Boring, Daniel

AbstractSulindac is a prescription‐based non‐steroidal anti‐inflammatory drug (NSAID) that continues to be actively investigated as a candidate cancer chemoprevention agent. To further current understanding of sulindac bioavailability, metabolism, and disposition, we developed a population pharmacokinetic model for the parent compound and its active metabolites, sulindac sulfide, and exisulind. This analysis was based on data from 24 healthy subjects who participated in a bioequivalence study comparing two formulations of sulindac. The complex disposition of sulindac and its metabolites was described by a seven‐compartment model featuring enterohepatic recirculation and is the first reported population pharmacokinetic model for sulindac. The derived model was used to explore effects of clinical variables on sulindac pharmacokinetics and revealed that body weight, creatinine clearance, and gender were significantly correlated with pharmacokinetic parameters. Moreover, the model quantifies the relative bioavailability of the sulindac formulations and illustrates the utility of population pharmacokinetics in bioequivalence assessment. This novel population pharmacokinetic model provides new insights regarding the factors that may affect the pharmacokinetics of sulindac and the exisulind and sulindac sulfide metabolites in generally healthy subjects, which have implications for future chemoprevention trial design for this widely available agent.

Abstract SR13668, an orally active Akt pathway inhibitor, has demonstrated cancer chemopreventive potential in preclinical studies. To accelerate the clinical development of this promising agent, we designed and conducted the first-ever phase 0 chemoprevention trial to evaluate and compare the effects of food and formulation on SR13668 bioavailability. Healthy adult volunteers were randomly assigned to receive a single, 38-mg oral dose of SR13668 in one of five different formulations, with or without food. On the basis of existing animal data, SR13668 in a PEG400/Labrasol oral solution was defined as the reference formulation. Blood samples were obtained pre- and post-agent administration for pharmacokinetic analyses. Area under the plasma concentration–time curve (AUC0–∞) was defined as the primary endpoint. Data were analyzed and compared using established statistical methods for phase 0 trials with a limited sample size. Participants (n = 20) were rapidly accrued over a 5-month period. Complete pharmacokinetic data were available for 18 randomized participants. AUC0–∞ values were highest in the fed state (range = 122–439 ng/mL × hours) and were statistically significantly different across formulations (P = 0.007), with Solutol HS15 providing the highest bioavailability. SR13668 time to peak plasma concentration (3 hours; range, 2–6 hours) and half-life were (11.2 ± 3.1 hours) were not formulation-dependent. Using a novel, highly efficient study design, we rapidly identified a lead formulation of SR13668 for further clinical testing. Our findings support application of the phase 0 trial paradigm to accelerate chemoprevention agent development. Cancer Prev Res; 4(3); 347–53. ©2011 AACR.

Abstract Purpose: SR13668, an orally active AKT pathway inhibitor, has demonstrated cancer chemopreventive potential in preclinical studies. To accelerate the clinical development of this promising agent, we designed and conducted the first-ever phase 0 chemoprevention trial to evaluate and compare the effects of food and formulation on SR13668 bioavailability. Patients and Methods: Healthy adult volunteers were randomly assigned to receive a single 38-mg oral dose of SR13668 in one of five different formulations, with or without food. Based on existing animal data, SR13668 in a PEG400/Labrasol@ oral solution (formulation 1) was defined as the reference formulation. Four self-emulsifying solid dispersion test formulations in capsules were also investigated: Solutol@ HS 15 (formulation 2), Solutol@ HS 15/Vitamin E TGPS (50/50 w/w %) (formulation 3), Vitamin E TGPS (formulation 4), and Myrj 53 (formulation 5). SR163668 bioavailability was compared using a two-stage study design. In stage I, participants were randomized to receive the formulation 1 with or without a high-fat meal after an overnight fast. In Stage II, participants were randomly assigned to receive the test formulations, using the preferred dietary condition identified in stage I. Blood samples were obtained pre- and post-agent administration for pharmacokinetic analyses. Area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) was defined as the primary endpoint. Data were analyzed and compared using established statistical methods for phase 0 trials with a limited sample size. Results: Participants (N=20) were rapidly accrued over a 5-month period. Complete pharmacokinetic data were available for 18 randomized participants. The time to peak plasma concentration and half-life values for SR13668 were 3 hours (range, 2 — 6 hours) and 11.2 ± 3.1 hours, respectively, and were not dependent on the formulation. In stage I, the oral bioavailability of SR13668 in formulation 1 was greater under the fed versus fasting dietary state (p = 0.05, Wilcoxon rank-sum test). Therefore, the fed state was selected as the preferred dietary condition for stage II. In stage II, the bioavailability of SR13668 for each of the test formulations were compared with the bioavailability of formulation 1 in the fed state. While not significantly different from formulation 1, formulation 2 AUC0-24h was significantly different (p = 0.004, ANOVA) from formulation 3, 4, and 5 (AUC0-24h, formulation 1- 222 ± 53 ng/ml·hr; AUC0-24h, formulation 2 — 302 ± 78 ng/ml·hr; AUC-177±39ng/ml·hr; AUC-144±29 0-24h, formulation30-24h, formulation 4 ng/ml·hr; AUC0-24h, formulation 5- 98 ± 21 ng/ml·hr). Formulation 1 AUC0-24h was almost 40% lower than the value achieved with formulation 2, and not significantly different from formulation 3, 4, and 5. Thus, formulation 2 provided the highest bioavailability of SR13668. Conclusions: Using a novel, highly efficient study design, we rapidly identified a lead formulation (Solutol@ HS 15) of SR13668 for further clinical testing. Our findings support application of the phase 0 trial paradigm to accelerate chemoprevention agent development. Supported by NIH grants N01-CN-35000, CA15083-34C3 and UL1 RR024150. Citation Information: Cancer Prev Res 2010;3(12 Suppl):CN02-03.

Abstract The cyclooxygenase (COX)-2 enzyme appears to be an important target for cancer chemoprevention. Given the recent emergence of potentially serious cardiovascular toxicity associated with selective COX-2 inhibitors, nonsteroidal antiinflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), which inhibit both COX-1 and COX-2, have received renewed attention as candidate chemoprevention agents. Sulindac has shown consistent chemopreventive potential in preclinical studies as well as in a limited number of clinical trials reported to date. For the current pharmacokinetic study, sulindac capsules were prepared to facilitate ample agent supplies for future intervention studies. Encapsulation of the parent compound (sulindac sulfoxide) can be readily accomplished, but the effects of alternate formulations on bioavailability have not been rigorously examined. In the present single-dose, two-period crossover trial, we conducted pharmacokinetic analyses of sulindac in capsule (test) versus tablet (reference) formulations. Overall, bioavailability appeared to be higher for the capsule compared with the tablet formulation based on test-to-reference pharmacokinetic variable ratios for the parent compound alone. However, additional analyses based on the sulfide and sulfone metabolites of sulindac with the same pharmacokinetic variables indicated similar chemopreventive exposures between the capsule and tablet formulations. These data support the use of sulindac capsules, which can be readily prepared with matching placebos, in future blinded chemoprevention trials. (Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2008;17(3):674–9)