Effects of cilomilast, a selective phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor, on esophageal motility and pH, and orocecal and colonic transit: two single-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-part crossover studies in healthy volunteers.

BACKGROUND: Phase IIb studies have reported that cilomilast, a selective phosphodiesterase 4 inhibitor being developed for the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, is associated with gastrointestinal (GI) adverse effects (AEs) in a small proportion (approximately 5%) of individuals. OBJECTIVES: The aims of these 2 studies were to investigate the effects of cilomilast 15 mg BID on: (1) lower esophageal sphincter pressure (LESP) and esophageal body motility and pH (study 1); and (2) orocecal and whole-gut transit times (OCTT and WGTT, respectively) (study 2) in healthy volunteers. METHODS: These 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2-part crossover studies were conducted at the Neurogastroenterology Unit, Wythenshawe Hospital, Manchester, United Kingdom (study 1) and GlaxoSmithKline, Harlow, United Kingdom (study 2). In study 1, subjects were randomly assigned to receive either cilomilast (15 mg BID) or matched placebo (control) for 7 days (13 doses; subjects were not given the evening dose on day 7), and in study 2, cilomilast (15 mg BID) or matched placebo (control) for 9 days (18 doses) in each of 2 treatment periods. After study drug administration, combined esophageal motility and pH were recorded for 2 hours before and 4 hours after the administration of a standardized meal (2400 kJ [573 kcal]). Sequences of 6 consecutive 5-mL water swallows (separated by 20 seconds) were carried out 60 and 90 minutes (fasting) and 150, 180, 210, 240, 300, and 360 minutes (fed) after study drug administration. OCTT was determined from the increase in breath hydrogen after the meal. WGTT was determined from the time taken to excrete at least 16 of 20 ingested radiopaque markers, ingested as 2 capsules, each containing 10 radiopaque markers, with 240 mL of water. AEs were elicited at specified times throughout each session using nonleading questions, spontaneously reported AEs, and diary cards. RESULTS: Study 1 enrolled 20 subjects (11 men, 9 women; age range, 20-52 years). Study 2 enrolled 16 subjects (10 men, 6 women; age range, 19-48 years). No clinically significant differences in the amplitude (mean difference in postprandial-preprandial AUC0-t/t, 6.09 mm Hg; 95% CI, -10.66 to 22.84), duration (difference, -0.08 second; 95% CI, -0.54 to 0.37), or velocity of propagation (difference, 0.90 cm/s; 95% CI, -0.66 to 2.46) of esophageal contractions, LESP (difference, -0.39 mm Hg; 95% CI, -5.23 to 4.45), or preprandial or postprandial percentage time pH<4 (median differences: preprandial, 0.47% [95% CI, -0.45 to 1.27]; postprandial, -0.005% [95% CI, -1.30 to 6.27]) were found with cilomilast compared with placebo. No significant differences in OCTT (difference, -0.37 hour; 95% CI, -1.59 to 0.84) or WGTT (difference, -2.96 hours; 95% CI, -20.76 to 14.84) were found with cilomilast compared with controls. In both studies, the most frequently reported AEs with cilomilast use were nausea (8/18 in study 1 and 3/16 in study 2) and headache (8/18 in study 1 and 6/16 in study 2); however, these were generally of mild to moderate intensity. Overall, GI AEs did not correlate with changes in GI motility. CONCLUSION: The results of these 2 studies suggest that cilomilast was not associated with significant changes in esophageal motility and pH or GI transit in these healthy volunteers.

Lack of pharmacokinetic interactions between cilomilast and theophylline or smoking in healthy volunteers.

The pharmacokinetic profile of cilomilast (Ariflo), a selective phosphodiesterase 4 (PDE4) inhibitor, was investigated in three separate studies. Two of these studies explored the drug interaction potential of cilomilast with the nonselective PDE inhibitor, theophylline, and a third study compared the pharmacokinetic profile of cilomilast in smokers and nonsmokers. Repeated administration of cilomilast had no effect on the steady-state pharmacokinetics of theophylline in either a pilot dose-ranging or definitive therapeutic study. At therapeutic doses, the point estimate and 90% confidence interval for theophylline AUC(0-12) and C(max) were completely contained within the range (0.8, 1.25). Similarly, repeated administration of theophylline had little clinically relevant effect on the steady-state pharmacokinetics of cilomilast when compared to placebo, as only slight average increases in cilomilast AUC(0-12) and C(max) (6% and 3%, respectively) were observed. In addition, mean cilomilast exposure (AUC(0- infinity )) was found to be similar in both smokers and nonsmokers (8.47 +/- 2.20 microg*h/mL and 7.70 +/- 2.25 microg*h/mL, respectively). Throughout all three studies, cilomilast was well tolerated, and concomitant use of these selective and nonselective inhibitors, although unlikely in the clinic, is hypothetically feasible. Taken together, these studies clearly differentiate cilomilast from theophylline for drug-drug liability issues in a smoker and nonsmoker population, as well as highlight the potential to switch from one drug to another without undue clinical concern.