Tolerability and pharmacokinetic properties of ondansetron administered subcutaneously with recombinant human hyaluronidase in minipigs and healthy volunteers.

BACKGROUND: Subcutaneous ondansetron facilitated by recombinant human hyaluronidase PH20 (rHuPH20) is an alternative for treating nausea/vomiting in patients who cannot receive ondansetron by other routes of administration. OBJECTIVE: Based on preclinical results in minipigs, a Phase I study was designed to assess the tolerability and pharmacokinetic properties of subcutaneous ondansetron + rHuPH20 compared with intramuscular, intravenous, or oral ondansetron monotherapy in healthy volunteers. METHODS: In a crossover design, 3 minipigs were dosed with subcutaneous ondansetron 0.08 mg/kg + rHuPH20, or as intramuscular or intravenous monotherapy, for the evaluation of plasma ondansetron concentrations and local tolerability. In a randomized, open-label, 4-way crossover study, subjects received a randomized sequence of SC ondansetron 4 mg + rHuPH20, or ondansetron monotherapy IM (4 mg), IV (4 mg), or PO (8 mg), over 4 daily visits. Study participants included healthy volunteers aged 19 to 65 years with adequate venous access in both upper extremities and no history of QT-interval prolongation. Primary tolerability end points (administration-site observations, systemic adverse events [AEs], and subject-assessed pain) were assessed, and pharmacokinetic parameters (AUC, Cmax, Tmax, t½) were computed to compare relative rate and extent of systemic exposure. Results were described using summary statistics, and bioequivalence was determined with a linear mixed-effects model. RESULTS: In the preclinical study, no adverse events or significant local reactions were observed. The Cmax (45.8 ng/mL at 0.08 hour) with subcutaneous administration + rHuPH20 was 83% greater and was achieved 68% faster than with intramuscular administration (Cmax = 25 ng/mL at 0.25 hour). In the clinical study, a total of 12 subjects (7 women, 5 men; white majority; mean age, 44.8) were randomized. The majority of AEs were at the injection site, mild in severity, and transient. After subcutaneous administration of ondansetron + rHuPH20, geometric mean Cmax was 35% higher than with intramuscular ondansetron, 43% lower than with intravenous ondansetron, and 126% higher than with oral ondansetron (corrected for dose). Bioequivalence tests demonstrated that systemic exposure after subcutaneous administration was similar to that after intramuscular or intravenous administration and significantly greater than that after oral administration. CONCLUSIONS: Subcutaneous ondansetron + rHuPH20 was generally well-tolerated. Subcutaneous dosing resulted in an extent of systemic exposure similar to that with intramuscular or intravenous dosing and greater than that with oral administration, and may be an option for clinical administration of ondansetron. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01572012.

Safety and pharmacokinetics of a novel lymphocyte function-associated antigen-1 antagonist ophthalmic solution (SAR 1118) in healthy adults.

PURPOSE: To investigate the safety, tolerability, and pharmacokinetics (PKs) of topical SAR 1118 Ophthalmic Solution in healthy adults. SAR 1118 is an investigational small molecule lymphocyte function-associated antigen-1 (LFA-1; CD11a/CD18; αLß2) antagonist that inhibits LFA-1 binding to intercellular adhesion molecule-1 (ICAM-1; CD54) targeting T-cell-mediated inflammation. METHODS: A randomized, double-masked, placebo-controlled, dose-escalation study of SAR 1118 was performed in 4 cohorts with 7 randomized subjects per cohort (2 placebo: 5 active drug subjects; 0.1%, 0.3%, 1.0%, 5.0%) in 28 healthy adults. Dosing was divided into 3 periods each separated by a 72-h treatment-free observation: once-daily (QD) × 1, twice-daily (BID) × 10, and thrice-daily (TID) × 10 days. Data obtained at the beginning and end of each period included: slit-lamp, best-corrected visual acuity (BCVA), Schirmer tear test (STT) without anesthesia, tear film break-up time (TBUT), intraocular pressure (IOP), and tear/plasma samples for PK analysis. RESULTS: All subjects completed the study; there were no tolerability issues or missed treatments (total, 1,428 administered doses). No serious ocular or nonocular adverse events (AEs) occurred over 1,148 subject study days (41 days/subject) and no significant abnormalities were identified on ocular exam. There were 38 ocular AEs (N = 11 subjects) and 21 nonocular AEs (N = 11 subjects). Most AEs were mild in severity and occurred in the 0.3% and placebo groups. No changes were observed in CD3, CD4, and CD8 blood lymphocyte counts. Tear PK profiles support a QD/BID dosing schedule. Plasma levels of SAR 1118 in the 0.1% and 0.3% groups were below level of quantitation (BLQ; <0.50 ng/mL) at all time points and transiently detected within the first 5 min to ∼1 h following administration in the 1.0% and 5.0% groups. CONCLUSION: SAR 1118 Ophthalmic Solution appears safe and well-tolerated up to 5.0% TID in healthy adult subjects. PK analysis shows adequate ocular exposure with minimal systemic exposure.

Relative bioavailability of salicylic acid following dermal application of a 30% salicylic acid skin peel preparation.

A single-center, single-sequence, two-period crossover study was performed to compare the systemic exposure to salicylic acid (SA) following facial application of a 30% SA cosmetic skin peel formulation applied for 5 min and an oral dose of 650 mg aspirin in nine healthy male and female subjects. The mean (SD) maximum SA concentration (Cmax) was 0.81 (0.32) microg/mL and 56.4 (14.2) microg/mL. The AUC-based safety margin ratio was 50:1. A depot effect was observed during topical application of the skin peel solution as the absorption of SA continued beyond the 5-min application period. Plasma SA Cmax values were achieved from 1.4 to 3.5 h after topical application and from 0.5 to 1.5 h after oral aspirin. The plasma concentrations in the present study (30%; 5 min) were similar to that of a low concentration (2%) applied in a leave-on product to the same body surface area. In conclusion, our results suggest that the use of this SA facial peel should not pose any significant systemic health risks.

Confirmatory reanalysis of incurred bioanalytical samples.

Bioanalytical methods used to support the drug development process are validated to ensure that they function in the manner in which they are intended. "Incurred" or study samples can vary in their composition when compared with the standards and quality control samples used to validate the method and analyze these samples. During the 3rd American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists(AAPS)/Food and Drug Administration(FDA) Bioanalytical Workshop, it was suggested that the reproducibility in the analysis of incurred samples be evaluated in addition to the usual prestudy validation activities performed. This manuscript provides recommendations concerning the number and types of samples that should be analyzed in such an evaluation, as well as the manner in which the resultant data should be analyzed. Suggestions as to follow-up activities and data reporting are also discussed. This approach is at best a beginning and is offered as a platform for future discussion, comments, and revision.