Montelukast is a cysteinyl leukotriene receptor antagonist approved for the treatment of asthma for those ages 1 year old to adult. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the pharmacokinetic comparability of a 4-mg dose of montelukast oral granules in patients > or = 6 to < 24 months old to the 10-mg approved dose in adults. This was an open-label study in 32 patients. Population pharmacokinetic parameters included estimates of AUC(pop), C(max), and t(max). Results were compared with estimates from adults (10-mg film-coated tablet [FCT]). Dose selection criteria were for the 95% confidence interval (CI) for the AUC(pop) estimate ratio (pediatric/adult 10 mg FCT) to be within comparability bounds of (0.5, 2.00). The AUC(pop) ratio and the 95% CI for children compared with adults were within the predefined comparability bounds. Observed plasma concentrations were also similar. Based on systemic exposure of montelukast, a 4-mg dose of montelukast appears appropriate for children as young as 6 months of age.

Simvastatin and fenofibrate are both commonly used lipid-regulating agents with distinct mechanisms of action, and their coadministration may be an attractive treatment for some patients with dyslipidemia. A 2-period, randomized, open-label, crossover study was conducted in 12 subjects to determine if fenofibrate and simvastatin are subject to a clinically relevant pharmacokinetic interaction at steady state. In treatment A, subjects received an 80-mg simvastatin tablet in the morning for 7 days. In treatment B, subjects received a 160-mg micronized fenofibrate capsule in the morning for 7 days, followed by a 160-mg micronized fenofibrate capsule dosed together with an 80-mg simvastatin tablet on days 8 to 14. Because food increases the bioavailability of fenofibrate, each dose was administered with food to maximize the exposure of fenofibric acid. The steady-state pharmacokinetics (AUC(0-24h), C(max), and t(max)) of active and total HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, simvastatin acid, and simvastatin were determined following simvastatin administration with and without fenofibrate. Also, fenofibric acid steady-state pharmacokinetics were evaluated with and without simvastatin. The geometric mean ratios (GMRs) for AUC(0-24h) (80 mg simvastatin [SV] + 160 mg fenofibrate)/(80 mg simvastatin alone) and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) were 0.88 (0.80, 0.95) and 0.92 (0.82, 1.03) for active and total HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors. The GMRs and 90% CIs for fenofibric acid (80 mg SV + 160 mg fenofibrate/160 mg fenofibrate alone) AUC(0-24h) and C(max) were 0.95 (0.88, 1.04) and 0.89 (0.77, 1.02), respectively. Because both the active inhibitor and fenofibric acid AUC GMR 90% confidence intervals fell within the prespecified bounds of (0.70, 1.43), no clinically significant pharmacokinetic drug interaction between fenofibrate and simvastatin was concluded in humans. The coadministration of simvastatin and fenofibrate in this study was well tolerated.

Adaptive designs are increasingly used in clinical trials. The Drug Information Association's Adaptive Design Scientific Working Group (ADSWG) works to foster collaboration among regulatory agencies, academia, and pharmaceutical and biotech companies to further the science of adaptive clinical development. The ADSWG Survey Subteam has collected data on the usage of adaptive designs in clinical research from multiple sources, including a recent ADSWG survey regarding the perception and usage of adaptive designs in academia and industry for studies between 2008 and 2011, as well as barriers to usage; a literature review examining publications of adaptive design methodology and usage between 2000 and 2011; and a trial registry review of adaptive design references from 1996 to 2011. The comprehensive results of the ADSWG 2012 survey are provided in this article with comparisons to our previous 2008 survey, the literature and registry reviews, and recent surveys carried out by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency. Results of the ADSWG 2012 survey illustrate that industry and academia are showing more enthusiasm for adaptive trials, accompanied by an increase in the number of trials using designs described as less well understood in the FDA draft guidance on adaptive designs, published in 2010. The increased use of these methods in exploratory trials is consistent with the FDA draft guidance. The survey also identified several examples of successful marketing applications supported by confirmatory trials utilizing adaptive designs that were considered, at least at the time of the draft guidance, as less well understood. While some of the technological barriers to adaptive design usage identified in the 2008 survey are now less common, there are several important persistent barriers to usage. Organizations can help overcome these barriers through education, preplanning, and early engagement in discussions with the regulators.

No abstract

No abstract