Background Vericiguat is a stimulator of soluble guanylate cyclase currently under investigation as a first-in-class therapy for worsening chronic heart failure (NCT02861534). Patients with heart failure often require polypharmacy because of comorbidities. Hence, understanding the clearance mechanisms, elimination, and potential for pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions of vericiguat is important for dose recommendations in this patient population. Methods Biotransformation and perpetrator properties of vericiguat were characterized in vitro using human hepatocytes, liver microsomes, and recombinant enzymes. This was complemented by a human mass balance study and ten drug-drug interaction studies in healthy volunteers wherein vericiguat was co-administered orally with omeprazole, magnesium/aluminum hydroxide, ketoconazole, rifampicin, mefenamic acid, midazolam, warfarin, digoxin, sacubitril/valsartan, aspirin, or sildenafil. Results In the human mass balance study, mean total radioactivity recovered was 98.3% of the dose administered (53.1% and 45.2% excreted via urine and feces, respectively). The main metabolic pathway of vericiguat is glucuronidation via uridine diphosphate-glucuronosyltransferase 1A9 and 1A1. In vitro studies revealed a low risk of vericiguat acting as a perpetrator by inhibiting cytochrome P450s, uridine diphosphate-glucuronosyltransferase isoforms, or major transport proteins, or by inducing cytochrome P450s. These observations were supported by phase I drug-drug interaction studies. Phase I studies that assessed the propensity of vericiguat as a victim drug showed changes in the range that did not warrant recommendations for dose adjustment in phase III. Conclusions A low pharmacokinetic interaction potential of vericiguat was estimated from in vitro data and confirmed in vivo. Thus, vericiguat is suitable for a patient population with multiple comorbidities requiring polypharmacy.

No abstract

A method for simultaneous phenotyping and genotyping for CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 was tested. Six healthy volunteers were selected (three extensive and three poor metabolisers for CYP2D6). CYP2D6 was probed with dextromethorphan and metoprolol and CYP2C19 was probed with omeprazole. Blood samples were collected and analysed for dextromethorphan, dextrorphan, metoprolol, alpha-hydroxymetoprol, omeprazole and 5-hydroxyomeprazole by HPLC. Genotyping was performed for both CYP2D6 and CYP2C19. Generally, plasma levels could be measured up to 8 h post-dose except for alpha-hydroxymetoprolol in poor metabolizers (PMs) and dextromethorphan in extensive metabolizers (EMs) (35% below quantification limit). The correlation between the metabolic ratio based on timed individual measurements and the metabolic ratio based on the AUC0-12 values was significant at 3 h post-dose for all probes. In conclusion, the following procedure is suggested: administer metoprolol (100 mg) and omeprazole (40 mg); after 3 h, take a blood sample to assess the genotype and the metabolic ratio for CYP2D6 (metoprolol over alpha-hydroxymetoprolol) and CYP2C19 (omeprazole over 5-hydroxyomeprazole) in plasma. With this procedure, all necessary information on the individual CYP2D6 and CYP2C19 metabolising capacity can be obtained in a practical, single-sample approach.

These first proof-of-concept studies both demonstrated that a single oral intake of an low-molecular-weight LH agonist induces ovulation of the preovulatory follicle in pituitary-suppressed female volunteers of reproductive age.

Asenapine is a psychopharmacologic agent approved in the United States for the acute treatment of schizophrenia in adults and the acute treatment of manic or mixed episodes associated with bipolar I disorder with or without psychotic features in adults. It is pending approval for the treatment of schizophrenia and manic episodes associated with bipolar I disorder in Europe. Asenapine is administered as a sublingual formulation. To determine whether the pharmacokinetics of asenapine are impacted by placing the tablet buccally ('cheeking') or allowing the tablet to dissolve on the top of the tongue, pharmacokinetics were compared following buccal and supralingual administration versus sublingual administration. In this open-label, randomized, 3-way crossover trial, healthy men (n=36) received single 5 mg doses of asenapine via sublingual, supralingual and buccal routes, at least 1 week apart. With buccal administration, the area under the concentration-over-time curve (AUC(0-infinity)) and peak concentration (C(max)) were, respectively, 24%, and 19% higher than with sublingual administration; these routes were not bioequivalent. With supralingual administration, AUC(0-infinity) and C(max) were 6% and 13% lower than with sublingual administration; bioequivalence was established based on AUC(0-infinity) only; bioequivalence based on C(max) could not be assessed due to 40% within-subject variability. The most common adverse events were oral paresthesia (sublingual, 75.8%; supralingual, 55.9%; buccal, 45.7%) and somnolence (81.8%; 76.5%; 68.6%). Compared with the recommended sublingual route of asenapine administration, exposure was 24% higher with buccal administration and comparable to supralingual administration. However, differences in exposure associated with variable placement in the oral cavity did not compromise safety in healthy subjects.