Search

BI 695501 has shown similar efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity to the adalimumab reference product, Humira®. We present two phase 1 studies comparing the pharmacokinetics, safety, and immunogenicity of BI 695501 delivered via autoinjector (AI) vs. prefilled syringe (PFS). Both trials were randomized, open-label, parallel-group studies undertaken in subjects aged ≥ 18–65 years. VOLTAIRE®-AI (NCT02606903) recruited healthy, Caucasian, male, non-athletic volunteers with BMI ≥ 18 to ≤ 30 kg/m2. VOLTAIRE®-TAI (NCT02899338) recruited healthy men and women with BMI > 17.5 to

Background and Objective Previous clinical trials have suggested that bovine intestinal alkaline phosphatase has renal protective effects in patients with sepsis-associated acute kidney injury. We conducted a first-in-human study to investigate the pharmacokinetics, safety and tolerability of a novel human recombinant alkaline phosphatase (recAP), and we developed a population pharmacokinetic model to support dose selection for future patient studies. Methods In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, phase I trial, healthy volunteers received a single dose of recAP (200, 500, 1000 or 2000 U/kg; n = 33; 3:1 ratio) or multiple doses of recAP (500 or 1000 U/kg; n = 18; 2:1 ratio) via a 1-h intravenous infusion on three consecutive days. Serum recAP concentrations, alkaline phosphatase (AP) activity levels and anti-drug antibodies were measured, and safety parameters were monitored. A population pharmacokinetic model was developed, and simulations were performed to guide dose selection for a phase IIa/b trial. Results Peak concentrations of recAP and peak AP activity were reached at the end of the 1-h infusion and showed a rapid decline, with about 10 % of the maximum concentration remaining at 4 h and less than 5 % remaining 24 h post-start. RecAP treatment was generally well tolerated, and anti-drug antibodies could not be detected in the serum up to 2 weeks post-injection after a single dose, or up to 3 weeks post-injection after multiple doses. A four-compartment model best described the pharmacokinetics of recAP administration, with moderate inter-individual variability on the central volume of distribution and elimination rate constant. Simulations showed that 1-h intravenous infusions of 250, 500 and 1000 U/kg recAP once every 24 h for three consecutive days constituted the dosing regimen that best met the criteria for dose selection in patient studies. Conclusion RecAP did not raise any safety concerns when administered to healthy volunteers. A population pharmacokinetic model was developed to support dose selection for patient studies. Trial Registration 2013-002694-21 (EudraCT). Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40262-016-0399-y) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Introduction BI 695501 has shown similar efficacy, safety, and immunogenicity to the adalimumab reference product, Humira®. We present two phase 1 studies comparing the pharmacokinetics, safety, and immunogenicity of BI 695501 delivered via autoinjector (AI) vs. prefilled syringe (PFS). Methods Both trials were randomized, open-label, parallel-group studies undertaken in subjects aged ≥ 18–65 years. VOLTAIRE®-AI (NCT02606903) recruited healthy, Caucasian, male, non-athletic volunteers with BMI ≥ 18 to ≤ 30 kg/m2. VOLTAIRE®-TAI (NCT02899338) recruited healthy men and women with BMI > 17.5 to

Background Approximately one-third of all HIV-infected individuals are coinfected with HCV, many of whom will receive concomitant treatment for both infections. With the advent of direct-acting antivirals (DAAs) for HCV, potential drug interactions between antiretrovirals and DAAs require evaluation prior to co-therapy. Methods Three open-label studies were conducted in healthy subjects to assess potential interactions between the investigational first-in-class HCV NS5A replication complex inhibitor daclatasvir and representative antiretrovirals atazanavir/ritonavir, efavirenz and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate. Results Target exposure was that of 60 mg daclatasvir alone. Dose-normalized (60 mg) geometric mean ratios of daclatasvir AUCτ for 20 mg ± atazanavir/ritonavir (2.10 [90% CI 1.95, 2.26]) and 120 mg ± efavirenz (0.68 [0.60, 0.78]) showed less than the three-fold elevation and two-fold reduction, respectively, in systemic exposure predicted by prior interaction studies with potent inhibitors/inducers of CYP3A4. Daclatasvir dose adjustment to 30 mg once daily with atazanavir/ritonavir and 90 mg once daily with efavirenz is predicted to normalize AUCτ relative to the target exposure (geometric mean ratios 1.05 [0.98, 1.13] and 1.03 [0.90, 1.16], respectively). Atazanavir exposure (Cmax, AUCτ and C24 trough) and efavirenz Ctrough under coadministration were similar to historical data without daclatasvir. No clinically relevant interactions between daclatasvir and tenofovir disoproxil fumarate were observed for either drug, and no dosing adjustments were indicated. Daclatasvir was well tolerated in all three studies. Conclusions The pharmacokinetic data support coadministration of daclatasvir with atazanavir/ritonavir, efavirenz and/or tenofovir. A Phase III study in HIV–HCV coinfection has commenced using the described dose modifications.