Cefiderocol, a new injectable siderophore cephalosporin antibiotic, has promising in vitro and in vivo activity against Gram‐negative bacteria including multidrug‐resistant Pseudomonas aeruginosa, Acinetobacter baumannii, and Klebsiella pneumoniae. Cefiderocol is mainly renally eliminated. The pharmacokinetics and safety of cefiderocol in subjects with renal impairment were assessed following a single 1000‐mg intravenous 1‐hour infusion of cefiderocol. Subjects with mild, moderate, or severe renal impairment and end‐stage renal disease (ESRD) requiring hemodialysis were compared with demographically (age, body mass index, and sex) matched healthy subjects with normal renal function. The effect of hemodialysis on the clearance of cefiderocol was also assessed. Total drug clearance from plasma (CL) and terminal half‐life (t1/2) correlated with renal function. Ratios (90% confidence intervals) of area under the plasma concentration‐time curve from 0 to infinity (AUC) in mild, moderate, severe, and ESRD groups compared to those with normal renal function were 1.0 (0.8‐1.3), 1.5 (1.2‐1.9), 2.5 (2.0‐3.3), and 4.1 (3.3‐5.2), respectively. Maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) was similar between renal‐impairment groups and the normal‐renal‐function group. Approximately 60% of cefiderocol was removed by hemodialysis for 3 to 4 hours. The plasma‐protein‐unbound fraction was similar between various renal function groups. The incidence of adverse events did not appear to have any correlation with the degree of renal impairment. Single 1000‐mg intravenous doses of cefiderocol were generally well tolerated in subjects with impaired renal function except for 1 subject who discontinued due to urticaria. In conclusion, renal impairment impacted AUC, CL, and t1/2 without affecting Cmax. Cefiderocol was significantly removed by intermittent hemodialysis.

Raltegravir is a human immunodeficiency virus type 1 integrase strand transfer inhibitor that is metabolized by glucuronidation via UGT1A1 and may be affected by inducers of UGT1A1, such as rifampin (rifampicin). Two pharmacokinetic studies were performed in healthy subjects: study 1 examined the effect of administration of 600-mg rifampin once daily on the pharmacokinetics of a single dose of 400-mg raltegravir, and study 2 examined the effect of 600-mg rifampin once daily on the pharmacokinetics of 800-mg raltegravir twice daily compared to 400-mg raltegravir twice daily without rifampin. Raltegravir coadministered with rifampin resulted in lower plasma raltegravir concentrations: in study 1, the geometric mean ratios (GMRs) and 90% confidence intervals (90% CIs) for the plasma raltegravir concentration determined 12 h postdose (C 12 ), area under the concentration-time curve from 0 h to ؕ (AUC 0-ؕ ), and maximum concentration of drug in plasma (C max ) (400-mg raltegravir plus rifampin/400-mg raltegravir) were 0.39 (0.30, 0.51), 0.60 (0.39, 0.91), and 0.62 (0.37, 1.04), respectively. In study 2, the GMRs and 90% CIs for raltegravir C 12 , AUC 0-12 , and C max (800-mg raltegravir plus rifampin/400-mg raltegravir) were 0.47 (0.36, 0.61), 1.27 (0.94, 1.71), and 1.62 (1.12, 2.33), respectively. Doubling the raltegravir dose to 800 mg when coadministered with rifampin therefore compensates for the effect of rifampin on raltegravir exposure (AUC 0-12 ) but does not overcome the effect of rifampin on raltegravir trough concentrations (C 12 ). Coadministration of rifampin and raltegravir is not contraindicated; however, caution should be used, since raltegravir trough concentrations in the presence of rifampin are likely to be at the lower limit of clinical experience.

OBJECTIVEInflammation is associated with pancreatic β-cell apoptosis and reduced insulin sensitivity. Literature suggests that interleukin (IL)-1β may contribute to the pathogenesis of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). This study aimed to determine the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of LY2189102, a neutralizing IL-1β antibody, in T2DM patients.RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODSPhase II, randomized, double-blind, parallel, placebo-controlled study of subcutaneous LY2189102 (0.6, 18, and 180 mg) administered weekly for 12 weeks in T2DM patients on diet and exercise, with or without approved antidiabetic medications.RESULTSLY2189102 reduced HbA1c at 12 weeks (adjusted mean differences versus placebo: −0.27, −0.38 and −0.25% for 0.6, 18 and 180 mg doses, respectively), and fasting glucose at multiple time points compared with placebo. LY2189102 also reduced postprandial glycemia, and inflammatory biomarkers, including hs-CRP and IL-6. LY2189102 was generally well tolerated.CONCLUSIONSWeekly subcutaneous LY2189102 for 12 weeks was well tolerated, modestly reduced HbA1c and fasting glucose, and demonstrated significant anti-inflammatory effects in T2DM patients. Neutralizing IL-1β holds promise as a convenient adjuvant treatment for T2DM.

Aim: To compare exenatide and sitagliptin glucose and glucoregulatory measures in subjects with type 2 diabetes.Methods: An 8-week, double-blind, randomized, crossover, single-centre study. Eighty-six subjects (58% female, body mass index 35 ± 5 kg/m2, haemoglobin A1c 8.3 ± 1.0%) received either exenatide 10 µg (subcutaneous) twice daily or sitagliptin 100 mg (oral) daily for 4 weeks and crossed to the other therapy for an additional 4 weeks. Main outcome was time-averaged glucose during the 24-h inpatient visits.Results: Both treatments decreased average 24-h glucose, but exenatide had a greater effect [between-group difference: −0.67 mmol/l, 95% confidence interval (CI): −0.9 to −0.4 mmol/l]. Both treatments decreased 2-h postprandial glucose (PPG), area under the curve of glucose above 7.8 mmol/l (140 mg/dl) and 11 mmol/l (200 mg/dl) and increased the time spent with glucose between 3.9 and 7.8 mmol/l (70 and 140 mg/dl) during 24 h, but exenatide had a significantly greater effect (p < 0.05). Both treatments decreased postprandial serum glucagon, with exenatide having a greater effect (p < 0.005). Both treatments decreased fasting blood glucose to a similar degree (p = 0.766). Sitagliptin increased, while exenatide decreased, postprandial intact glucagon-like peptide-1. Both drugs improved homeostasis model assessment of β-cell function (HOMA-B), with exenatide having a significantly greater effect (p = 0.005). Both exenatide and sitagliptin decreased 24-h caloric intake, with exenatide having a greater effect (p < 0.001). There was no episode of major hypoglycaemia. Adverse events were mild to moderate and mostly gastrointestinal in nature with exenatide. No study withdrawals were due to an adverse event.Conclusion: Compared to sitagliptin, exenatide showed significantly lower average 24-h glucose, 2-h PPG, glucagon, caloric intake and improved HOMA-B.

Aims: Erythropoiesis-stimulating agents used to treat anaemia in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) have been associated with cardiovascular adverse events. Hepcidin production, controlled by bone morphogenic protein 6 (BMP6), regulates iron homeostasis via interactions with the iron transporter, ferroportin. High hepcidin levels are thought to contribute to increased iron sequestration and subsequent anaemia in CKD patients. To investigate alternative therapies to erythropoiesis-stimulating agents for CKD patients, monoclonal antibodies, LY3113593 and LY2928057, targeting BMP6 and ferroportin respectively, were tested in CKD patients.Methods: Preclinical in vitro/vivo data and clinical data in healthy subjects and CKD patients were used to illustrate the translation of pharmacological properties of LY3113593 and LY2928057, highlighting the novelty of targeting these nodes within the hepcidin-ferroportin pathway.Results: LY2928057 bound ferroportin and blocked interactions with hepcidin, allowing iron efflux, leading to increased serum iron and transferrin saturation levels and increased hepcidin in monkeys and humans. In CKD patients, LY2928057 led to slower haemoglobin decline and reduction in ferritin (compared to placebo). Serum iron increase was (mean [90% confidence interval]) 1.98 [1.46-2.68] and 1.36 [1.22-1.51] fold-relative to baseline following LY2928057 600 mg and LY311593 150 mg respectively in CKD patients. LY3113593 specifically blocked BMP6 binding to its receptor and produced increases in iron and transferrin saturation and decreases in hepcidin preclinically and clinically. In CKD patients, LY3113593 produced an increase in haemoglobin and reduction in ferritin (compared to placebo). Conclusion: LY3113593 and LY2928057 pharmacological effects (serum iron and ferritin) were translated from preclinical-to-clinical development. Such interventions may lead to new CKD anaemia treatments.

PTH replacement therapy with rhPTH(1-84) regulated mineral homeostasis of calcium, magnesium, phosphate, and vitamin D metabolism toward normal in these study patients with hypoparathyroidism.

These findings suggest that a non-renal mechanism (ie, beyond UGE) contributes to glucose lowering for canagliflozin 300 mg, but not 150 mg.

Many antibiotics require dose adjustments in patients with renal impairment and/or in those undergoing hemodialysis. Omadacycline, the first aminomethylcycline antibiotic in late-stage clinical development, displays activity against a broad spectrum of bacterial pathogens, including drug-resistant strains. Data from completed phase 3 studies of omadacycline for the treatment of acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections (ABSSSI) and community-acquired bacterial pneumonia (CABP) showed intravenous (i.v.) to once-daily oral omadacycline to be clinically effective and well tolerated. To determine if the dosing of omadacycline should be adjusted in patients with impaired renal function, a phase 1 study examining the pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety of i.v. omadacycline (100 mg) was conducted in subjects with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) on stable hemodialysis (n = 8) and in matched healthy subjects (n = 8). i.v. administration of omadacycline produced similar plasma concentration-time profiles in subjects with ESRD and healthy subjects. Further, in subjects with ESRD, similar values of the PK parameters were observed when omadacycline was administered i.v. after or before dialysis. The mean area under the concentration-time curve from time zero extrapolated to infinity in plasma was 10.30 μg · h/ml when omadacycline was administered to ESRD subjects after dialysis, 10.20 μg · h/ml when omadacycline was administered to ESRD subjects before dialysis, and 9.76 μg · h/ml when omadacycline was administered to healthy subjects. The mean maximum observed concentration of omadacycline in plasma in ESRD subjects was 1.88 μg/ml when it was administered after dialysis and 2.33 μg/ml when it was administered before dialysis, and in healthy subjects it was 1.92 μg/ml. The 100-mg i.v. dose of omadacycline was generally safe and well tolerated in both ESRD and healthy subjects. This study demonstrates that no dose adjustment is necessary for omadacycline in patients with impaired renal function or on days when patients are receiving hemodialysis.