Tolerability and pharmacokinetics of ACT-280778, a novel nondihydropyridine dual L/T-type calcium channel blocker: early clinical studies in healthy male subjects using adaptive designs

The Case for an Unblinded Modeler in Early Clinical Development

The current trend for clinical pharmacology is toward more complex studies (eg, umbrella protocols covering single and multiple ascending doses, food effect, metabolism pathways), requiring many decisions to be made during their conduct. This article discusses guidance of such early clinical studies by modeling and simulation. The ability to make use of all available information each time new data become available during the study requires the modeling scientist to be unblinded. This must of course not jeopardize the blinding of the clinical team, and this article discusses how unblinding can be prevented. Although modeling and simulation are established for guidance of the drug development process overall, they are not frequently used for guidance on a small scale, that is, during studies with the largest uncertainty, the first-in-human studies. Application of a quantitative model backbone makes early clinical drug development a more efficient process and provides additional safety for healthy subjects and patients. Real clinical impact is illustrated by 3 case studies that show different contributions from unblinded modeling: dose escalation based on safety data, modeling and predicting with explicit incorporation of in vitro data, and dose escalation supported by unblinded analysis of adverse event data, which resulted in new insights of the clinical team without being unblinded and made it possible to proceed with dose escalation and to extend the study with an up-titration group.

Impact of pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modelling in early clinical drug development

Early clinical pharmacology studies in healthy subjects are often dissociated from patient studies. In this review we encourage the use of modelling and simulation techniques to generate valuable information at an early stage of clinical development. We illustrate these principles by presenting 5 different case studies from a spectrum of therapeutic drug classes. Their application leads to a better understanding of drug characteristics early on, thereby facilitating the design of dose-finding studies in the target patient population and saving resources.

Comparison of Digital 12-Lead ECG and Digital 12-Lead Holter ECG Recordings in Healthy Male Subjects: Results from a Randomized, Double-Blinded, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND

Electrocardiogram (ECG) variability is greatly affected by the ECG recording method. This study aims to compare Holter and standard ECG recording methods in terms of central locations and variations of ECG data.

METHODS

We used the ECG data from a double-blinded, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial and used a mixed model approach to assess the agreement between two methods in central locations and variations of eight ECG parameters (Heart Rate, PR, QRS, QT, RR, QTcB, QTcF, and QTcI intervals).

RESULTS

A total of 34 heathy male subjects with mean age of 25.7 ± 4.78 years were randomized to receive either active drug or placebo. Digital 12-lead ECG and digital 12-lead Holter ECG recordings were performed to assess ECG variability. There are no significant differences in least square mean between the Holter and the standard method for all ECG parameters. The total variance is consistently higher for the Holter method than the standard method for all ECG parameters except for QRS. The intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC) values for the Holter method are consistently lower than those for the standard method for all ECG parameters except for QRS, in particular, the ICC for QTcF is reduced from 0.86 for the standard method to 0.67 for the Holter method.

CONCLUSIONS

This study suggests that Holter ECGs recorded in a controlled environment are not significantly different but more variable than those from the standard method.

Efficacy and safety of the dual L- and T-type calcium channel blocker, ACT-280778: a proof-of-concept study in patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension

ACT-280778 is an oral, non-dihydropyridine, dual L-/T-type calcium channel blocker. This phase 2a, double-blind, randomized, placebo- and active-controlled study investigated the efficacy and safety of 10 mg ACT-280778. Patients with mild-to-moderate essential hypertension received once-daily placebo (n=53), ACT-280778 10 mg (n=52) or amlodipine 10 mg (n=54) for 4 weeks. The primary end point was the change from baseline to week 4 in placebo-adjusted mean trough sitting diastolic blood pressure (SiDBP) with ACT-280778. Tolerability was assessed by recording treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs). Baseline clinical characteristics were similar across groups. No significant difference was observed at week 4 in mean trough SiDBP between placebo (-9.9 (95% confidence limit (CL) -12.7, -7.0) mm Hg) and ACT-280778 (-9.5 (-12.4, -6.5) mm Hg; P=0.86); amlodipine reduced mean trough SiDBP by -16.8 (-19.0, -14.5) mm Hg, confirming assay validity. Change in mean PR interval at week 4 (pre-dose) differed between placebo (-1.0 (95% CL -4.4, 2.3) ms) and ACT-280778 (6.5 (3.5, 9.6) ms); amlodipine did not increase PR interval (1.1 (-1.6, 3.9) ms).Treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAE) frequency was 32.1% (placebo), 32.7% (ACT-280778) and 33.3% (amlodipine). The most common TEAEs were headache, peripheral edema, hypertension and second-degree atrioventricular block. ACT-280778 (10 mg) did not lower blood pressure in mild-to-moderate hypertension.