Search

Background We aimed to assess the safety and tolerability of different doses of canakinumab versus placebo in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Methods Data were pooled from three studies in 1026 T2DM patients with different routes of administration, treatment regimens and follow-up duration. Canakinumab groups were categorised as low (0.03 mg/kg i.v. once; N = 20), intermediate (0.1 and 0.3 mg/kg i.v. once, 5 and 15 mg s.c. monthly; N = 247), medium (1.5 mg/kg i.v. once, 50 mg s.c. monthly and 150 mg s.c. once; N = 268), and high doses (10 mg/kg i.v. once and 150 mg s.c. monthly; N = 137) and compared with placebo (N = 354). Incidences of adverse events (AEs), serious AEs (SAEs), discontinuations due to AEs, deaths, AEs of special interest related to interleukin-1β inhibition and T2DM disease, and laboratory abnormalities related to haematology and biochemistry parameters were reported. Safety was also analysed by age (<65, ⩾65) and gender. Results Average exposure across all groups was ≈ 6 months (maximum ∼17 months). No dose response in AEs was observed but a trend towards more patients having at least one AE across canakinumab groups relative to placebo (P = 0.0152) was observed. SAEs were few and the incidence rate for most canakinumab groups was lower than that of placebo group except for the high-dose group (0.94% versus 0.58% per month in placebo). A total of five patients discontinued treatment due to AEs across treatment groups. No death was reported in any of the three studies. A small, non-significant increase in the incidence rate of infection AEs was observed on canakinumab groups relative to placebo. Canakinumab was associated with mostly mild decreases in WBC, neutrophils and platelet counts. Additionally, mild increases in SGPT, SGOT and bilirubin were reported. Overall, despite small differences, no clinically relevant findings were observed with respect to laboratory values and vital signs. Conclusions This pooled analysis demonstrated that canakinumab was safe and well tolerated over a treatment period up to 1.4 years at the four pooled doses evaluated, in agreement with safety findings reported in the individual studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: Both sirolimus and cyclosporine are immunosuppressants used in a combined regimen after organ transplantation. When coadministered with the innovator formulation of cyclosporine, sirolimus blood levels increase 3.3-fold due to a pharmacokinetic interaction. We assessed this drug interaction for potential differences when the innovator formulation is replaced by a generic cyclosporine. Methods: In this randomized single-dose crossover study, 28 healthy subjects received 5 mg sirolimus oral solution with 250 mg cyclosporine soft gelatin capsules given as the innovator formulation (reference treatment) versus a generic formulation (test treatment). Sirolimus peak blood concentration (Cmax) and area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) were compared between test and reference treatments by standard bioequivalence testing. Results: Sirolimus Cmax was significantly lower by 17% in the presence of generic versus innovator cyclosporine (p=0.0003) and failed bioequivalence criteria with a test/reference ratio of 0.83 (90% confidence interval, 0.77-0.90). Nearly half of the subjects (46%) had sirolimus Cmax changes which fell outside the bioequivalence window with individual Cmax decreases up to 52% and increases up to 39%. Sirolimus AUC was significantly lower by 11% in the presence of generic versus innovator cyclosporine (p=0.041) but satisfied average bioequivalence criteria with a test/reference ratio of 0.89 (0.83-0.95). Nonetheless, over a third of the subjects (43%) had sirolimus AUC changes outside the standard bioequivalence window with individual AUC decreases up to 39% and increases up to 42%. Conclusions: Switching between innovator and generic cyclosporine may have a clinically-relevant impact on coadministered sirolimus pharmacokinetics. If such a switch is initiated by the prescriber, follow-up therapeutic monitoring of both cyclosporine and sirolimus blood levels should be performed to guide dose adjustments as necessary. If the switch is made without consulting the prescriber, potentially significant changes in sirolimus exposure could go unnoticed by the clinician and patient. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]