Midostaurin drug interaction profile: a comprehensive assessment of CYP3A, CYP2B6, and CYP2C8 drug substrates, and oral contraceptives in healthy participants.

PURPOSE: Midostaurin, approved for treating FLT-3-mutated acute myeloid leukemia and advanced systemic mastocytosis, is metabolized by cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 to two major metabolites, and may inhibit and/or induce CYP3A, CYP2B6, and CYP2C8. Two studies investigated the impact of midostaurin on CYP substrate drugs and oral contraceptives in healthy participants. METHODS: Using sentinel dosing for participants' safety, the effects of midostaurin at steady state following 25-day (Study 1) or 24-day (Study 2) dosing with 50 mg twice daily were evaluated on CYP substrates, midazolam (CYP3A4), bupropion (CYP2B6), and pioglitazone (CYP2C8) in Study 1; and monophasic oral contraceptives (containing ethinylestradiol [EES] and levonorgestrel [LVG]) in Study 2. RESULTS: In Study 1, midostaurin resulted in a 10% increase in midazolam peak plasma concentrations (Cmax), and 3-4% decrease in total exposures (AUC). Bupropion showed a 55% decrease in Cmax and 48-49% decrease in AUCs. Pioglitazone showed a 10% decrease in Cmax and 6% decrease in AUC. In Study 2, midostaurin resulted in a 26% increase in Cmax and 7-10% increase in AUC of EES; and a 19% increase in Cmax and 29-42% increase in AUC of LVG. Midostaurin 50 mg twice daily for 28 days ensured that steady-state concentrations of midostaurin and the active metabolites were achieved by the time of CYP substrate drugs or oral contraceptive dosing. No safety concerns were reported. CONCLUSION: Midostaurin neither inhibits nor induces CYP3A4 and CYP2C8, and weakly induces CYP2B6. Midostaurin at steady state has no clinically relevant PK interaction on hormonal contraceptives. All treatments were well tolerated.

A phase 1, open-label, drug-drug interaction study of rucaparib with rosuvastatin and oral contraceptives in patients with advanced solid tumors.

PURPOSE: This study aimed at evaluating the effect of rucaparib on the pharmacokinetics of rosuvastatin and oral contraceptives in patients with advanced solid tumors and the safety of rucaparib with and without coadministration of rosuvastatin or oral contraceptives. METHODS: Patients received single doses of oral rosuvastatin 20 mg (Arm A) or oral contraceptives ethinylestradiol 30 µg + levonorgestrel 150 µg (Arm B) on days 1 and 19 and continuous doses of rucaparib 600 mg BID from day 5 to 23. Serial blood samples were collected with and without rucaparib for pharmacokinetic analysis. RESULTS: Thirty-six patients (n = 18 each arm) were enrolled and received at least 1 dose of study drug. In the drug-drug interaction analysis (n = 15 each arm), the geometric mean ratio (GMR) of maximum concentration (Cmax) with and without rucaparib was 1.29 for rosuvastatin, 1.09 for ethinylestradiol, and 1.19 for levonorgestrel. GMR of area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to last quantifiable measurement (AUC0-last) was 1.34 for rosuvastatin, 1.43 for ethinylestradiol, and 1.56 for levonorgestrel. There was no increase in frequency of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) when rucaparib was given with either of the probe drugs. In both arms, most TEAEs were mild in severity and considered unrelated to study treatment. CONCLUSION: Rucaparib 600 mg BID weakly increased the plasma exposure to rosuvastatin or oral contraceptives. Rucaparib safety profile when coadministered with rosuvastatin or oral contraceptives was consistent with that of rucaparib monotherapy. Dose adjustments of rosuvastatin and oral contraceptives are not necessary when coadministered with rucaparib. ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03954366; Date of registration May 17, 2019.

Drug-Drug Interaction Studies With Oral Contraceptives: Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic and Study Design Considerations.

Oral contraceptives (OCs) are the most widely used form of birth control among women of childbearing potential. Knowledge of potential drug-drug interactions (DDIs) with OCs becomes imperative to provide information on the medication to women of childbearing potential and enable their inclusion in clinical trials, especially if the new molecular entity is a teratogen. Although a number of DDI guidance documents are available, they do not provide recommendations for the design and conduct of OC DDI studies. The evaluation of DDI potential of a new molecular entity and OCs is particularly challenging because of the availability of a wide variety of combinations of hormonal contraceptives, different doses of the ethinyl estradiol, and different metabolic profiles of the progestin component. The aim of this review is to comprehensively discuss factors to be considered such as pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), choice of OC, and study population for the conduct of in vivo OC DDI studies. In this context, metabolic pathways of OCs, the effect of enzyme inhibitors and inducers, the role of sex hormone-binding globulin in the PK of progestins, current evidence on OC DDIs, and the interpretation of PD end points are reviewed. With the emergence of new tools like physiologically based PK modeling, the decision to conduct an in vivo study can be made with much more confidence. This review provides a comprehensive overview of various factors that need to be considered in designing OC DDI studies and recommends PK-based DDI studies with PK end points as adequate measures to establish clinical drug interaction and measurement of PD end points when there is basis for PD interaction.

Ibrutinib does not have clinically relevant interactions with oral contraceptives or substrates of CYP3A and CYP2B6.

Ibrutinib may inhibit intestinal CYP3A4 and induce CYP2B6 and/or CYP3A. Secondary to potential induction, ibrutinib may reduce the exposure and effectiveness of oral contraceptives (OCs). This phase I study evaluated the effect of ibrutinib on the pharmacokinetics of the CYP2B6 substrate bupropion, CYP3A substrate midazolam, and OCs ethinylestradiol (EE) and levonorgestrel (LN). Female patients (N = 22) with B-cell malignancies received single doses of EE/LN (30/150 µg) and bupropion/midazolam (75/2 mg) during a pretreatment phase on days 1 and 3, respectively (before starting ibrutinib on day 8), and again after ibrutinib 560 mg/day for ≥ 2 weeks. Intestinal CYP3A inhibition was assessed on day 8 (single-dose ibrutinib plus single-dose midazolam). Systemic induction was assessed at steady-state on days 22 (EE/LN plus ibrutinib) and 24 (bupropion/midazolam plus ibrutinib). The geometric mean ratios (GMRs; test/reference) for maximum plasma concentration (Cmax ) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) were derived using linear mixed-effects models (90% confidence interval within 80%-125% indicated no interaction). On day 8, the GMR for midazolam exposure with ibrutinib coadministration was ≤ 20% lower than the reference, indicating lack of intestinal CYP3A4 inhibition. At ibrutinib steady-state, the Cmax and AUC of EE were 33% higher than the reference, which was not considered clinically relevant. No substantial changes were noted for LN, midazolam, or bupropion. No unexpected safety findings were observed. A single dose of ibrutinib did not inhibit intestinal CYP3A4, and repeated administration did not induce CYP3A4/2B6, as assessed using EE, LN, midazolam, and bupropion.

A single-arm study to evaluate the transfer of drospirenone to breast milk after reaching steady state, following oral administration of 4 mg drospirenone in healthy lactating female volunteers.

OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this trial was to assess the transfer of drospirenone to breast milk after daily administration of an oral test preparation containing 4 mg of drospirenone at the steady state. The secondary objective of the trial was to assess safety based on clinical and laboratory measurements and reporting of adverse events and/or adverse drug reactions. PATIENTS AND METHODS: This was an open label, non-comparative single-center study. Drospirenone 4 mg per day was the first postpartum contraceptive for the study participants who were no longer breastfeeding yet were still lactating. It was administered for 7 days to achieve steady-state concentration. All participants were volunteers who planned to use oral contraceptives as their family planning method in the future. RESULTS: Twelve volunteers completed the trial according to the protocol, and the samples of all 12 study completers were analyzed. The average concentration-time curve of drospirenone in plasma 24 h after the administration of the last dose (area under the curve (0-24 h)) was 635.33 ng h/mL and 120 h after the single repeated dose administration (area under the curve (0-120 h)) was 1180.57 ng h/mL, respectively. The average Cmax was 48.64 ng/mL.The average concentration-time curve of drospirenone in milk 24 h after the administration of the last dose (area under the curve (0-24 h)) was 134.35 ng h/mL and 120 h after the single repeated dose administration (area under the curve (0-120 h)) was 227.17 ng h/mL, respectively. The average Cmax was 10.34 ng/mL. CONCLUSION: On average, 18.13% of plasma drospirenone made it to breast milk and the highest concentration of drospirenone in breast milk was 17.55% of that in plasma. The total quantity of drospirenone passing to breast milk is on average 4478 ng during a 24-h period representing 0.11% of the maternal daily dose. Thus, at the recommended doses, no effects on breastfed newborns/infants are anticipated with drospirenone 4 mg.

Effect of eliglustat on the pharmacokinetics of digoxin, metoprolol, and oral contraceptives and absorption of eliglustat when coadministered with acid-reducing agents.

Eliglustat is an oral substrate reduction therapy indicated for patients with Gaucher disease type 1. Based on in vitro data, clinical trials were conducted to assess the potential for drug-drug interactions between eliglustat and digoxin (P-glycoprotein substrate), metoprolol (sensitive CYP2D6 substrate), a combined oral contraceptive (CYP3A substrate), and acid-reducing agents. Healthy subjects were enrolled in four Phase 1 clinical studies to evaluate the effect of eliglustat on the pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of digoxin (N = 28), metoprolol (N = 14), and a combined oral contraceptive (N = 30) and the effect of acid-reducing agents on eliglustat pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability (N = 24). Coadministration resulted in increased exposure to digoxin (1.49-fold) and metoprolol (2-fold) with eliglustat, negligible effects on oral contraceptive pharmacokinetics with eliglustat, and a negligible effect of acid-reducing agents on eliglustat pharmacokinetics. Across all studies, eliglustat was well-tolerated. One serious adverse event (spontaneous abortion) and one discontinuation due to an adverse event (urinary tract infection) were reported, both during the acid-reducing agents study. When eliglustat is coadministered with medications that are P-glycoprotein or CYP2D6 substrates, lower doses of these concomitant medications may be required. Eliglustat may be coadministered with oral contraceptives and acid-reducing agents without dose modifications for either drug.

A once-a-month oral contraceptive.

Poor patient adherence to oral contraceptives is the predominant cause of failure of these therapies, leading to unplanned pregnancies that can negatively affect female health worldwide. To improve patient adherence, we developed an oral contraceptive that is administered once a month. Here, we describe the design and report in vivo characterization of a levonorgestrel-releasing gastric resident dosage form in pigs.

Assessment of Drug-Drug Interactions between Taspoglutide, a Glucagon-Like Peptide-1 Agonist, and Drugs Commonly Used in Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus: Results of Five Phase I Trials.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Taspoglutide, a glucagon-like peptide-1 agonist, like native glucagon-like peptide-1, delays gastric emptying time and prolongs intestinal transit time, which may alter the pharmacokinetics of concomitantly administered oral drugs. The effect of taspoglutide on the pharmacokinetics of five oral drugs commonly used in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus was assessed in healthy subjects. METHODS: Five clinical pharmacology studies evaluated the potential drug-drug interaction between multiple subcutaneous taspoglutide doses and a single dose of lisinopril, warfarin, and simvastatin and multiple doses of digoxin and an oral contraceptive containing ethinylestradiol and levonorgestrel. The extent of interaction was quantified using geometric mean ratios and 90% confidence intervals for the maximum plasma concentration and area under the plasma concentration-time curve. In addition to pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamic effects were assessed for warfarin and the oral contraceptive. RESULTS: Among the tested drugs, the effect of taspoglutide on the pharmacokinetics of simvastatin was most pronounced, on the day of taspoglutide administration, the average exposure to simvastatin was decreased by - 26% and - 58% for the area under the plasma concentration-time curve and maximum plasma concentration, respectively, accompanied by an increase in average exposure to its active metabolite, simvastatin ß-hydroxy acid (+ 74% and + 23% for area under the plasma concentration-time curve and maximum plasma concentration, respectively). Although statistically significant changes in exposure were observed for other test drugs, the 90% confidence intervals for the geometric mean ratio for maximum plasma concentration and area under the plasma concentration-time curve were within the 0.7-1.3 interval. No clinically relevant changes on coagulation (for warfarin) and ovulation-suppressing activity (for the oral contraceptive) were apparent. CONCLUSION: Overall, multiple doses of taspoglutide did not result in changes in the pharmacokinetics of digoxin, an oral contraceptive containing ethinylestradiol and levonorgestrel, lisinopril, warfarin, and simvastatin that would be considered of clinical relevance. Therefore, no dose adjustments are warranted upon co-administration.

Oral Contraceptives after Bariatric Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Bariatric surgery offers a highly effective mode of treatment for obese patients. Some procedures such as bypass cause an alteration in normal gastrointestinal tract with possible consequences for the uptake of orally administered drugs. METHODS: We assessed the literature to ascertain whether the use of oral drugs and especially oral contraceptives is effective and adequate after bariatric surgery. RESULTS: The bioavailability of drugs could be affected by the solubility and pH of the modified medium after bariatric surgery and by the loss of gastrointestinal transporters. Bariatric surgery could potentially result in a transient change in the absorption of drugs such as analgesics, antibiotics, antiarrhythmics, anticoagulants, psychotropic, and oral contraceptive drugs. Effective contraception is especially critical in the postoperative period, and implants might be representing a safe contraceptive method in women undergoing bariatric surgery. CONCLUSION: Each drug will have to be evaluated with respect to its site of absorption and its mechanism of absorption, with special attention on parameters influencing the effectiveness of the absorption processes.

No Dose Adjustment is Recommended for Digoxin, Warfarin, Atorvastatin or a Combination Oral Contraceptive When Coadministered with Dulaglutide.

BACKGROUND: Glucagon-like peptide-1 receptor agonists (GLP-1 RAs) for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus are known to delay gastric emptying (GE). The potential effect of the GLP-1 RA dulaglutide on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of four orally administered drugs and on the pharmacodynamic (PD) effect of warfarin was investigated. METHODS: In four separate clinical pharmacology studies, digoxin, warfarin, atorvastatin and Ortho-Cyclen® were orally administered to healthy subjects with and without a subcutaneous dose of dulaglutide 1.5 mg. The effect of dulaglutide coadministration was assessed based on the PK parameters of key analytes. For warfarin PD, the effect of dulaglutide on the international normalized ratio (INR) was evaluated. RESULTS: Areas under the concentration-time curves (AUCs) with and without dulaglutide were similar for all analytes except atorvastatin, where it was reduced by 21%. Maximum concentrations (C max) were generally lower following coadministration with dulaglutide, with statistically significant reductions (90% confidence intervals of geometric least squares means ratios outside 0.80-1.25) for all analytes except R-warfarin. For all analytes, there was a general trend for the time to C max (t max) to increase following coadministration with dulaglutide. For warfarin, dulaglutide coadministration had no statistically significant effect on the maximum INR (INRmax); however, a 2% increase in area under the INR curve (AUCINR) was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Dulaglutide did not affect the absorption of the tested medications to a clinically relevant degree. Based on the PK and PD evaluations, no dose adjustments for digoxin, warfarin, atorvastatin and Ortho-Cyclen® are recommended when coadministered with dulaglutide. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBERS: NCT01458210, NCT01436201, NCT01432938, and NCT01250834.

Clarification of contraceptive drug pharmacokinetics in obesity.

Related to concerns about the role of obesity in the efficacy of contraceptive drugs, a review of the literature was carried out in regard to the pharmacokinetics of ethinyl estradiol and various progestins given by various routes of administration. Most studies show that obese women exhibit modestly lower plasma concentrations of these drugs (circa 30%) when given the same doses as normal-weight women. While the mechanism is uncertain, precedence in the literature suggests that this is due to body weight-related differences in metabolism rates. Confusing in some of the literature is that a few studies have reported erroneously calculated pharmacokinetic parameters after multiple dosing of oral contraceptives. A demonstration of appropriate pharmacokinetic methodology is provided.

Teratogenic drugs and their drug interactions with hormonal contraceptives.

The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) Guidance for Industry-Drug Interaction Studies, recommends that a potential human teratogen needs to be studied in vivo for effects on contraceptive steroids.(1) This article highlights the need to evaluate the drug-drug interactions (DDIs) between drugs with teratogenic potential and hormonal contraceptives (HCs) during drug development. It also addresses the FDA's effort of communicating DDI findings in product labels to mitigate the risk of unintended pregnancy.

Design Features of Drug-Drug Interaction Trials Between Antivirals and Oral Contraceptives.

The aim of this work was to explore the major design features of drug-drug interaction trials between antiviral medications (AVs) and oral contraceptives (OCs). Information on these trials (n = 27) was collected from approved drug labels and clinical pharmacology reviews conducted by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. The primary objective of all trials was to evaluate changes in OC exposure following the coadministration of AVs. In addition, an evaluation of potential pharmacodynamic interaction was performed in 10 of these trials. Twenty-two trials were open label with a fixed-sequence design, and 5 trials used a double-blind crossover design. The trials were conducted using one, two, or three 28-day ovulatory cycles in 10, 8, and 9 trials, respectively. Only 1 trial enrolled HIV-infected women. The median number of women in a trial was 20 (range, 12 to 52). Norethindrone/ethinyl estradiol (EE) combination was the most commonly used OC (n = 16, 59%) followed by norgestimate/EE (n = 9, 33%). Labeling recommendations were based on exposure changes in 25 cases and on safety observations in the trial in 2 cases. In conclusion, a wide variety of trial designs was used, and there is no preferred design. The answer to the exposure question can be achieved using multiple designs.

Rapid quantitative analysis of ormeloxifene and its active metabolite, 7-desmethyl ormeloxifene, in rat plasma using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry.

Ormeloxifene (ORM) is a non-steroidal, selective estrogen receptor modulator used as a once a week oral contraceptive and is intended for long-term clinical use by females. Therefore, a simple, sensitive and rapid LC-MS/MS method was developed and validated for simultaneous quantification of ORM and its active metabolite (7-desmethyl ormeloxifene, 7-DMO) in rat plasma. Also, the method was partially validated in human plasma. Chromatographic separation was achieved on Discovery HS C-18 column (5µm, 50×4.6mm) with mobile phase [acetonitrile: aqueous ammonium acetate (0.01M) buffer (85: 15, %v/v)] at a flow rate of 0.8mL/min. The calibration curve was linear (r≥0.99) for a concentration range of 0.78-100ng/mL for both the analytes. The precision (%RSD; ORM, 1.3 to 13.4; 7-DMO, 3.1 to 15.0) and accuracy (%bias; ORM, -13.8 to 12.5; 7-DMO, -10.6 to 6.8) in both rat and human plasma were within the acceptable limits. The recovery for ORM and 7-DMO was always >79.1% and >72.9%, respectively. Both the analytes were found stable in rat plasma even after 30 days of storage at -80°C and on being subjected to three freeze-thaw cycles. The method has not only short run time (3.5min) but requires a low plasma sample volume (20µL) and is the first reported LC-MS/MS method for simultaneous quantification of the marketed drug known as centchroman (INN: ormeloxifene) and the metabolite 7-DMO in plasma. The method was applied to evaluate drug-drug interaction of ORM with the commonly prescribed antidepressant drug sertraline using serial sampling in rats.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic drug interactions between antiretrovirals and oral contraceptives.

More than 50 % of women living with HIV in low- and middle-income countries are of reproductive age, but there are limitations to the administration of oral contraception for HIV-infected women receiving antiretroviral therapy due to drug-drug interactions caused by metabolism via the cytochrome P450 isoenzymes and glucuronidation. However, with the development of newer antiretrovirals that use alternative metabolic pathways, options for contraception in HIV-positive women are increasing. This paper aims to review the literature on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of oral hormonal contraceptives when given with antiretroviral agents, including those currently used in developed countries, older ones that might still be used in salvage regimens, or those used in resource-limited settings, as well as newer drugs. Nucleos(t)ide reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs), the usual backbone to most combined antiretroviral treatments (cARTs) are characterised by a low potential for drug-drug interactions with oral contraceptives. On the other hand non-NRTIs (NNRTIs) and protease inhibitors (PIs) may interact with oral contraceptives. Of the NNRTIs, efavirenz and nevirapine have been demonstrated to cause drug-drug interactions; however, etravirine and rilpivirine appear safe to use without dose adjustment. PIs boosted with ritonavir are not recommended to be used with oral contraceptives, with the exception of boosted atazanavir which should be used with doses of at least 35 µg of estrogen. Maraviroc, an entry inhibitor, is safe for co-administration with oral contraceptives, as are the integrase inhibitors (INIs) raltegravir and dolutegravir. However, the INI elvitegravir, which is given in combination with cobicistat, requires a dose of estrogen of at least 30 µg. Despite the growing evidence in this field, data are still lacking in terms of large cohort studies, randomised trials and correlations to real clinical outcomes, such as pregnancy rates, in women on antiretrovirals and hormonal contraception.

How can we improve oral contraceptive success in obese women?

A rapid increase in obesity rates worldwide further underscores the importance of better understanding the pharmacokinetic alterations in this sub-population and the subsequent effects on pharmacotherapeutics. Pharmacokinetics of contraceptive steroids is altered in obese oral contraceptive users, which may in turn impact efficacy. Our study has identified several dosing strategies that offset these pharmacokinetic changes and may improve effectiveness for obese oral contraception users.

Effect of oral siponimod (BAF312) on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of a monophasic oral contraceptive in healthy female subjects.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of siponimod (BAF312) on the pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of a monophasic oral contraceptive (OC). MATERIALS AND METHODS: This was a phase 1, single-center, open-label, multipledose, single-sequence study in healthy females. Eligible subjects (n = 23) were exposed sequentially to two treatment periods: period 1 (OC alone) and period 2 (OC + siponimod) in two consecutive menstrual periods. PK parameters were assessed on day 21 of both treatment periods. Follicle-stimulating hormone (FSH), luteinizing hormone (LH), estradiol, and progesterone concentrations were measured at baseline and days 3, 6, 8, 11, 14, 16, 19, 21, and 23 of each period. Largest ovarian follicle size and sex hormone-binding globulin (SHBG) concentration were measured and Hoogland score was calculated at baseline and day 21 of each period. Safety and tolerability of siponimod was also assessed. RESULTS: Co-administration (OC + siponimod) increased the AUC(τ,ss) and C(max,ss) of levonorgestrel by 28% and 18%, respectively, but had no effect on the PK of ethinylestradiol. No significant changes in estradiol, FSH, and LH were noted with co-administration vs. OC alone. Progesterone levels < 5 nmol/L, largest follicle size < 10 mm, and Hoogland score of 1 on day 21 indicated lack of ovulation in all subjects during co-administration. Co-administration was well tolerated. CONCLUSION: In conclusion, PK and PD of the OC were not altered to a clinically significant extent and contraceptive efficacy was maintained with co-administration. Hence, OC as a contraceptive measure can be safely co-administered with siponimod.