Odanacatib is a selective inhibitor of the cathepsin K enzyme that is expressed in osteoclasts involved in the degradation of bone organic matrix, and is being developed as a novel treatment of osteoporosis. Odanacatib has demonstrated increases in bone mineral density in postmenopausal women and is undergoing a pivotal phase III trial. The absorption, metabolism, and excretion of [ 14 C]odanacatib were studied in healthy male volunteers (n = 6) after a single oral dose of 25 mg (100 mCi). Plasma, urine, and fecal samples were collected at intervals up to 34 days postdose. The pharmacokinetics of odanacatib were characterized by slow absorption (mean time to achieve maximum plasma concentration of 14.2 hours) and long apparent elimination half-life (mean t 1/2 96.7 hours); 74.5% of the dose was recovered in feces and 16.9% in urine, resulting in a total recovery of 91.4%. Seven metabolites were identified in urine; the major pathway (methyl hydroxylation producing M8 and its derivatives) was largely dependent on CYP3A. Metabolites and odanacatib accounted for 77% and 23% of urinary radioactivity, respectively. In fecal extracts, the only radioactive components identified were odanacatib (60.9%) and M8 (9.5%). The fraction of odanacatib in feces derived from absorbed drug was estimated using a bioavailability value obtained from the results of a separate intravenous study. Collectively, the data indicate that odanacatib has a long t 1/2 on account of its low metabolic intrinsic clearance, and that metabolism (principally mediated by CYP3A) and excretion of intact parent compound account for ∼70% and ∼30% of the clearance of odanacatib in humans.

BACKGROUND/AIMS MK‐0431 (sitagliptin) is a highly selective DPP‐IV inhibitor being developed for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. The purpose of this study was to assess the effect of sitagliptin (SIT) on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of digoxin (DIG) after co‐administration. METHODS This was a double‐blind, randomized 2‐part, 2‐way crossover study where 12 (Part I) or 20 (Part II) subjects received co‐administration of 0.25‐mg doses of DIG and 100‐mg (Part I) or 200‐mg (Part II) doses of SIT or placebo to SIT for a minimum of 10 days. Blood and urine samples were collected to assess the plasma and urinary PK of immunoreactive (IR) DIG. RESULTS The plasma AUC(0–24 hr) of IR DIG were increased by 11 and 18% after co‐administration of DIG and 100‐ and 200‐mg doses of SIT as compared with DIG alone, respectively. The fraction of DIG excreted in urine was also slightly higher, though not considered to be due to a P‐glycoprotein (Pgp)‐mediated interaction (in vitro, SIT does not inhibit Pgp‐mediated transport of DIG). This effect may be due to an increase in the bioavailability of DIG when co‐adminstered with SIT. The effect of SIT on the plasma Cmax, C24hr, and Clr of IR DIG was also modest and median Tmax values of IR DIG were the same at both SIT doses. Co‐administration of DIG and SIT was generally well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS Although SIT has a modest effect on the plasma PK of IR DIG, the effects are considered not to be clinically meaningful. Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics (2005) 79, P24–P24; doi:

Elbasvir (EBR)/grazoprevir (GZR) may be coadministered with immunosuppressant drugs in posttransplant people who are infected with hepatitis C virus. The aim of the present study was to assess the safety and pharmacokinetic interactions between EBR and GZR and single doses of cyclosporine, tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil (MMF), and prednisone. This was a 4-part, open-label study in 58 healthy volunteers. Participants received single doses of cyclosporine 400 mg, tacrolimus 2 mg, MMF 1 g, or prednisone 40 mg alone or in the presence of once-daily EBR 50 mg/GZR 200 mg. Multiple oral doses of EBR + GZR had no significant effect on cyclosporine. However, in the presence of cyclosporine, the 24-hour area under the concentration-time curve of GZR was increased by approximately 15-fold (geometric mean ratio [90%CI] 15.21 [12.83; 18.04]); the concentration of EBR was increased approximately 2-fold in the presence of cyclosporine. Coadministration of EBR/GZR and tacrolimus did not affect the pharmacokinetics of EBR or GZR, but resulted in an increase in tacrolimus AUC (geometric mean ratio [90%CI] 1.43 [1.24; 1.64]). There were no clinically relevant interactions between EBR/GZR and either MMF or prednisone. Data from the present study indicate that EBR/GZR may be coadministered in people receiving tacrolimus, MMF, and prednisolone. EBR/GZR is contraindicated in people receiving cyclosporine because the significantly higher concentrations of GZR may increase the risk of transaminase elevations.

The combination of the hepatitis C virus (HCV) nonstructural protein 5A (NS5A) inhibitor elbasvir and the NS3/4A protease inhibitor grazoprevir is a potent, once-daily therapy indicated for the treatment of chronic HCV infection in individuals coinfected with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). We explored the pharmacokinetic interactions of elbasvir and grazoprevir with ritonavir and ritonavir-boosted HIV protease inhibitors in three phase 1 trials. Drug-drug interaction trials with healthy participants were conducted to evaluate the effect of ritonavir on the pharmacokinetics of grazoprevir (n = 10) and the potential two-way pharmacokinetic interactions of elbasvir (n = 30) or grazoprevir (n = 39) when coadministered with ritonavir-boosted atazanavir, lopinavir, or darunavir. Coadministration of ritonavir with grazoprevir increased grazoprevir exposure; the geometric mean ratio (GMR) for grazoprevir plus ritonavir versus grazoprevir alone area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 h (AUC0–24) was 1.91 (90% confidence interval [CI]; 1.31 to 2.79). Grazoprevir exposure was markedly increased with coadministration of atazanavir-ritonavir, lopinavir-ritonavir, and darunavir-ritonavir, with GMRs for grazoprevir AUC0–24 of 10.58 (90% CI, 7.78 to 14.39), 12.86 (90% CI, 10.25 to 16.13), and 7.50 (90% CI, 5.92 to 9.51), respectively. Elbasvir exposure was increased with coadministration of atazanavir-ritonavir, lopinavir-ritonavir, and darunavir-ritonavir, with GMRs for elbasvir AUC0–24 of 4.76 (90% CI, 4.07 to 5.56), 3.71 (90% CI, 3.05 to 4.53), and 1.66 (90% CI, 1.35 to 2.05), respectively. Grazoprevir and elbasvir had little effect on atazanavir, lopinavir, and darunavir pharmacokinetics. Coadministration of elbasvir-grazoprevir with atazanavir-ritonavir, lopinavir-ritonavir, or darunavir-ritonavir is contraindicated, owing to an increase in grazoprevir exposure. Therefore, HIV treatment regimens without HIV protease inhibitors should be considered for HCV/HIV-coinfected individuals who are being treated with elbasvir-grazoprevir.

These results suggest that EBR/GZR can be co-administered to female patients with HCV of childbearing potential who are on OCPs to prevent pregnancy.