Similar PK profiles and robust LDL-C reductions were observed following a single 150-mg s.c. injection of bococizumab administered to the abdomen, thigh, or upper arm in untreated subjects with LDL-C ≥130 mg/dL. Bococizumab was generally well tolerated following a single 150-mg s.c. administration in this subject population.

The pharmacokinetics (PK) and pharmacodynamics (PD) of bococizumab, a proprotein convertase subtilisin/kexin type 9 (PCSK9) inhibitor, were compared following a single 150-mg subcutaneous dose administered to healthy subjects (n = 156-158/arm) via: (1) a prefilled syringe (PFS) using drug substance (DS) manufactured by Pfizer, (2) a PFS using DS manufactured by Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma, (3) a prefilled pen using DS manufactured by Pfizer (NCT02458209). Blood samples were collected for 12 weeks postdose. Safety was monitored throughout. Mean maximum plasma concentration (C ) ranged between 11.0 and 11.3 μg/mL, and area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC ) ranged between 177.6 and 185.0 μg·day/mL across treatments. The 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of adjusted geometric means for C and AUC fell within the 80%-125% range for both DS and delivery device comparisons. Comparable low-density lipoprotein cholesterol profiles were observed, with nadir values of 54.3-56.1 mg/dL across treatments. Similar PCSK9 responses were also observed. Safety profiles were similar across treatments, and the majority of adverse events (AEs) were mild. Three subjects reported serious AEs. The most frequently reported AEs were headache, injection-site reaction, and upper respiratory tract infection, with no clear differences across treatments. Comparable PK, PD, and safety were observed following a single bococizumab 150-mg subcutaneous injection regardless of site of DS manufacture or delivery device used.

Oxycodone exposures (Cmax) were unaffected when ALO-02 was administered with 20 % ethanol but Cmax increased by 37 % with 40 % ethanol versus water. ALO-02 administered with ethanol under naltrexone block was generally well tolerated.

This phase I open‐label trial (NCT03627754) assessed glasdegib pharmacokinetics and safety in otherwise healthy participants with moderate (Child‐Pugh B) or severe (Child‐Pugh C) hepatic impairment. Participants with hepatic impairment and age/weight‐matched controls with normal hepatic function received a single oral 100‐mg glasdegib dose under fasted conditions. The primary end points were area under the plasma concentration–time curve from time zero to infinity (AUCinf) and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax). Twenty‐four participants (8/cohort) were enrolled. Glasdegib plasma exposures in moderate hepatic impairment were similar to controls, with adjusted geometric mean ratios (GMRs) of 110.8% (90% confidence interval [CI], 78.0–157.3) for AUCinf and 94.8% (69.9–128.4) for Cmax versus controls. In severe hepatic impairment, glasdegib plasma exposures were lower than controls (AUCinf GMR, 75.7%; 90%CI, 51.5–111.0; Cmax GMR, 58.0%; 90%CI, 37.8–89.0). Unbound glasdegib exposures were similar to controls for moderate (AUCinf,u GMR, 118.1%; 90%CI, 88.7–157.2; Cmax,u GMR, 101.1%; 90%CI, 78.4–130.3) and severe hepatic impairment (AUCinf,u GMR, 116.3%; 90%CI 81.8–165.5; Cmax,u GMR, 89.2%, 90%CI, 60.2–132.3). No treatment‐related adverse events or clinically significant changes in laboratory values, vital signs, or electrocardiograms were observed. Together with previous findings, this suggests glasdegib dose modifications are not required based on hepatic impairment.

AimsTo evaluate pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety after coadministration of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir or ritonavir alone with midazolam (a cytochrome P450 3A4 substrate) and dabigatran (a P‐glycoprotein substrate).MethodsPK was studied in 2 phase 1, open‐label, fixed‐sequence studies in healthy adults. Single oral doses of midazolam 2 mg (n = 12) or dabigatran 75 mg (n = 24) were administered alone and after steady state (i.e. ≥2 days) of nirmatrelvir/ritonavir 300 mg/100 mg and ritonavir 100 mg. Midazolam and dabigatran plasma concentrations and adverse events were analysed for each treatment.ResultsAfter administration of midazolam with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (test) or alone (reference), midazolam geometric mean area under the concentration–time curve extrapolated to infinity (AUCinf) and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) increased 14.3‐fold and 3.7‐fold, respectively. Midazolam coadministered with ritonavir (test) or alone (reference) resulted in 16.5‐fold and 3.9‐fold increases in midazolam geometric mean AUCinf and Cmax, respectively. After administration of dabigatran with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir (test) or alone (reference), dabigatran geometric mean AUCinf and Cmax increased 1.9‐fold and 2.3‐fold, respectively. Dabigatran coadministered with ritonavir (test) or alone (reference) resulted in a 1.7‐fold increase in dabigatran geometric mean AUCinf and Cmax. Midazolam or dabigatran exposures were generally comparable when coadministered with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir or ritonavir alone, with a slightly higher dabigatran Cmax with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir vs. ritonavir alone. Nirmatrelvir/ritonavir was generally safe when administered with or without midazolam or dabigatran. No serious or severe adverse events were reported.ConclusionCoadministration of midazolam or dabigatran with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir increased systemic exposure of midazolam or dabigatran. Midazolam exposures were comparable when coadministered with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir or ritonavir alone, suggesting no incremental effect of nirmatrelvir. Dabigatran Cmax was slightly higher when coadministered with nirmatrelvir/ritonavir compared with of ritonavir alone, suggesting a minor incremental effect of nirmatrelvir.