Search

Objective: The objectives of the studies reported here were to determine the relative bioavailability of linagliptin and metformin when administered in a fixed-dose combination (FDC) tablet with and without food, and to investigate the relative bioavailability of linagliptin and metformin FDC tablets from two treatment batches with different dissolution behavior., Methods: These studies were open-label, single-dose, randomized, two-way crossover trials. After an overnight fast, healthy volunteers received an FDC tablet once (with/without food in the food-effect study; or from one of two batches with differing dissolution behavior in the tablet-dissolution study). On a separate visit, following a washout period of 35 days, participants received the alternative treatment. In the food-effect study the primary endpoints were maximum measured concentration in plasma (C(max)) for linagliptin and metformin, area under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to 72 hours (AUC(0-72)) for linagliptin and from 0 to infinity (AUC(0-inf)) for metformin. In the tablet-dissolution study the primary endpoints were Cmax for both analytes, AUC(0-72) for linagliptin, and from 0 to the time of the last quantifiable data point (AUC(0-t)) for metformin., Results: The administration of the FDC tablet with food had no influence on the relative bioavailability of linagliptin and metformin with regard to the extent of exposure as determined by AUC(0-72) (linagliptin) and AUC(0-inf) (metformin) compared with FDC tablet administration while fasting. After food intake, peak plasma concentrations of linagliptin were slightly lowered (from 4.99 to 4.56 nmol L⁻¹), but the 90% confidence interval (CI) of the geometric mean test/reference ratio was still located within the generally applied bioequivalence acceptance limits of 80 - 125%. The median time from dosing to the maximum concentration of linagliptin in plasma (t(max)) was similar under both conditions. Administration with food reduced the rate of absorption of metformin indicated by a prolongation in median tmax (from 2 to 4 hours) and a decrease in Cmax by ~ 18%. There were no notable differences between the two treatment groups with respect to safety and tolerability. In the tablet-dissolution study, bioequivalence was demonstrated between linagliptin/metformin FDC tablets with normal and slower dissolution characteristics. For both linagliptin and metformin, the 90% CI of all pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters were well within the bioequivalence acceptance limits of 80 - 125%. Tablets from both batches were well tolerated with no unexpected adverse events., Conclusions: Food did not have a relevant impact on the bioavailability of linagliptin from the FDC tablet. The effect of food on the metformin component was comparable to that previously demonstrated. Furthermore, differences in tablet-dissolution characteristics did not have an impact on the bioavailability of linagliptin or metformin from the FDC tablet.

Objective: To demonstrate bioequivalence of linagliptin/metformin fixed-dose combination (FDC) tablets and the corresponding combination of individual tablets taken together, i.e., free-pill (FP) treatment., Methods: Three dosing combinations were evaluated in three separate randomized studies: linagliptin 2.5 mg with 500 mg, 850 mg, or 1,000 mg metformin. These studies used a prospective, open-label, randomized, two-way crossover design to evaluate bioequivalence in healthy volunteers (n = 287). After an overnight fast, participants received an FDC tablet once, and on a separate visit received the corresponding FP treatment. The two possible treatment sequences (FDC/FP and FP/FDC) were randomly allocated to the participants. A washout period of 35 days separated the two study treatments. The primary endpoints were maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) of linagliptin and metformin, area under the plasma concentration time curve from 0 to 72 hours (AUC0-72) for linagliptin, and from 0 to infinity (AUC0-inf) for metformin., Results: The 90% confidence intervals of the adjusted geometric mean ratios of Cmax and AUC (calculated as FDC/ FP) were within the bioequivalence acceptance limits of 80 - 125%. The number of participants reporting at least one adverse event following FDC treatments was comparable to, or less than, that following FP treatments. Evaluation of vital signs and clinical laboratory tests revealed no safety issues., Conclusions: FDC tablets of linagliptin and metformin are bioequivalent to individual tablets of respective dose strengths taken together. Both treatments were well tolerated.

Objective: To investigate the pharmacokinetic and safety profile of linagliptin after single and multiple doses in healthy Chinese volunteers., Methods: Men and women (n = 12) aged 18 - 45 years with body mass index 19 - 24 kg/m2 received a single 5-mg dose of linagliptin on Day 1, followed by 7-day washout and 6 consecutive days of once-daily administration. Vital signs, electrocardiogram, routine laboratory tests, urinalysis, and adverse events were recorded. Blood and urine analytes were measured by HPLC/MS/MS., Results: Linagliptin was rapidly absorbed; median time to maximum concentration was 1.75 h for single dose and 1.5 h at steady-state. Maximum plasma drug concentration (Cmax) after single dose was 4.9 ng/ml (10.4 nM), with a geometric coefficient of variation (gCV) 46%. The corresponding geometric mean area under the plasma concentrationtime curve (AUC) was 71 ng×h ml-1 (150 nmol×h l-1, gCV 25%). At steady-state, Cmax and AUC were 6.7 ng/ml (14.1 nM, gCV 49%) and 96 nmol×h l-1 (204 nmol×h l-1, gCV 25%). An accumulation half-life of ~ 11.5 h (gCV 46.9%) was calculated. Renal excretion of linagliptin was low and < 8% of administered dose at steady-state (< 2% at Day 1). Single and multiple daily oral doses of 5 mg linagliptin were safe and well tolerated. No adverse events or clinically significant changes in laboratory tests, vital signs, or physical examination were reported., Conclusions: Linagliptin demonstrated a favorable safety profile in healthy Chinese volunteers, with a pharmacokinetic profile that was similar to that observed previously in subjects of Japanese, Caucasian, or African American origin.

What Is Already Known About This Subject: • Linagliptin is an oral, highly selective dipeptidyl peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor that was approved in the United States, Europe and elsewhere in 2011 for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. • The elimination of linagliptin is primarily non-renal. Therefore, a potential effect of hepatic impairment on the elimination of linagliptin may have important implications for dosing recommendations., What This Study Adds: • This study shows that mild, moderate or severe hepatic impairment did not result in an increase in linagliptin exposure after single and multiple dosing as compared with normal hepatic function. • No linagliptin dose adjustment is required in patients with any degree of hepatic impairment., Aim: To investigate whether hepatic impairment affects linagliptin pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and tolerability., Method: This open label, parallel group, single centre study enrolled patients with mild (n= 8), moderate (n= 9) or severe (n= 8) hepatic impairment and healthy subjects (n= 8). Groups were matched with regard to age, weight and gender. Primary endpoints were linagliptin exposure following 5 mg linagliptin once daily for 7 days in patients with mild and moderate hepatic impairment vs. healthy subjects or after a single 5 mg dose for patients with severe hepatic impairment vs. healthy subjects., Results: In mild hepatic impairment, steady-state linagliptin exposure was slightly lower than in healthy subjects [AUC(τ,ss) geometric mean ratio (GMR) 75.5%, 90% confidence interval (CI) 61.6%, 92.5%, and C(max,ss) GMR 64.4%, 90% CI 43.2%, 96.0%]. Exposure also tended to be lower in moderate hepatic impairment (AUC(τ,ss) GMR 85.5%, 90% CI 70.2%, 104.2% and C(max,ss) GMR 92.3%, 90% CI 62.8%, 135.6%). After a single dose, AUC(0,24 h) in patients with severe hepatic impairment was similar to that in healthy subjects (GMR 100.4%, 90% CI 75.0%, 134.3%) and C(max) was lower (GMR 77.0%, 90% CI 44.9%, 132.3%). Accumulation based on AUC or C(max) and renal excretion of unchanged linagliptin (≤ 7%) were comparable across groups. Median plasma DPP-4 inhibition was similar in healthy subjects (91%), and patients with mild (90%) and moderate (89%) hepatic impairment at steady-state trough concentrations, and in patients with severe hepatic impairment 24 h after a single dose (84%). Linagliptin was well tolerated., Conclusion: Mild, moderate or severe hepatic impairment did not result in an increase in linagliptin exposure after single and multiple dosing compared with normal hepatic function. Dose adjustment with linagliptin is not required in patients with hepatic impairment., (© 2012 Boehringer Ingelheim. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology © 2012 The British Pharmacological Society.)

Objective: The objective of this study was to determine the relative bioavailability of the dipeptidyl-peptidase-4 (DPP-4) inhibitor linagliptin when administered with and without food, in accordance with regulatory requirements to support dosing recommendations for patients., Methods: This was a randomized, open-label, crossover study involving 32 healthy white male and female subjects. All subjects received a single dose of 5 mg linagliptin after an overnight fast of at least 10 hours, or immediately after ingestion of a high-fat, high-calorie breakfast. These treatments were separated by a period of 5 weeks. Plasma samples for pharmacokinetic analysis were collected before dosing and at prespecified time points after dosing. The concentration of linagliptin in these samples was analyzed by high-performance liquid chromatography coupled to tandem mass spectrometry. Relative bioavailability was assessed by the total area under the curve between 0 and 72 hours (AUC(0-72)) and maximum measured plasma concentration (C(max)) of linagliptin. Tolerability was also assessed., Results: In 32 subjects (mean age, 34.8 years; weight, 74.3 kg; male, 53%; white race, 100%), intake of a high-fat meal resulted in comparable bioavailability with regard to AUC(0-72) (geometric mean ratio [GMR] between the fed and fasted group means was 103.5%; 90% CI, 98.1%-109.2%). Individuals' responses to food ranged from a maximum increase in exposure of 38% to a decrease of 32% relative to the fasted state. The concurrent intake of food increased the time to reach maximum plasma concentration (T(max)) by approximately 2 hours and reduced C(max) by about 15% (GMR 84.7%; 90% CI, 75.9%-94.6%). Since adequate drug exposure for inhibition of DPP-4 was still given for the entire 24-hour dosing interval, this result was considered to be of no clinical relevance. Linagliptin was well tolerated during the study., Conclusions: Intake of a high-fat meal reduced the rate of linagliptin absorption but had no influence on the extent of absorption; this finding suggests that food has no relevant influence on the efficacy of linagliptin., (Copyright © 2011 Elsevier HS Journals, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Aim: To evaluate the potential effects of therapeutic and supratherapeutic doses of linagliptin (BI 1356) on the QT/QT(c) interval in healthy subjects., Methods: The study was a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, four-period crossover study using single oral doses of linagliptin (5 mg and 100 mg), moxifloxacin (400 mg) and placebo. Electrocardiogram (ECG) profiles using triplicates of 12-lead 10-s ECGs were digitally recorded pre-dose and after drug administration. The mean change from baseline (MCfB) of the individually heart rate corrected QT interval (QT(c) I) between 1 and 4 h postdrug administration was the primary end point. Blood samples to measure plasma concentrations of linagliptin and its main metabolite were also obtained., Results: Forty-four Caucasian subjects (26 male) entered the study and 43 subjects completed the study as planned in the protocol. Linagliptin was not associated with an increase in the baseline-adjusted mean QT(c) I, at any time point. The placebo-corrected MCfB of QT(c) I was -1.1 (90% CI -2.7, 0.5) ms and -2.5 (-4.1, -0.9) ms for linagliptin 5 mg and 100 mg, respectively, thus within the non-inferiority margin of 10 ms according to ICH E14. Linagliptin was well tolerated; the assessment of ECGs and other safety parameters gave no clinically relevant findings at either dose tested. Maximum plasma concentrations after administration of 100-mg linagliptin were ∼24-fold higher than those observed previously for chronic treatment with the therapeutic 5-mg dose. Assay sensitivity was confirmed by a placebo-corrected MCfB of QT(c) I with moxifloxacin of 6.9 (90% CI 5.4, 8.5) ms., Conclusions: Therapeutic and significantly supratherapeutic exposure to linagliptin is not associated with QT interval prolongation., (© 2011 The Authors. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology © 2011 The British Pharmacological Society.)

Background: Linagliptin is an oral dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4 inhibitor that has been recently approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Microgynon® 30 is a combined oral contraceptive pill containing both ethinylestradiol 30 μg and levonorgestrel 150 μg (EE 30 μg/LNG 150 μg)., Objective: The objective of this study was to determine the effect of multiple doses of linagliptin (5 mg once daily) on the steady-state pharmacokinetics of EE and LNG following once-daily doses of EE 30 μg/LNG 150 μg., Methods: This was an open-label, two-period, fixed-sequence, multiple-dose study, consisting of a run-in period, a 14-day reference treatment period and a 7-day test treatment period. The study recruited 18 healthy pre-menopausal female subjects aged 18-40 years with a body mass index of 18.5-27.0 kg/m2. Only women with regular menstrual cycles were included in this study. The treatment sequence was divided into three steps: an individually tailored run-in period with EE 30 μg/LNG 150 μg to synchronize the menstrual cycles of the subjects followed by a washout period of 7 days; the reference treatment period, during which EE 30 μg/LNG 150 μg alone was taken on days 1-14; and the test treatment period, during which EE 30 μg/LNG 150 μg plus linagliptin were taken on days 15-21. The pharmacokinetic parameters measured were maximum steady-state plasma concentration during a dosage interval (C(max,ss)), time to reach maximum plasma concentration following administration at steady state (t(max,ss)) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve during a dosage interval (τ) at steady state (AUC(τ,ss))., Results: The AUC(τ,ss) and C(max,ss) of EE and LNG were comparable when EE 30 μg/LNG 150 μg was given alone or combined with linagliptin. The adjusted geometric mean ratios for AUC(τ,ss) and C(max,ss) of EE following EE 30 μg/LNG 150 μg plus linagliptin versus EE 30 μg/LNG 150 μg alone were 101.4 (90% CI 97.2, 105.8) and 107.8 (90% CI 99.7, 116.6), respectively. The adjusted geometric mean ratios for AUC(τ,ss) and C(max,ss) of LNG following EE 30 μg/LNG 150 μg plus linagliptin versus EE 30 μg/LNG 150 μg alone were 108.8 (90% CI 104.5, 113.3) and 113.5 (90% CI 106.1, 121.3), respectively. The combination was well tolerated., Conclusion: Linagliptin had no clinically relevant effect on the steady-state pharmacokinetics of EE and LNG in healthy female subjects, and the combination of EE 30 μg/LNG 150 μg and linagliptin was well tolerated in this study. Therefore, linagliptin has the potential to be used in the treatment of female patients with type 2 diabetes in combination with oral contraceptives containing these components, such as EE 30 μg/LNG 150 μg., Trial Registration: The EudraCT number for this study is 2008-000953-37.

The aim of this study was to investigate the effect of the dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor linagliptin on the pharmacokinetics of glyburide (a CYP2C9 and CYP3A4 substrate) and vice versa. This randomized, open-label, three-period, two-way crossover study examined the effects of co-administration of multiple oral doses of linagliptin (5 mg/day × 6 days) and single doses of glyburide (1.75 mg/day × 1 day) on the relative bioavailability of either compound in healthy subjects (n = 20, age 18-55 years). Coadministration of glyburide did not alter the steady-state pharmacokinetics of linagliptin. Geometric mean ratios (GMRs) [90% CI] for (linagliptin + glyburide)/linagliptin AUC(τ,ss) and C(max,ss) were 101.7% [97.7-105.8%] and 100.8% [89.0-114.3%], respectively. For glyburide, there was a slight reduction in exposure of ∼14% when coadministered with linagliptin (GMRs [90% CI] for (glyburide + linagliptin)/glyburide AUC(0-∞) and C(max) were 85.7% [79.8-92.1%] and 86.2% [79.6-93.3%], respectively). However, this was not seen as clinically relevant due to the absence of a reliable dose-response relationship and the known large pharmacokinetic interindividual variability of glyburide. These results further support the assumption that linagliptin is not a clinically relevant inhibitor of CYP2C9 or CYP3A4 in vivo. Coadministration of linagliptin and glyburide had no clinically relevant effect on the pharmacokinetics of linagliptin or glyburide. Both agents were well tolerated and can be administered together without the need for dosage adjustments.

Background and Objectives: Linagliptin (BI 1356) is a highly specific inhibitor of dipeptidyl peptidase (DPP)-4, which is currently in phase III clinical development for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. Linagliptin exhibits nonlinear pharmacokinetics after oral administration, which are mainly related to concentration-dependent binding of linagliptin to its target, DPP-4. The objectives of the study were to investigate the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics after intravenous administration of linagliptin and to determine its absolute bioavailability (F)., Subjects and Methods: This was a single rising-dose, randomized, four-group, placebo-controlled, single-blind (within dose groups) study. Thirty-six healthy men aged 18-50 years were enrolled and randomized into four sequential treatment groups. Group 1 received linagliptin 0.5 mg intravenously, group 2 received 2.5 mg intravenously and group 4 received 10 mg intravenously. In group 3, subjects underwent a two-way randomized crossover, receiving 5 mg intravenously and a 10 mg oral tablet. Linagliptin concentrations in plasma and urine, as well as plasma DPP-4 activity, were determined by validated assays. Noncompartmental analysis and population pharmacokinetic modelling were performed., Results: Linagliptin showed nonlinear pharmacokinetics after intravenous infusion of 0.5-10 mg, with a less than dose-proportional increase in exposure. Noncompartmental parameters were calculated on the basis of total (i.e. bound and unbound) plasma concentrations. The total clearance value was low and increased with dose from 2.51 to 14.3 L/h. The apparent steady-state volume of distribution (V(ss)) increased with dose from 380 to 1540 L. Renal excretion of the unchanged parent compound increased with increasing plasma concentrations from 2.72% in the 0.5 mg dose group to 23.0% in the 10 mg dose group. The terminal elimination half-life was comparable across dose groups (126-139 hours). Because of the nonlinear pharmacokinetics, the standard approach of comparing the area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) after oral administration with the AUC after intravenous administration led to dose-dependent estimates of the absolute bioavailability. Therefore, a population pharmacokinetic model was developed, accounting for the concentration-dependent protein binding of linagliptin to its target enzyme, DPP-4. The model-derived estimates of the V(ss) and clearance of linagliptin not bound to DPP-4 were 402.2 L and 26.9 L/h, respectively. The absolute bioavailability was estimated to be about 30% for the linagliptin 10 mg tablet., Conclusion: The nonlinear pharmacokinetic characteristics and the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationship of linagliptin were independent of the mode of administration (intravenous or oral). Because of the nonlinear pharmacokinetics, the standard approach of comparing the AUC after oral administration with the AUC after intravenous administration was inappropriate to determine the absolute bioavailability of linagliptin. By a modelling approach, the absolute bioavailability of the 10 mg linagliptin tablet was estimated to be about 30%.