Impact of Disease and Treatment Response in Drug-Drug Interaction Studies: Osimertinib and Simvastatin in Advanced Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer.

A phase I, open-label study (NCT02197234) assessed the effects of osimertinib on simvastatin exposure in patients with advanced epidermal growth factor receptor (EGFR)-mutated non-small cell lung cancer and disease progression post-EGFR tyrosine kinase inhibitor treatment. Here, we report on a retrospective analysis of two patients (patients 1 and 2) who had liver metastases and high simvastatin exposure prior to osimertinib treatment, which changed following treatment. Patients received single oral doses of simvastatin 40 mg on day (D) 1 and D31, and osimertinib 80 mg once daily on D3-32. At baseline, both patients had abnormal liver function tests (LFTs; Child-Pugh scores of 6 and 8, respectively), significant liver metastasis, and, after a single simvastatin dose, had higher (~ 10-fold) exposure compared with all other patients. Following 31 days of continuous osimertinib treatment, simvastatin exposures (area under the plasma concentration-time curve from zero to infinity (AUC) and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax )) and LFTs, such as alanine transaminase, aspartate aminotransferase, and bilirubin normalized to population mean values. Additionally, ~ 50% and ~ 80% reductions in liver metastases were observed on computed tomography scans in patients 1 and 2, respectively. High simvastatin exposure on D1 likely resulted from impairment of hepatic first pass metabolism due to liver metastases. Reduction in hepatic disease burden due to osimertinib treatment likely resulted in liver function returning to normal levels.

Pharmacokinetics of coadministered guanfacine extended release and lisdexamfetamine dimesylate.

BACKGROUND: In clinical practice, α2-adrenoceptor agonists have been adjunctively administered with psychostimulants for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Two studies have examined the adjunctive use of guanfacine extended release (GXR, Intuniv®; Shire Development LLC, Wayne, PA, USA) with psychostimulants in children and adolescents with a suboptimal response to psychostimulant treatment. However, the potential for pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions (DDIs) between GXR and lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX, Vyvanse®; Shire US LLC, Wayne, PA, USA) has not been thoroughly evaluated. OBJECTIVE: The primary objective of this study was to examine the pharmacokinetics of GXR 4 mg and LDX 50 mg given as single doses alone and in combination. STUDY DESIGN: This was an open-label, randomized, three-period crossover, DDI study. SETTING: The study was conducted in a single clinical research center. PARTICIPANTS: Forty-two healthy adults were randomized in this study. INTERVENTIONS: Subjects were administered single oral doses of GXR 4 mg, LDX 50 mg, or GXR and LDX in combination. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Blood samples collected predose and up to 72 h postdose assessed guanfacine, LDX, and d-amphetamine levels. Bioequivalence was defined as the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the geometric mean ratios of the area under the plasma concentration-time curve extrapolated to infinity (AUC0-∞) and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) falling within the bioequivalence reference interval (0.80-1.25). Safety measures included adverse events, vital signs, and electrocardiograms (ECGs). RESULTS: Forty subjects completed the study. Following administration of LDX alone or in combination with GXR, the statistical comparisons of the AUC0-∞ and Cmax of d-amphetamine fell entirely within the reference interval. For guanfacine, the 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio of AUC∞ for the two treatments was within the bioequivalence criteria, but for Cmax the upper bound of the 90% CI exceeded the standard range for bioequivalence by 7%. This relatively small change is unlikely to be clinically meaningful. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported by 42.9% of subjects; the most commonly reported TEAEs included dizziness (5.0, 7.3, and 7.3%) and headache (7.5, 4.9, and 7.3%) following administration of GXR, LDX, and GXR and LDX in combination, respectively. Clinically significant ECG abnormalities occurred in one subject following administration of LDX and in one subject following coadministration of GXR and LDX. CONCLUSIONS: In healthy adults, coadministration of GXR and LDX did not result in a clinically meaningful pharmacokinetic DDI compared with either treatment alone. No unique TEAEs were observed with coadministration of GXR and LDX compared with either treatment alone.