Effects of the cholesteryl ester transfer protein inhibitor evacetrapib on lipoproteins, apolipoproteins and 24-h ambulatory blood pressure in healthy adults.

OBJECTIVES: We investigated the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of evacetrapib. METHODS: Healthy volunteers received multiple daily doses of evacetrapib (10-600 mg) administered for up to 15 days in a placebo-controlled study. KEY FINDINGS: Mean peak plasma concentrations of evacetrapib occurred at 4-6 h and terminal half-life ranged 24-44 h. Steady state was achieved at approximately 10 days; all subjects had undetectable levels of evacetrapib 3 weeks after their last dose. The trough inhibition of cholesteryl ester transfer protein (CETP) activity was 65 and 84% at 100 and 300 mg, respectively. At the highest dose (600 mg), evacetrapib significantly inhibited CETP activity (91%), increased HDL-C (87%) and apo AI (42%), and decreased LDL-C (29%) and apo B (26%) relative to placebo. For the highest dose tested, levels of evacetrapib, CETP activity, CETP mass, HDL-C and LDL-C returned to levels at or near baseline after a 2-week washout period. Evacetrapib at the highest dose tested did not produce any significant effect on 24-h ambulatory systolic or diastolic blood pressure. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple doses of evacetrapib potently inhibited CETP activity, leading to substantial elevations in HDL-C and lowering of LDL-C. Evacetrapib was devoid of clinically relevant effects on blood pressure and mineralocorticoid levels.

Effect of intrinsic and extrinsic factors on the clinical pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of prasugrel.

Thienopyridines are inactive prodrugs that are converted in vivo to active metabolites, which irreversibly bind to and inactivate platelet P2Y(12) receptors, and inhibit platelet activation and aggregation. Prasugrel is a third-generation thienopyridine, recently approved for prevention of thrombotic cardiovascular complications in patients with an acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Prasugrel is converted to its active metabolite (Pras-AM; compound R-138727) in two sequential steps: (i) rapid and complete hydrolysis by intestinal human carboxylesterase-2 to form a thiolactone intermediate; and (ii) oxidation of the thiolactone by cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes in the gut and/or the liver. CYP3A and CYP2B6 are the primary CYPs contributing to Pras-AM formation, with smaller contributions from CYP2C9 and CYP2C19. Prasugrel is rapidly absorbed and metabolized, with Pras-AM plasma concentrations peaking at about 0.5 hours after oral administration; this helps to account for the rapid onset of inhibition of platelet aggregation (IPA) achieved by prasugrel. In the clinical pharmacology programme for prasugrel, bodyweight had the greatest effect of all covariates that were tested. In the phase III TRITON-TIMI 38 trial, the mean exposure to Pras-AM was 42% greater in patients weighing < 60 kg than in patients with the study population median bodyweight of 85 kg. In a pharmacodynamic meta-analysis of data from healthy subjects a decrease of 1 kg in bodyweight was associated with an increase in IPA of approximately 0.26 percentage points (p < 0.0001). Pras-AM exposure was greater in subjects aged ≥ 75 years, but exposure differences were not as large as those for bodyweight. Pras-AM exposure was greater in Asians than in Caucasians, but this appeared to result from a disproportionately greater exposure difference in Asian subjects with low bodyweight. Sex and allelic variation in CYPs 1A2, 2B6, 2C19, 2C9, 3A4 and 3A5 appeared to have no clinically relevant effect on Pras-AM exposure or IPA. Consistent with the lack of association between genetic status and these pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic results in healthy subjects, no significant association was detected between these allelic variants and the composite primary endpoint (cardiovascular death, non-fatal myocardial infarction or non-fatal stroke) in the TRITON-TIMI 38 trial. Studies in renally impaired subjects and subjects with mild or moderate hepatic impairment have indicated that dose adjustment is not required in these patient populations. Prasugrel has few clinically significant drug-drug interactions. Potent CYP3A inhibitors, gastric acid suppressants and food have been shown to reduce the rate of formation of Pras-AM but not its overall exposure. This pharmacokinetic effect reduced the rate of onset of IPA after a loading dose but did not affect the peak IPA after a loading dose or the IPA during maintenance dosing. Potent induction of CYP3A, as well as smoking--which induces CYP1A2--did not affect Pras-AM exposure or IPA. Prior treatment with clopidogrel did not influence tolerability to prasugrel and did not appear to alter IPA during prasugrel treatment. Prasugrel did not affect the activities of CYP2C9, CYP2C19 or P-glycoprotein, but it weakly inhibited CYP2B6. The inhibition of CYP2B6 is potentially clinically significant only for drugs that have a narrow therapeutic window and have CYP2B6 as the primary elimination pathway. No interaction was detected between prasugrel and heparin. Although prasugrel did not alter warfarin pharmacokinetics, prasugrel and warfarin should not be used together, because of an increased bleeding risk associated with their concomitant use.

Effect of atorvastatin on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of prasugrel and clopidogrel in healthy subjects.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To investigate the potential effect of atorvastatin 80 mg/day on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the thienopyridines prasugrel and clopidogrel. DESIGN: Open-label, randomized, crossover, two-arm, parallel-group study. SETTING: Single clinical research center in the United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: Sixty-nine healthy men aged 18-60 years. Intervention. Subjects received either a loading dose of prasugrel 60 mg followed by a maintenance dose of 10 mg/day or a loading dose of clopidogrel 300 mg followed by 75 mg/day. The drug was given as monotherapy for 10 days, and after a 6-day run-in period with atorvastatin 80 mg/day, the same dosage of atorvastatin was continued with the respective thienopyridine for 10 days. A 14-day washout period separated the treatment regimens. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Blood samples were collected before and at various time points after dosing on days 1 and 11 for determination of plasma concentrations of metabolites and for measurement of platelet aggregation induced by adenosine 5'-diphosphate 20 microM and vasodilator-stimulated phosphoprotein (VASP). Coadministration of atorvastatin did not alter exposure to active metabolites of prasugrel or clopidogrel after the loading dose and thus did not alter inhibition of platelet aggregation (IPA). During maintenance dosing, atorvastatin administration resulted in 17% and 28% increases in the area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) values of prasugrel's and clopidogrel's active metabolites, respectively. These small changes in AUC did not result in a significant change in IPA response to prasugrel but did result in a significant increase in IPA during clopidogrel maintenance dosing at some, but not all, of the time points on day 11. Coadministration of atorvastatin with either prasugrel or clopidogrel had no effect on VASP phosphorylation relative to the thienopyridine alone after the loading dose. CONCLUSION: Coadministration of atorvastatin 80 mg/day with prasugrel or clopidogrel did not negatively affect the antiplatelet response to either drug after a loading dose or during maintenance dosing. The lack of a clinically meaningful effect of high-dose atorvastatin on the pharmacodynamic response to prasugrel after the loading or maintenance dose indicates that no dosage adjustment should be necessary in patients receiving these drugs concomitantly.

Effects of pioglitazone and glimepiride on glycemic control and insulin sensitivity in Mexican patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: A multicenter, randomized, double-blind, parallel-group trial.

BACKGROUND: Pioglitazone and glimepiride improve glycemic control in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus by different mechanisms. Pioglitazone is a thiazolidinedione that reduces insulin resistance, and glimepiride is a sulfonylurea insulin secretagogue. OBJECTIVE: The goals of this study were to compare changes in measures of glycemic control and insulin sensitivity in Mexican patients with type 2 diabetes who received pioglitazone or glimepiride for 1 year. METHODS: This was a multicenter, 52-week, double-blind, parallel-group trial. Patients were randomized to receive monotherapy with either glimepiride (2 mg QD initially) or pioglitazone (15 mg QD initially). Doses were titrated (maximal doses: pioglitazone 45 mg, glimepiride 8 mg) to achieve glycemic targets (fasting blood glucose < or =7 mmol/L and 1-hour postprandial blood glucose < or =10 mmol/L). Insulin sensitivity (primary end point) was evaluated in terms of the Homeostasis Model Assessment for Insulin Sensitivity (HOMA-S), the Quantitative Insulin Sensitivity Check Index (QUICKI), and fasting serum insulin (FSI) concentrations. Glycemic control was evaluated in terms of glycosylated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)) values and fasting plasma glucose (FPG) concentrations. Patients were encouraged to maintain their individual diet and exercise regimens throughout the study. RESULTS: Two hundred forty-four patients (125 women, 119 men; all but 1 Hispanic) were randomized to receive pioglitazone (n = 121) or glimepiride (n = 123). In the intent-to-treat sample, pioglitazone and glimepirede produced comparable reductions in HbA(1c) from baseline to the end of the study (-0.78% and -0.68%, respectively). The pioglitazone group had significantly higher HbA(1c) values compared with the glimepiride group after 12 weeks of therapy (8.66% vs 7.80%; P = 0.007) but had significantly lower values after 52 weeks (7.46% vs 7.77%; P = 0.027). Pioglitazone significantly reduced FPG compared with glimepiride (-0.6 vs 0.6 mmol/L; P = 0.01). Pioglitazone therapy was associated with significant increases in insulin sensitivity (reduced insulin resistance), whereas glimepiride had no effect. HOMA-S values changed 18.0% for pioglitazone and -7.9% for glimepiride (P < 0.001), QUICKI values changed a respective 0.013 and -0.007 (P < 0.001), and FSI values were -21.1 and 15.1 pmol/L (P< 0.001). Both drugs were well tolerated, with pioglitazone associated with more peripheral edema (number of treatment-emergent cases: 35/121[28.9%] vs 17/123 [13.8%]; P = 0.005) and fewer hypoglycemic episodes (19 [15.7%] vs 38 [30.9%]; P = 0.024). The incidence of weight gain was not significantly different between treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: These data suggest that long-term treatment with pioglitazone enhances insulin sensitivity relative to glimepiride in Mexican patients with type 2 diabetes and that pioglitazone may have a more sustained antihyperglycemic effect.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, clinical trial of the effects of pioglitazone on glycemic control and dyslipidemia in oral antihyperglycemic medication-naive patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus.

OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to compare the effects of 2 doses of pioglitazone hydrochloride (a thiazolidinedione insulin sensitizer) with placebo on glycated hemoglobin (HbA(1c)), insulin sensitivity, and lipid profiles in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who had suboptimal glycemic control and mild dyslipidemia. METHODS: Patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (HbA(1c) >/=6.5% and /=7% to <8%) or high (>/=8% to