Dataset Information

An open-label investigation of the pharmacokinetic profiles of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate and venlafaxine extended-release, administered alone and in combination, in healthy adults.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX), a prodrug consisting of d-amphetamine and l-lysine, is being studied in clinical trials of major depressive disorder. Additional drug-drug interaction studies were warranted.

Objective

This study aimed to describe the pharmacokinetics and safety of LDX and venlafaxine extended-release (VXR), alone or combined.

Study design

The study was an open-label, two-arm, single-sequence crossover investigation with randomization to treatment sequence.

Setting and participants

The study was conducted at two clinical study centres and included healthy adult males and females (18-45 years of age).

Intervention

The study included two single-sequence crossover designs: LDX alone followed by LDX + VXR (Treatment Arm A); and VXR alone followed by VXR + LDX (Treatment Arm B). Drug treatment was initiated on day 1 with once-daily LDX or VXR alone with 15 days' titration to final dose (LDX 30, 50 and 70 mg for 5 days each; VXR 75, 150 and 225 mg for 5 days each). On days 16-30, VXR, titrated to a final dose of 225 mg, or LDX, titrated to a final dose of 70 mg, was coadministered for participants in Treatment Arm A or B, respectively. On days 31-38, VXR doses were tapered.

Main outcome measures

On days 1-2, 15-16 and 30-31, safety evaluations and blood samples were obtained pre-dose through 24 h post-dose for analysis of LDX, d-amphetamine, venlafaxine (VEN), and O-desmethylvenlafaxine (ODV). Combination treatment was considered bioequivalent to single treatment if 90 % confidence intervals (CIs) for geometric mean ratios (GMRs) of analytes fell within the interval 0.80-1.25 based on maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) from time zero to time of last measurable concentration (AUCτ). Safety assessments included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs), pulse rate and blood pressure (BP), clinical laboratory assessments, and 12-lead electrocardiograms (ECG).

Results

Among 80 enrolled subjects, 77 were included in pharmacokinetic and safety analyses. Combination LDX + VXR was bioequivalent to LDX alone, based on exposure to d-amphetamine (GMR [95 % CI], Cmax (ng/mL): 0.97 [0.82, 1.14], AUCτ: 0.95 [0.81, 1.12]). Exposure to VEN with LDX + VXR (vs. VXR alone) was increased (Cmax: 1.10 [0.88, 1.38], AUCτ: 1.13 [0.88, 1.45]) and ODV decreased (Cmax: 0.91 [0.77, 1.06], AUCτ: 0.83 [0.71, 0.96]), whereas composite VEN + ODV was bioequivalent to VXR alone (Cmax: 0.96 [0.84, 1.09], AUCτ: 0.98 [0.85, 1.13]). TEAEs with LDX or LDX + VXR were similar. Maximum mean increases from baseline were: pulse rate, +8.73 to 12.76 beats/min with either treatment alone and +17.67 to 20.85 beats/min with LDX + VXR; systolic BP, +4.32 to 6.56 mmHg with either treatment alone and +12.96 to 13.78 mmHg with LDX + VXR; diastolic BP, +5.39 to 5.74 mmHg with either treatment alone and +12.09 to 12.46 mmHg with LDX + VXR. One participant was withdrawn due to a serious TEAE (presyncope). No unexpected, clinically meaningful trends or changes from baseline in mean laboratory or ECG parameters were observed during the trial.

Conclusion

In healthy adults, combination LDX + VXR (vs. LDX alone) did not alter exposure to d-amphetamine. Although small changes in exposure to VEN (increased) and ODV (decreased) were seen with combination treatment, total VEN + ODV exposure showed no change (vs. VEN alone). LDX + VXR led to increases in BP and pulse rate, supporting existing recommendations for vital sign monitoring when using these medications.

SUBMITTER: Ermer J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3608883 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn clinical practice, α₂-adrenoceptor agonists have been adjunctively administered with psychostimulants for the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Two studies have examined the adjunctive use of guanfacine extended release (GXR, Intuniv®; Shire Development LLC, Wayne, PA, USA) with psychostimulants in children and adolescents with a suboptimal response to psychostimulant treatment. However, the potential for pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions (DDIs) between GXR and lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX, Vyvanse®; Shire US LLC, Wayne, PA, USA) has not been thoroughly evaluated.ObjectiveThe primary objective of this study was to examine the pharmacokinetics of GXR 4 mg and LDX 50 mg given as single doses alone and in combination.Study designThis was an open-label, randomized, three-period crossover, DDI study.SettingThe study was conducted in a single clinical research center.ParticipantsForty-two healthy adults were randomized in this study.InterventionsSubjects were administered single oral doses of GXR 4 mg, LDX 50 mg, or GXR and LDX in combination.Main outcome measuresBlood samples collected predose and up to 72 h postdose assessed guanfacine, LDX, and d-amphetamine levels. Bioequivalence was defined as the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the geometric mean ratios of the area under the plasma concentration-time curve extrapolated to infinity (AUC0-∞) and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) falling within the bioequivalence reference interval (0.80-1.25). Safety measures included adverse events, vital signs, and electrocardiograms (ECGs).ResultsForty subjects completed the study. Following administration of LDX alone or in combination with GXR, the statistical comparisons of the AUC0-∞ and Cmax of d-amphetamine fell entirely within the reference interval. For guanfacine, the 90% CI of the geometric mean ratio of AUC∞ for the two treatments was within the bioequivalence criteria, but for Cmax the upper bound of the 90% CI exceeded the standard range for bioequivalence by 7%. This relatively small change is unlikely to be clinically meaningful. Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were reported by 42.9% of subjects; the most commonly reported TEAEs included dizziness (5.0, 7.3, and 7.3%) and headache (7.5, 4.9, and 7.3%) following administration of GXR, LDX, and GXR and LDX in combination, respectively. Clinically significant ECG abnormalities occurred in one subject following administration of LDX and in one subject following coadministration of GXR and LDX.ConclusionsIn healthy adults, coadministration of GXR and LDX did not result in a clinically meaningful pharmacokinetic DDI compared with either treatment alone. No unique TEAEs were observed with coadministration of GXR and LDX compared with either treatment alone.

Project description:BackgroundThis open-label, crossover study examined lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (LDX) and D-amphetamine pharmacokinetics in healthy adults after administration of an intact LDX capsule or after the capsule was emptied into orange juice or yogurt and the contents consumed.MethodsHealthy adult volunteers (N = 30) were administered a 70-mg LDX capsule or the contents of a 70-mg capsule mixed with yogurt or orange juice using a 3-way crossover design. Blood samples were collected serially for up to 96 hours after dose. Pharmacokinetic endpoints included maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) and area under the plasma concentration versus time curve from zero to infinity (AUC0-∞) or to last assessment (AUClast). Relative LDX and D-amphetamine bioavailabilities from the contents of a 70-mg LDX capsule mixed with orange juice or yogurt were compared with those from the intact LDX capsule using bioequivalence-testing procedures.ResultsGeometric least squares mean ratios (90% confidence intervals [CIs]) for D-amphetamine (active moiety) were within the prespecified bioequivalence range (0.80-1.25) when the contents of a 70-mg LDX capsule were mixed with orange juice [Cmax: 0.971 (0.945, 0.998); AUC0-∞: 0.986 (0.955, 1.019); AUClast: 0.970 (0.937, 1.004)] or yogurt [Cmax: 0.970 (0.944, 0.997); AUC0-∞: 0.945 (0.915, 0.976); AUClast: 0.944 (0.912, 0.977)]. Geometric least squares mean ratios (90% CIs) for LDX (inactive prodrug) were below the accepted range when the contents of a 70-mg LDX capsule were mixed with orange juice [Cmax: 0.641 (0.582, 0.707); AUC0-∞: 0.716 (0.647, 0.792); AUClast: 0.708 (0.655, 0.766)]; the lower 90% CI for Cmax [0.828 (0.752, 0.912)] was below the accepted range when the contents of a 70-mg LDX capsule were mixed with yogurt.ConclusionsRelative bioavailability of D-amphetamine (the active moiety) did not differ across administrations, which suggests that emptying an LDX capsule into orange juice or yogurt and consuming it is an alternative to intact capsules.

Project description:BackgroundViloxazine extended-release is a novel nonstimulant under investigation as a potential treatment for attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Given the potential for viloxazine extended-release to be co-administered with stimulant ADHD pharmacotherapies, this trial investigated the pharmacokinetics and safety of combination viloxazine extended-release + lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (lisdexamfetamine) versus viloxazine extended-release and lisdexamfetamine alone.MethodsIn this single-center, cross-over, open-label trial, healthy, non-ADHD adults received single oral doses of 700 mg viloxazine extended-release alone, 50 mg lisdexamfetamine alone, and a combination of viloxazine extended-release (700 mg) + lisdexamfetamine (50 mg), with blood samples collected over 4 days postadministration. The active drug in viloxazine extended-release (viloxazine) and primary metabolite of lisdexamfetamine (d-amphetamine) were measured using chromatographic tandem mass spectrometry. Safety assessments included adverse events, vital signs, echocardiograms, and clinical laboratory evaluations.ResultsThirty-six adults were enrolled, and 34 completed the trial. The least squares geometric mean ratios are reported as [combination / single drug (90% confidence intervals)]. Viloxazine extended-release: Cmax = 95.96% (91.33-100.82), area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to the last measurable time (AUC0-t) = 99.19% (96.53-101.91), and area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to infinity (AUCinf) = 99.23% (96.61-101.93). Lisdexamfetamine: Cmax = 112.78% (109.93-115.71), AUC0-t = 109.64% (105.25-114.22), and AUCinf = 109.52% (105.19-114.03). All reported adverse events, except 1 (moderate vomiting), were mild in severity.ConclusionsCo-administration of viloxazine extended-release and lisdexamfetamine did not impact the pharmacokinetics of viloxazine or d-amphetamine relative to administration of either drug alone. After single dose administration, the combination appeared to be safe and well tolerated.

Project description:BACKGROUND:SPD489-404 was the first 2-year safety study of lisdexamfetamine dimesylate in the treatment of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder in children and adolescents. In accordance with advice from the European Medicines Agency, assessment of cognitive function was a predefined safety outcome in SPD489-404. OBJECTIVE:The objective of this study was to assess cognitive function over 2 years in study SPD489-404, using the Cambridge Neuropsychological Test Automated Battery (CANTAB). METHODS:Participants aged 6-17 years received dose-optimised open-label lisdexamfetamine dimesylate (30, 50 or 70 mg/day) for 104 weeks. Cognition was assessed using four CANTAB tasks; Delayed Matching to Sample (DMS), Spatial Working Memory (SWM), Stop Signal Task (SST) and Reaction Time (RTI). Key and additional variables were pre-specified for each CANTAB task; groupwise mean percentage changes in key variables from baseline of > 5% were considered potentially clinically significant. RESULTS:All 314 enrolled participants received lisdexamfetamine dimesylate and were included in the safety population, and 191 (60.8%) completed the study. No potentially clinically significant deteriorations from baseline were observed in any key CANTAB variable over the 2 years of the study. Based on predefined thresholds, potentially clinically significant improvements from baseline were observed at 6 months (DMS median reaction time, mean per cent change, - 6.6%; SWM total between-search errors, - 22.8%; SST stop signal reaction time, -18.9%), and at the last on-treatment assessment (DMS median reaction time, - 6.5%; SWM total between-search errors, - 32.6%; SST stop signal reaction time, - 25.7%). CONCLUSIONS:Lisdexamfetamine dimesylate treatment for 2 years was not associated with deterioration of cognitive function in children and adolescents with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Although improvements in some cognitive measures were observed, lack of a control group makes interpretation of the findings difficult. Further studies of the impact of stimulants on cognition are required. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER:NCT01328756.