Dataset Information

Application of pharmacometric approaches to evaluate effect of weight and renal function on pharmacokinetics of alogliptin.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

The aims of the study were to characterize the pharmacokinetics (PK) of alogliptin in healthy and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) subjects using a population PK approach and to assess the influence of various covariates on alogliptin exposure.

Methods

Plasma concentration data collected from two phase 1 studies and one phase 3 study following administration of alogliptin (12.5-400 mg) were used for the PK model development. One- and two-compartment models were evaluated as base structural PK models. The impact of selected covariates was assessed using stepwise forward selection and backward elimination procedures. The predictability and robustness of the final model was evaluated using visual predictive check and bootstrap analyses. The final model was used to perform simulations and guide appropriate dose adjustments.

Results

A two-compartment model with first-order absorption and elimination best described the alogliptin concentration vs. time profiles. Creatinine clearance and weight had a statistically significant effect on the oral clearance (CL/F) of alogliptin. The model predicted a lower CL/F (17%, 35%, 80%) and a higher systemic exposure (56%, 89%, 339%) for subjects with mild, moderate and severe renal impairment, respectively, compared with healthy subjects. Effect of weight on CL/F was not considered clinically relevant. Simulations at different doses of alogliptin support the approved doses of 12.5 mg and 6.25 mg for patients with moderate and severe renal impairment, respectively.

Conclusions

The PK of alogliptin was well characterized by the model. The analysis suggested an alogliptin dose adjustment for subjects with moderate-to-severe renal impairment and no dose adjustments based on weight.

SUBMITTER: Naik H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4799927 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivePrecision medicine requires reliable identification of variation in patient-level outcomes with different available treatments, often termed treatment effect heterogeneity. We aimed to evaluate the comparative utility of individualized treatment selection strategies based on predicted individual-level treatment effects from a causal forest machine learning algorithm and a penalized regression model.MethodsCohort study characterizing individual-level glucose-lowering response (6 month reduction in HbA1c) in people with type 2 diabetes initiating SGLT2-inhibitor or DPP4-inhibitor therapy. Model development set comprised 1,428 participants in the CANTATA-D and CANTATA-D2 randomised clinical trials of SGLT2-inhibitors versus DPP4-inhibitors. For external validation, calibration of observed versus predicted differences in HbA1c in patient strata defined by size of predicted HbA1c benefit was evaluated in 18,741 patients in UK primary care (Clinical Practice Research Datalink).ResultsHeterogeneity in treatment effects was detected in clinical trial participants with both approaches (proportion predicted to have a benefit on SGLT2-inhibitor therapy over DPP4-inhibitor therapy: causal forest: 98.6%; penalized regression: 81.7%). In validation, calibration was good with penalized regression but sub-optimal with causal forest. A strata with an HbA1c benefit > 10 mmol/mol with SGLT2-inhibitors (3.7% of patients, observed benefit 11.0 mmol/mol [95%CI 8.0-14.0]) was identified using penalized regression but not causal forest, and a much larger strata with an HbA1c benefit 5-10 mmol with SGLT2-inhibitors was identified with penalized regression (regression: 20.9% of patients, observed benefit 7.8 mmol/mol (95%CI 6.7-8.9); causal forest 11.6%, observed benefit 8.7 mmol/mol (95%CI 7.4-10.1).ConclusionsConsistent with recent results for outcome prediction with clinical data, when evaluating treatment effect heterogeneity researchers should not rely on causal forest or other similar machine learning algorithms alone, and must compare outputs with standard regression, which in this evaluation was superior.