Dataset Information

Clinical evaluation of the potential drug-drug interactions of savolitinib: Interaction with rifampicin, itraconazole, famotidine or midazolam.

ABSTRACT:

Aims

We investigated savolitinib pharmacokinetics (PK) when administered alone or in combination with rifampicin, itraconazole or famotidine, and investigated midazolam PK when administered with or without savolitinib in healthy males.

Methods

Savolitinib PK was evaluated before/after: rifampicin (600 mg once daily [QD] for 5 days); itraconazole (200 mg QD for 5 days); a single dose of famotidine (40 mg QD) 2 hours before savolitinib. Midazolam PK was evaluated before/after midazolam (1 mg QD) with or without savolitinib (600 mg QD). Each study enrolled 20, 16, 16 and 14 volunteers, respectively. Plasma samples were collected to determine the effect on PK.

Results

The geometric mean ratios (GMR, %) (90% confidence intervals [CIs]) for savolitinib alone and in combination for C_max , AUC respectively, were 45.4 (41.4-49.9), 38.5 (34.2-43.3) in the rifampicin study (n = 18); 105.2 (87.7-126.3), 108.4 (96.3-122.1) in the itraconazole study (n = 16); and 78.8 (67.7-91.7), 87.4 (81.2-94.2) in the famotidine study (n = 16). The GMRs (90% CIs) for midazolam alone and in combination with savolitinib for C_max , AUC respectively, were 84.1 (70.0-101.0), 96.7 (92.4-101.1) (n = 14). Savolitinib alone or in combination was well tolerated.

Conclusions

Co-dosing of rifampicin significantly reduced exposure to savolitinib vs savolitinib alone; co-dosing of itraconazole or midazolam with savolitinib had no clinically significant effect on savolitinib or midazolam PK, respectively. Co-dosing of famotidine with savolitinib reduced exposure to savolitinib, although this was not considered clinically meaningful. No new savolitinib-related safety findings were observed.

SUBMITTER: Ren S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9292161 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and objectiveTrilaciclib is a cyclin-dependent kinase 4/6 inhibitor indicated to decrease the incidence of chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer. Trilaciclib is a substrate and time-dependent inhibitor of cytochrome P450 3A4 and an inhibitor of multidrug and toxin extrusion 1, multidrug and toxin extrusion 2-K, organic cation transporter 1, and organic cation transporter 2. Here, we investigate the pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction potential of trilaciclib.MethodsTwo phase I studies were conducted as prospective, open-label, fixed-sequence drug-drug interaction studies in healthy subjects (n = 57, n = 20) to investigate potential interactions between intravenously administered trilaciclib (200 or 240 mg/m2) and orally administered midazolam (5 mg), metformin (1000 mg), itraconazole (200 mg), and rifampin (600 mg). A population pharmacokinetic model was fit to phase Ib/IIa data in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer (n = 114) to assess the impact of trilaciclib dose and exposure (area under the plasma concentration-time curve) on topotecan clearance.ResultsCoadministration with trilaciclib had minimal effects on the exposure (area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to infinity) of midazolam (geometric least-square mean ratio [GMR] vs midazolam alone 1.065; 90% confidence interval [CI] 0.984-1.154) but statistically significantly increased plasma exposure (GMR 1.654; 90% CI 1.472-1.858) and decreased renal clearance (GMR 0.633; 90% CI 0.572-0.701) of metformin. Coadministration of trilaciclib with rifampin or itraconazole decreased trilaciclib area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to infinity by 17.3% (GMR 0.827; 90% CI 0.785-0.871) and 14.0% (GMR 0.860; 0.820-0.902), respectively, vs trilaciclib alone. Population pharmacokinetic modeling showed no significant effect of trilaciclib on topotecan clearance.ConclusionsOverall, the drug-drug interaction and safety profiles of trilaciclib in these studies support its continued use in patients with extensive-stage small-cell lung cancer.Clinical trial registrationStudy 106: EudraCT number: 2019-002303-18; Study 114: not applicable; Study 03: Clinicaltrials.org: NCT02514447; August 2015.

Project description:BackgroundWarnings about drug-drug interactions (DDIs) between warfarin and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) within electronic health records indicate potential harm but fail to account for contextual factors and preferences. We developed a tool called DDInteract to enhance and support shared decision-making (SDM) between patients and physicians when both warfarin and NSAIDs are used concurrently. DDInteract was designed to be integrated into electronic health records using interoperability standards.ObjectiveThe purpose of this study was to conduct a formative evaluation of a DDInteract that incorporates patient and product contextual factors to estimate the risk of bleeding.MethodsA randomized formative evaluation was conducted to compare DDInteract to usual care (UC) using physician-patient dyads. Using case vignettes, physicians and patients on warfarin participated in simulated virtual clinical encounters where they discussed the use of taking ibuprofen and warfarin concurrently and determined an appropriate therapeutic plan based on the patient's individualized risk. Dyads were randomized to either DDInteract or UC. Participants completed a postsession interview and survey of the SDM process. This included the 9-item Shared Decision-Making Questionnaire (SDM-Q-9), tool usability and workload National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) Task Load Index, Unified Theory of Acceptance and Use of Technology (UTAUT), Perceived Behavioral Control (PBC) scale, System Usability Scale (SUS), and Decision Conflict Scale (DCS). They also were interviewed after the session to obtain perceptions on DDInteract and UC resources for DDIs.ResultsTwelve dyad encounters were performed using virtual software. Most (n=11, 91.7%) patients were over 50 years of age, and 9 (75%) had been taking warfarin for more than 2 years (75%). Regarding scores on the SDM-Q-9, participants rated DDInteract higher than UC for questions pertaining to helping patients clarify the decision (P=.03), involving patients in the decision (P=.01), displaying treatment options (P<.001), identifying advantages and disadvantages (P=.01), and facilitating patient understanding (P=.01) and discussion of preferences (P=.01). Five of the 8 UTAUT constructs showed differences between the 2 groups, favoring DDInteract (P<.05). Usability ratings from the SUS were significantly higher (P<.05) for physicians using DDInteract compared to those in the UC group but showed no differences from the patient's perspective. No differences in patient responses were observed between groups using the DCS. During the session debrief, physicians indicated little concern for the additional time or workload entailed by DDInteract use. Both clinicians and patients indicated that the tool was beneficial in simulated encounters to understand and mitigate the risk of harm from this DDI.ConclusionsOverall, DDInteract may improve encounters where there is a risk of bleeding due to a potential drug-drug interaction involving anticoagulants. Participants rated DDInteract as logical and useful for enhancing SDM. They reported that they would be willing to use the tool for an interaction involving warfarin and NSAIDs.