on the pharmacokinetics of digoxin in healthy subjects.

Anacetrapib is currently being developed for the oral treatment of dyslipidemia. A clinical study was conducted in healthy subjects to assess the potential for an interaction with orally administered digoxin. Anacetrapib was generally well tolerated when co-administered with digoxin in the healthy subjects in this study. The geometric mean ratios (GMR) for (digoxin + anacetrapib/digoxin alone) and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for digoxin AUC(0-last) and AUC(0-∞) were 1.05 (0.96, 1.15) and 1.07 (0.98, 1.17), respectively, both being contained in the accepted interval of bioequivalence (0.80, 1.25), the primary hypothesis of the study. The GMR (digoxin + anacetrapib /digoxin alone) and 90% CIs for digoxin C(max) were 1.23 (1.14, 1.32). Median T(max) and mean apparent terminal t(½) of digoxin were comparable between the two treatments. The single-dose pharmacokinetics of orally administered digoxin were not meaningfully affected by multiple-dose administration of anacetrapib, indicating that anacetrapib does not meaningfully inhibit P-glycoprotein. Thus, no dosage adjustment for digoxin is necessary when co-administered with anacetrapib.

An assessment of drug-drug interactions: the effect of desvenlafaxine and duloxetine on the pharmacokinetics of the CYP2D6 probe desipramine in healthy subjects.

A number of antidepressants inhibit the activity of the cytochrome P450 2D6 enzyme system, which can lead to drug-drug interactions. Based on its metabolic profile, desvenlafaxine, administered as desvenlafaxine succinate, a new serotonin-norepinephrine reuptake inhibitor, is not expected to have an impact on activity of CYP2D6. This single-center, randomized, open-label, four-period, crossover study was undertaken to evaluate the effect of multiple doses of desvenlafaxine (100 mg/day, twice the recommended therapeutic dose for major depressive disorder in the United States) and duloxetine (30 mg b.i.d.) on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of a single dose of desipramine (50 mg). A single dose of desipramine was given first to assess its PK. Desvenlafaxine or duloxetine was then administered, in a crossover design, so that steady-state levels were achieved; a single dose of desipramine was then coadministered. The geometric least-square mean ratios (coadministration versus desipramine alone) for area under the plasma concentration versus time curve (AUC) and peak plasma concentrations (C(max)) of desipramine and 2-hydroxydesipramine were compared using analysis of variance. Relative to desipramine alone, increases in AUC and C(max) of desipramine associated with duloxetine administration (122 and 63%, respectively) were significantly greater than those associated with desvenlafaxine (22 and 19%, respectively; P < 0.001). Duloxetine coadministered with desipramine was also associated with a decrease in 2-hydroxydesipramine C(max) that was significant compared with the small increase seen with desvenlafaxine and desipramine (-24 versus 9%; P < 0.001); the difference between changes in 2-hydroxydesipramine AUC did not reach statistical significance (P = 0.054). Overall, desvenlafaxine had a minimal impact on the PK of desipramine compared with duloxetine, suggesting a lower risk for CYP2D6-mediated drug interactions.