scholarly journals Pharmacokinetics and Safety of Intravenous Murepavadin Infusion in Healthy Adult Subjects Administered Single and Multiple Ascending Doses

2018 ◽  
Vol 62 (4) ◽  
pp. e02355-17 ◽  
Author(s):  
Achim Wach ◽  
Klaus Dembowsky ◽  
Glenn E. Dale
Keyword(s):  
Bacterial Pneumonia ◽  
Protein Targeting ◽  
Geometric Mean ◽  
Volume Of Distribution ◽  
Healthy Male ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Dosing Regimens ◽  
Hospital Acquired ◽  
Male Subjects

ABSTRACT Murepavadin is the first in class of the outer membrane protein-targeting antibiotics (OMPTA) and a pathogen-specific peptidomimetic antibacterial with a novel, nonlytic mechanism of action targeting Pseudomonas aeruginosa. Murepavadin is being developed for the treatment of hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (HABP) and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (VABP). The pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety of single and multiple doses of murepavadin were investigated in healthy male subjects. Part A of the study was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, single-ascending-dose investigation in 10 sequential cohorts where each cohort comprised 6 healthy male subjects; 4 subjects were randomized to murepavadin, and 2 subjects were randomized to placebo. Part B was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, multiple-ascending-dose investigation in 3 sequential cohorts. After a single dose of murepavadin, the geometric mean half-life (2.52 to 5.30 h), the total clearance (80.1 to 114 ml/h/kg), and the volume of distribution (415 to 724 ml/kg) were consistent across dose levels. The pharmacokinetics of the dosing regimens evaluated were dose proportional and linear. Murepavadin was well tolerated, adverse events were transient and generally mild, and no dose-limiting toxicity was identified.

scholarly journals A Randomized, Double-Blind, Single-Dose Study Comparing the Biosimilarity of HOT-1010 With Bevacizumab (Avastin®) in Chinese Healthy Male Subjects

2021 ◽  
Vol 12 ◽  
Author(s):  
Kai Huang ◽  
Linling Que ◽  
Ying Ding ◽  
Nannan Chu ◽  
Zhenzhong Qian ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Single Dose ◽  
Adverse Events ◽  
Geometric Mean ◽  
Enzyme Linked Immunosorbent Assay ◽  
Pharmacokinetic Parameters ◽  
Healthy Male ◽  
Serious Adverse Events ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Single Dose Study ◽  
Male Subjects

Objective: This study was conducted to compare the pharmacokinetics, safety and immunogenicity of HOT-1010 with bevacizumab (Avastin®) in Chinese healthy male subjects.Methods: A single-center, randomized, double-blind, single-dose, parallel trial was performed in 84 Chinese healthy male subjects who randomly (1:1) received a single intravenous infusion of 1 mg/kg HOT-1010 or Avastin® for 90 min and followed up for 85 days. Serum concentrations of bevacizumab were analyzed by enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay. Primary pharmacokinetic parameters, Cmax, AUC0-t and AUC0-∞, were calculated and evaluated the bioequivalence between HOT-1010 and Avastin®, the safety and immunogenicity of investigational drugs were also assessed.Results: A total of 82 subjects completed the study. The 90% Confidence Intervals for geometric mean ratios of Cmax, AUC0-t and AUC0-∞ were 91.81–103.64%, 85.19–95.39% and 85.04–95.36%, which were all within the bioequivalence margin. Treatment-emergent adverse events were reported in 27 (65.9%) subjects in HOT-1010 group and 23 (56.1%) subjects in Avastin® group. Most TEAEs were mild or moderate. No TEAEs, Serious Adverse Events or deaths leading to discontinuation was reported. Subjects were all tested negative for Anti-drug Antibody.Conclusion: HOT-1010 exhibited the similar pharmacokinetics, safety and immunogenicity profiles of bevacizumab (Avastin®) in Chinese healthy male subjects.Clinical Trial Registration:http://www.chinadrugtrials.org.cn/index.html, CTR20181610.

884: Phase I, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled Study in Healthy Male Subjects to Investigate the Safety, Tolerability, and Pharmacokinetics of DA-8159

2004 ◽  
Vol 171 (4S) ◽  
pp. 234-234 ◽  
Author(s):  
Harin Padma-Nathan ◽  
Jae Seung Pacik ◽  
Byoung Ok Ahn ◽  
Kyung Koo Kang ◽  
Mi Young Bahng ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Phase I ◽  
Controlled Study ◽  
Healthy Male ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Double Blind Placebo ◽  
Male Subjects

scholarly journals A Phase 3, Randomized, Double-Blind Study Comparing Tedizolid Phosphate and Linezolid for Treatment of Ventilated Gram-Positive Hospital-Acquired or Ventilator-Associated Bacterial Pneumonia

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Richard G Wunderink ◽  
Antoine Roquilly ◽  
Martin Croce ◽  
Daniel Rodriguez Gonzalez ◽  
Satoshi Fujimi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Response ◽  
Bacterial Pneumonia ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Phase 3 ◽  
Gram Positive ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Intention To Treat ◽  
The Difference ◽  
Hospital Acquired ◽  
Noninferiority Margin

Abstract Background Hospital-acquired bacterial pneumonia (HABP) and ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (VABP) are associated with high mortality rates. We evaluated the efficacy and safety of tedizolid (administered as tedizolid phosphate) for treatment of gram-positive ventilated HABP/VABP. Methods In this randomized, noninferiority, double-blind, double-dummy, global phase 3 trial, patients were randomized 1:1 to receive intravenous tedizolid phosphate 200 mg once daily for 7 days or intravenous linezolid 600 mg every 12 hours for 10 days. Treatment was 14 days in patients with concurrent gram-positive bacteremia. The primary efficacy end points were day 28 all-cause mortality (ACM; noninferiority margin, 10%) and investigator-assessed clinical response at test of cure (TOC; noninferiority margin, 12.5%) in the intention-to-treat population. Results Overall, 726 patients were randomized (tedizolid, n = 366; linezolid, n = 360). Baseline characteristics, including incidence of methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus (31.3% overall), were well balanced. Tedizolid was noninferior to linezolid for day 28 ACM rate: 28.1% and 26.4%, respectively (difference, –1.8%; 95% confidence interval [CI]: –8.2 to 4.7). Noninferiority of tedizolid was not demonstrated for investigator-assessed clinical cure at TOC (tedizolid, 56.3% vs linezolid, 63.9%; difference, –7.6%; 97.5% CI: –15.7 to 0.5). In post hoc analyses, no single factor accounted for the difference in clinical response between treatment groups. Drug-related adverse events occurred in 8.1% and 11.9% of patients who received tedizolid and linezolid, respectively. Conclusions Tedizolid was noninferior to linezolid for day 28 ACM in the treatment of gram-positive ventilated HABP/VABP. Noninferiority of tedizolid for investigator-assessed clinical response at TOC was not demonstrated. Both drugs were well tolerated. Clinical Trials Registration NCT02019420.

A double-blind study of MPV-2213ad, a novel aromatase inhibitor, in healthy male subjects

1999 ◽  
Vol 55 (1) ◽  
pp. 27-34 ◽  
Author(s):  
O. Ahokoski ◽  
K. Irjala ◽  
S. Huhtala ◽  
E. Salminen ◽  
H. Scheinin ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Aromatase Inhibitor ◽  
Blind Study ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Healthy Male ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Male Subjects

scholarly journals In Vitro Antifungal Combination of Flucytosine with Amphotericin B, Voriconazole, or Micafungin against Candida auris Shows No Antagonism

2019 ◽  
Vol 63 (12) ◽  
Author(s):  
A. L. Bidaud ◽  
F. Botterel ◽  
A. Chowdhary ◽  
E. Dannaoui
Keyword(s):  
Amphotericin B ◽  
Inhibitory Concentration ◽  
Geometric Mean ◽  
Multidrug Resistant ◽  
Candida Auris ◽  
Content Type ◽  
Hospital Acquired Infections ◽  
Resistant Mutants ◽  
Hospital Acquired

ABSTRACT Candida auris is an emerging, multidrug-resistant pathogen responsible for invasive hospital-acquired infections. Flucytosine is an effective anti-Candida species drug, but which cannot be used as a monotherapy because of the risk of development of resistant mutants during treatment. It is, therefore, noteworthy to test possible combinations with flucytosine that may have a synergistic interaction. In this study, we determined the in vitro interaction between flucytosine and amphotericin B, micafungin, or voriconazole. These combinations have been tested against 15 C. auris isolates. The MIC ranges (geometric mean [Gmean]) of flucytosine, amphotericin B, micafungin, and voriconazole were 0.125 to 1 μg/ml (0.42 μg/ml), 0.25 to 1 μg/ml (0.66 μg/ml), 0.125 to 0.5 μg/ml (0.3 μg/ml), and 0.03 to 4 μg/ml (1.05 μg/ml), respectively. When tested in combination, indifferent interactions were mostly observed with fractional inhibitory concentration index values from 0.5 to 1, 0.31 to 1.01, and 0.5 to 1.06 for the combinations of flucytosine with amphotericin B, micafungin, and voriconazole, respectively. A synergy was observed for the strain CBS 10913 from Japan. No antagonism was observed for any combination. The combination of flucytosine with amphotericin B or micafungin may be relevant for the treatment of C. auris infections.

scholarly journals A Randomized, Double-blind, Multicenter Trial Comparing Efficacy and Safety of Imipenem/Cilastatin/Relebactam Versus Piperacillin/Tazobactam in Adults With Hospital-acquired or Ventilator-associated Bacterial Pneumonia (RESTORE-IMI 2 Study)

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ivan Titov ◽  
Richard G Wunderink ◽  
Antoine Roquilly ◽  
Daniel Rodríguez Gonzalez ◽  
Aileen David-Wang ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Response ◽  
Bacterial Pneumonia ◽  
Severe Renal Impairment ◽  
Apache Ii Score ◽  
Efficacy And Safety ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Gram Negative ◽  
Mitt Population ◽  
All Cause Mortality ◽  
Hospital Acquired

Abstract Background Imipenem combined with the β-lactamase inhibitor relebactam has broad antibacterial activity, including against carbapenem-resistant gram-negative pathogens. We evaluated efficacy and safety of imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam in treating hospital-acquired/ventilator-associated bacterial pneumonia (HABP/VABP). Methods This was a randomized, controlled, double-blind phase 3 trial. Adults with HABP/VABP were randomized 1:1 to imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam 500 mg/500 mg/250 mg or piperacillin/tazobactam 4 g/500 mg, intravenously every 6 hours for 7–14 days. The primary endpoint was day 28 all-cause mortality in the modified intent-to-treat (MITT) population (patients who received study therapy, excluding those with only gram-positive cocci at baseline). The key secondary endpoint was clinical response 7–14 days after completing therapy in the MITT population. Results Of 537 randomized patients (from 113 hospitals in 27 countries), the MITT population comprised 264 imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam and 267 piperacillin/tazobactam patients; 48.6% had ventilated HABP/VABP, 47.5% APACHE II score ≥15, 24.7% moderate/severe renal impairment, 42.9% were ≥65 years old, and 66.1% were in the intensive care unit. The most common baseline pathogens were Klebsiella pneumoniae (25.6%) and Pseudomonas aeruginosa (18.9%). Imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam was noninferior (P < .001) to piperacillin/tazobactam for both endpoints: day 28 all-cause mortality was 15.9% with imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam and 21.3% with piperacillin/tazobactam (difference, −5.3% [95% confidence interval {CI}, −11.9% to 1.2%]), and favorable clinical response at early follow-up was 61.0% and 55.8%, respectively (difference, 5.0% [95% CI, −3.2% to 13.2%]). Serious adverse events (AEs) occurred in 26.7% of imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam and 32.0% of piperacillin/tazobactam patients; AEs leading to treatment discontinuation in 5.6% and 8.2%, respectively; and drug-related AEs (none fatal) in 11.7% and 9.7%, respectively. Conclusions Imipenem/cilastatin/relebactam is an appropriate treatment option for gram-negative HABP/VABP, including in critically ill, high-risk patients. Clinical Trials Registration NCT02493764.

scholarly journals Pharmacokinetics (PK) and Safety of Intravenous (IV) Brincidofovir (BCV) in Healthy Adult Subjects

2017 ◽  
Vol 4 (suppl_1) ◽  
pp. S311-S311 ◽  
Author(s):  
Mary Beth Wire ◽  
Marion Morrison ◽  
Maggie Anderson ◽  
Thangam Arumugham ◽  
John Dunn ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Healthy Subjects ◽  
Geometric Mean ◽  
Compartmental Analysis ◽  
Repeat Dose ◽  
Double Blind Study ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Dose Administration ◽  
To Receive ◽  
Male Subjects ◽  
Support Evaluation

Abstract Background BCV is a lipid conjugate nucleotide that has shown rapid viral clearance in patients with adenovirus infection and improved survival in animal models of smallpox. In preclinical studies in rats, IV BCV dosed twice weekly for up to 29 days was not associated with gastrointestinal (GI), hematopoietic, hepatic, or renal toxicity. This study evaluated the safety and PK of IV BCV in healthy subjects. Methods In this double-blind study, subjects were randomized 3:1 to receive IV BCV or placebo in sequential single ascending dose cohorts (Table 1). Plasma PK samples were collected over 7 days and assayed by HPLC-MS. Plasma BCV PK parameters were determined by non-compartmental analysis and dose proportionality was assessed. Safety assessments were collected over 14 days. Results Forty healthy male subjects (18–46 years, 83% White) were enrolled and completed the study. Plasma BCV Cmax and AUC∞ increased in proportion to dose (Table 1). AEs and alanine aminotransferase (ALT) elevations were dose- and infusion duration-related (Table 1). GI AEs were mild. All AEs and ALT elevations were transient and no serious AEs occurred. Conclusion Single doses of BCV 10–50 mg administered as a 2h IV infusion were well tolerated and not associated with significant clinical or laboratory abnormalities. BCV IV 10 mg and BCV IV 50 mg achieved geometric mean plasma BCV AUC∞ similar to and 4.5-fold, respectively, values achieved with BCV oral 100 mg tablets (Cmax = 251 ng/mL and AUC∞ = 1394 ng hours/mL). These data support evaluation of repeat dose administration in healthy subjects and virally-infected patients. Disclosures M. B. Wire, Chimerix: Employee and Shareholder, Salary. M. Morrison, Chimerix: Employee and Shareholder, Salary.M. Anderson, Chimerix: Employee and Shareholder, Salary. T. Arumugham, Chimerix: Employee and Shareholder, Salary. J. Dunn, Chimerix: Employee and Shareholder, Salary. O. Naderer, Chimerix: Employee and Shareholder, Salary.

Assessment of quality and clinical similarity (pharmacokinetic and safety) of HD204, a biosimilar of bevacizumab.

2020 ◽  
Vol 38 (15_suppl) ◽  
pp. e21556-e21556
Author(s):  
Jocelyn Hii ◽  
Martin Demarchi ◽  
Pierre Coliat ◽  
Michael J Kim ◽  
Kuo Wei Chan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Study ◽  
Cancer Progression ◽  
Neutralizing Antibodies ◽  
Volume Of Distribution ◽  
Prospective Clinical Study ◽  
Healthy Male ◽  
Clinical Phase ◽  
Humanized Monoclonal Antibody ◽  
The Impact ◽  
Male Subjects

e21556 Background: Prestige Biopharma Pte Ltd is developing HD204, a biosimilar candidate of Bevacizumab (Avastin). Bevacizumab has been approved in the treatment of a variety of metastatic tumours. Bevacizumab, a recombinant humanized monoclonal antibody block angiogenesis which is required for cancer progression by preventing binding of soluble vascular endothelial growth factor (VEGF) to VEGF receptors. Due to heterogeneity nature of antibody therapeutic, the impact on quality of HD204 on safety and pharmacokinetic (PK) was reaffirmed through clinical study to establish clinical similarity between HD204 and Avastin. Methods: Quality attributes identified to influence PK and safety established through comprehensive analytical characterization was used to correlate any potential differences (structural or biological) between the two compounds if any, could result in any clinical meaningful differences in safety and PK in the clinical settings. The PK and safety equivalence of HD204 relative to Avastin was demonstrated in a randomized, single-blind, single-dose, three-arm and parallel-group study clinical Phase I (SAMSON). A total of 120 healthy male subjects randomized 1:1:1 were to receive 1 mg/kg intravenous infusion of either HD204, EU- or US-Avastin. Various PK parameters, safety assessments not limiting to adverse events (AE) and measurement of antidrug antibodies (ADA) and neutralizing antibodies (NAb) were evaluated. Results: The pairwise comparisons of Exposure (AUC0-inf and AUC0-last), maximal concentration (Cmax) established equivalence between the 3 arms. All other PK parameters including half-life, clearance and volume of distribution were comparable between HD204 and Avastin treatment groups. Treatment related TEAEs reported for each group were 25.0%, 30.0% and 25.6% respectively and comparable. There were no treatment-emergent SAEs. Furthermore, none of the subjects treated with HD204 was ADA positive. Conclusions: HD204 demonstrated equivalent PK and safety profile to both US-Avastin and EU-Avastin at 1mg/kg administered as a 90-minute IV infusion to healthy male subjects. A prospective clinical study aimed to demonstrate equivalence in terms of efficacy, PK and safety is currently ongoing. Clinical trial information: 2017-005174-19.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document