Clinical Bioavailability of the Novel BACE1 Inhibitor Lanabecestat (AZD3293): Assessment of Tablet Formulations Versus an Oral Solution and the Impact of Gastric pH on Pharmacokinetics.

The relative bioavailability of lanabecestat administered as 2 tablet formulations versus an oral solution was investigated. This phase 1 single-center, open-label, randomized, 3-period crossover study involved healthy male and nonfertile female subjects aged 18-55 years (NCT02039180). Subjects received a single 50-mg lanabecestat dose as solution, tablet A, or tablet B on day 1 of each crossover period; 14 of 16 subjects completed the study. Relative bioavailability based on plasma lanabecestat AUC0-∞ (area under the plasma drug concentration-time curve from zero to infinity) geometric mean ratio versus oral solution (primary variable) was: tablet A, 1.052 (90% confidence interval [CI], 1.001-1.106); tablet B, 1.040 (0.989-1.093). These 90%CIs for geometric mean ratios are within accepted standard bioequivalence boundaries for all other pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters for both lanabecestat and metabolite (AZ13569724). All 3 formulations had similar plasma lanabecestat concentration-time profiles. Six adverse events were reported by 6 subjects (37.5%, all mild). GastroPlus modeling predicted a negligible impact of gastric pH changes on systemic PK (up to pH 7.4). Both tablet formulations fall within standard accepted bioequivalence criteria versus the oral solution. A single 50-mg lanabecestat dose was well tolerated as a solution or tablet formulation in this population.

Comparison of effects of nisoldipine-extended release and amlodipine in patients with systemic hypertension and chronic stable angina pectoris.

The efficacy and safety of nisoldipine-extended release (ER) and amlodipine were compared in a 6-week multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel group, titration-to-effect trial in patients with stage 1 to 2 systemic hypertension (90 to 109 mm Hg diastolic blood pressure [BP]) and chronic stable angina pectoris. After a 3-week placebo run-in period, patients (n = 120) were randomly assigned to active treatment with either nisoldipine-ER (20 to 40 mg) or amlodipine (5 to 10 mg) once daily, titrated as necessary after 2 weeks to achieve diastolic BP <90 mm Hg. After 6 weeks, the mean reduction in systolic/diastolic BP from baseline was 15/13 mm Hg with nisoldipine-ER and 13/11 mm Hg with amlodipine (p = NS/p = NS). Both drugs resulted in similar BP responder rates (diastolic BP <90 mm Hg in 87% of patients who received nisoldipine-ER and 78% of patients on amlodipine, p = NS) and anti-ischemic responder rates (increasing exercise time >20% in 20% and 27%, respectively [p = NS], and increasing exercise time >60 seconds in 32% and 29% of patients, respectively [p = NS]. Also, after 6 weeks of active therapy, there was a similar mean increase in total exercise duration (23 seconds in the nisoldipine-ER group and 21 seconds in the amlodipine group, p = NS). Neither drug increased heart rate and both decreased frequency of anginal episodes. Adverse events were infrequent, and typically were vasodilator-related effects (including headache and peripheral edema) that occurred with somewhat higher incidence in the nisoldipine-ER group. Thus, nisoldipine-ER and amlodipine provided comparable antihypertensive and anti-ischemic efficacy, and both were generally well tolerated.