Pharmacokinetics and Safety of Atogepant Co-administered with Quinidine Gluconate in Healthy Participants: A Phase 1, Open-Label, Drug-Drug Interaction Study

Atogepant, an oral calcitonin gene-related peptide receptor antagonist, is approved for the preventive treatment of migraine. Atogepant is a substrate of P-glycoprotein (P-gp), breast cancer resistance protein, organic anion transporting polypeptide transporters, and cytochrome P450 (CYP)3A4 and 2D6. Quinidine is a strong P-gp and CYP2D6 inhibitor. A phase 1 open-label study evaluated the effect of P-gp and CYP2D6 inhibition by quinidine on the pharmacokinetics of atogepant, and the safety and tolerability of atogepant and quinidine gluconate (QG) when co-administered and when given alone in 33 healthy adults. There was no significant change in the atogepant maximum plasma concentration with QG co-administration. The overall systemic exposure, the area under the plasma concentration-time curve (from time 0 to time t or to infinity), of atogepant increased by 25% when co-administered with QG. However, such an increase was not considered clinically relevant. Atogepant did not alter the mean plasma concentration of quinidine at steady state. The incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was highest when QG was administered alone (42.4%), which was primarily due to QT prolongation. Most TEAEs reported were mild in severity and resolved within 1-2 days. Co-administration of atogepant with QG did not result in any unexpected tolerability findings in this phase 1 study in healthy participants. The increase in atogepant exposure during QG co-administration could be due to inhibition of CYP2D6 (a minor contributor to atogepant clearance) as well as inhibition of P-gp.

Evaluation of the pharmacokinetic interactions and safety of atogepant coadministered with esomeprazole

Aim: To investigate potential pharmacokinetic interactions between atogepant and esomeprazole. Methods: Atogepant, esomeprazole, or both were administered to 32 healthy adults in an open-label, nonrandomized, crossover study. Systemic exposure (area under the plasma concentration-time curve [AUC] and peak plasma concentration [Cmax]) for atogepant administered in combination versus alone were compared using a linear mixed effects model. Results: Coadministration with esomeprazole delayed atogepant time to Cmax by ∼1.5 h and reduced Cmax by ∼23% with no statistically significant change in AUC compared with atogepant alone. Administration of atogepant 60 mg alone or in combination with esomeprazole 40 mg was well tolerated in healthy adults. Conclusion: Esomeprazole had no clinically meaningful effect on atogepant pharmacokinetics. Clinical Trial Registration: unregistered phase I study.

24-Month Phase I/II Clinical Trial of Bimatoprost Sustained-Release Implant (Bimatoprost SR) in Glaucoma Patients

Objective

The objective of this study was to evaluate the safety and intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering effects over 24 months of biodegradable bimatoprost sustained-release implant (Bimatoprost SR) administration versus topical bimatoprost 0.03% in patients with open-angle glaucoma (OAG).

Methods

This was a phase I/II, prospective, 24-month, dose-ranging, paired-eye controlled clinical trial. At baseline following washout, adult patients with OAG (N = 75) received Bimatoprost SR (6, 10, 15, or 20 µg) intracamerally in the study eye; the fellow eye received topical bimatoprost 0.03% once daily. Rescue topical IOP-lowering medication or single repeat administration with implant was permitted. The primary endpoint was IOP change from baseline. Safety measures included adverse events (AEs).

Results

At month 24, mean IOP reduction from baseline was 7.5, 7.3, 7.3, and 8.9 mmHg in eyes treated with Bimatoprost SR 6, 10, 15, and 20 µg, respectively, versus 8.2 mmHg in pooled fellow eyes; 68, 40, and 28% of pooled study eyes had not been rescued/retreated at months 6, 12, and 24, respectively. AEs in study eyes that occurred ≤ 2 days post-procedure typically were transient. After 2 days post-procedure, overall AE incidence was similar between study and fellow eyes, with some events typically associated with topical prostaglandin analogs having lower incidence in study eyes.

Conclusions

Bimatoprost SR showed favorable efficacy and safety profiles up to 24 months, with all evaluated dose strengths demonstrating overall IOP-reducing effects comparable to those of topical bimatoprost. Targeted and sustained delivery of bimatoprost resulted in protracted IOP lowering, suggesting that Bimatoprost SR may represent a transformational new approach to glaucoma therapy. Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01157364

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1007/s40265-019-01248-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

A Randomized Trial to Evaluate OnabotulinumtoxinA for Prevention of Headaches in Adolescents With Chronic Migraine

OBJECTIVE

As a post-approval commitment, this dose-ranging study was undertaken to evaluate efficacy and safety of onabotulinumtoxinA in adolescents.

BACKGROUND

In adolescents, migraine is often undiagnosed or misdiagnosed and can present unique management challenges. OnabotulinumtoxinA was approved for prevention of chronic migraine (CM) in adults in 2010.

METHODS

This multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group, randomized trial assessed a single treatment of onabotulinumtoxinA (155 U or 74 U) vs placebo (intramuscular saline) administered via the recommended fixed-dose fixed site paradigm in adolescents with CM aged 12 to <18 years. The primary efficacy measure was change in frequency of headache days from baseline at week 12; other measures included change in frequency of headache days at weeks 4 and 8 and change in frequency of severe headache days. Safety and tolerability were assessed.

RESULTS

Of 125 randomized patients (onabotulinumtoxinA 155 U, n = 45; onabotulinumtoxinA 74 U, n = 43; placebo, n = 37), all were included in the primary efficacy analysis, and 115 (92.0%) completed the study. Lack of efficacy was the primary reason for discontinuing (n = 4; 3.2%); no patients discontinued because of adverse events. All treatments reduced frequency of headache days at week 12, with no significant differences between treatments. The mean (95% confidence interval) changes from baseline in the frequency of headache days during the 28-day period ending at week 12 (primary endpoint) were -6.3 (-8.5, -4.2), -6.4 (-8.8, -4.0), and -6.8 (-9.6, -4.1) days in the onabotulinumtoxinA 155 U, onabotulinumtoxinA 74 U, and placebo groups, respectively (P ≥ .474). All treatments reduced frequency of severe headache days and were well-tolerated; serious adverse events (n = 3) were considered unrelated to treatment and resolved without sequelae. The most commonly reported treatment-emergent adverse events were neck pain (n = 8), upper respiratory tract infection (n = 7), migraine, and nasopharyngitis (n = 5 each).

CONCLUSION

Although this study did not meet its efficacy endpoints, onabotulinumtoxinA was well tolerated in this adolescent population. Given previous data demonstrating the benefits of onabotulinumtoxinA in adults with CM, additional studies with design modifications, including adequate statistical power, to assess the efficacy of multiple treatment cycles of onabotulinumtoxinA for CM prevention in adolescents may be informative.