Purpose This is the first study to compare the pharmacokinetics of QL1101, a proposed bevacizumab biosimilar, with Avastin ® sourced from Roche Diagnostics GmbH. Methods In this double-blind, single-dose, parallel-group study, healthy male subjects were randomized 1:1 to receive QL1101 or Avastin ® 3 mg/kg intravenously. Pharmacokinetic assessments were conducted for 85 days, with additional safety and immunogenicity assessments until day 90. Primary study endpoints were area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) from time zero to infinity (AUC 0-∞), AUC from time zero to the last quantifiable concentration (AUC 0-last), and maximum serum concentration (C max). Pharmacokinetic equivalence was shown if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the geometric mean ratios (GMRs) of the C 0-max , AUC 0-last , and AUC 0-∞ were within the predefined bioequivalence margin of 80-125.00%. Results A total of 82 subjects were randomized to the following groups: 42 to QL1101 and 40 to Avastin ®. The 90% CIs of the GMRs of AUC 0-∞ , AUC 0-last , and C max of QL1101 and Avastin® were (97.8%, 107.0%), (94.5%, 106.9%), and (94.1%, 107.3%), respectively, which were all within the bioequivalence margin. The incidence of adverse events was 90.5% and 95.0% in the QL1101 and Avastin® groups, respectively. Mean serum concentration-time profiles, secondary pharmacokinetic parameters, and safety and immunogenicity profiles were comparable across the two treatment groups. Conclusions The study demonstrated the pharmacokinetic equivalence of QL1101 to Avastin ®. QL1101 (3 mg/kg, iv) is safe and tolerable in healthy Chinese subjects. These data support the further clinical evaluation of QL1101 as a bevacizumab biosimilar.

Naftopidil (NAF) is widely used for the treatment of benign prostatic hyperplasia and prevention of prostate cancer in elderly men. These patients receive a combination of drugs, which involves high risk for drug–drug interaction. NAF exhibits superior efficacy but must be administered at a much higher dosage than other therapeutic drugs. We previously showed that extensive glucuronidation of NAF enantiomers caused poor bioavailability. However, the metabolic pathway and mechanism of action of NAF enantiomer remain to be elucidated. The present study was performed to identify the human UDP-glucuronosyltransferases (UGTs) responsible for the glucuronidation of NAF enantiomers and to investigate the potential inhibition of UGT activity by NAF. The major metabolic sites examined were liver and kidney, which were compared with intestine. Screening of 12 recombinant UGTs showed that UGT2B7 primarily contributed to the metabolism of both enantiomers. Moreover, enzyme kinetics for R(+)-NAF, UGT2B7 (mean Km, 21 μM; mean Vmax, 1043 pmol/min/mg) showed significantly higher activity than observed for UGT2B4 and UGT1A9. UGT2B4 (mean Km, 55 μM; mean Vmax, 1976 pmol/min/mg) and UGT2B7 (mean Km, 38 μM; mean Vmax, 1331 pmol/min/mg) showed significantly higher catalysis of glucuronidation of S(-)-NAF than UGT1A9. In human liver microsomes, R(+)-NAF and S(-)-NAF also inhibited UGT1A9: mean Ki values for R(+)-NAF and S(-)-NAF were 10.0 μM and 11.5 μM, respectively. These data indicate that UGT2B7 was the principal enzyme mediating glucuronidation of R(+)-NAF and S(-)-NAF. UGT2B4 plays the key role in the stereoselective metabolism of NAF enantiomers. R(+)-NAF and S(-)-NAF may inhibit UGT1A9. Understanding the metabolism of NAF enantiomers, especially their interactions with metabolic enzymes, will help to elucidate potential drug–drug interactions and to optimize the administration of this medicine.

Background: The present study evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics (PK/PD), and absolute bioavailability (Fabs) of Dex nasal spray in healthy adult subjects, which serves as a bridge for the subsequent study in children.Methods: Part 1: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, single ascending dose study was performed on 48 subjects. For 20-/40-μg groups, every 6/2 subjects received either Dex/placebo nasal spray or Dex/placebo injection in two periods. In total, 12/4 subjects each received 100 μg Dex/placebo nasal spray. Part 2: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study; 12/4 subjects received 150 μg Dex/placebo nasal spray. Part 3: a randomized, open, self-crossover study; 12 subjects received 20 μg and 100 μg Dex nasal spray in two periods alternately. The method of administration was optimized in Part 2 and Part 3.Results: In part 1, Dex nasal spray was well tolerated up to the maximum dose of 100 μg, whereas the Fabs was tolerated to only 28.9%–32.3%. In Part 2 and Part 3, the optimized nasal spray method was adopted to promote the Fabs of Dex nasal spray to 74.1%–89.0%. A severe adverse event was found in Part 2. In Part 3 (100 μg), the Ramsay score increased the most and lasted the longest, whereas the BIS score decreased most significantly.Conclusion: Using the optimized nasal spray method, a single dose of 20/100 μg of the test drug was safe and tolerable, and 100 μg may have approached or reached the plateau of sedation. In addition, it is found that the optimized method can greatly improve the bioavailability of the test drug, leading to its higher reference value.

Introduction: Buccal midazolam treatment is licensed in the European Union for prolonged acute convulsive seizures in children and adolescents, but the buccal pathway is often hampered by jaw clenching, hypersalivation, or uncontrolled swallowing. Midazolam formulations that are more secure, reliable, and faster for use are needed in the acute setting. Pharmacokinetics and comparative bioavailability of intranasally administered midazolam and two midazolam intravenous solutions administered buccally or intravenously in healthy adults were evaluated.Methods: In this phase 1, open-label, randomized, single-dose, three-period, three-sequence crossover study, 12 healthy adults (19-41 years) were randomly assigned to receive 2.5 mg midazolam intranasally; 2.5 mg midazolam intravenously; 2.5 mg midazolam buccally. Blood samples were collected for 10 h post dose to determine pharmacokinetic profiles. Adverse events and vital signs were recorded. Results: Intranasal administration of 2.5 mg midazolam demonstrated a more rapid median time to C max compared to buccal administration of midazolam (T max , 12.6 min vs. 45 min; C max , 38.33 ng/ml vs. 24.97 ng/ml). The antiepileptic effect of intranasal and buccal midazolam treatment lasted less than 4 h and generally did not differ from intravenously administered midazolam. No serious adverse events or deaths were reported, and no treatment-emergent adverse events led to study discontinuation. Conclusion:Intranasal administration of midazolam may be a preferable alternative to the currently approve buccal midazolam treatment for prolonged acute convulsive seizures in children and adolescents.Trial Registration: This study is registered at the Chinese Clinical Trial [http://www.chictr. org.cn] (ChiCTR2000032595) on 3 May, 2020.