Absence of QTc prolongation with Domperidone: A randomized, double-blind, placebo- and positive-controlled Thorough QT/QTc study in healthy volunteers

Domperidone effects on QTc duration were assessed in a single-center, double-blind, four-way crossover study of 44 healthy participants randomized to one of four treatment sequences consisting of four treatment periods separated by 4–9 days washout. On Day 1 of each 4-day period, participants began oral domperidone 10 or 20 mg q.i.d., matching placebo q.i.d., or single-dose moxifloxacin 400 mg (positive control)/placebo q.i.d. In each period, triplicate 12-lead electrocardiograms were recorded at baseline (30, 20, and 10 minutes predose), 8 timepoints after dosing on Days 1 and 4, and predose on Day 4. In mixed effects models, the largest difference for domperidone in least squares means for change from baseline QTcP versus placebo was 3.4 milliseconds (20 mg q.i.d., Day 4), 90% CI: 1.0–5.9, and <10 milliseconds at all timepoints for both domperidone dosages. Moxifloxacin response confirmed assay sensitivity. Participants achieved expected domperidone plasma exposures. No significant exposure-response relationship was found for QTc increase per ng/mL domperidone (90% CI of the slope estimate included zero at mean Cmax on Day 1 or Day 4). In summary, domperidone at doses up to 80 mg/day did not cause clinically relevant QTc interval prolongation

Single- and multiple-dose pharmacokinetics and safety of pimodivir, a novel, non-nucleoside polymerase basic protein 2 subunit inhibitor of the influenza A virus polymerase complex, and interaction with oseltamivir: a Phase 1 open-label study in healthy volunteers

AIMS: The aim of this study was to evaluate the drug-drug interaction between pimodivir, a novel, non-nucleoside polymerase basic protein 2 (PB2) subunit inhibitor of the influenza A virus polymerase complex, and oseltamivir, to assess the feasibility of this combination therapy. Furthermore, single- and multiple-dose pharmacokinetics and safety of pimodivir in healthy volunteers were assessed. METHODS: In Part 1 of this open-label Phase 1 study, healthy volunteers (n = 18) were randomized to one of six cross-over treatment sequences, each comprising administration of oseltamivir 75 mg or pimodivir 600 mg or combination thereof twice daily on Days 1-4, followed by a single morning dose on Day 5. Between each treatment session, there was a minimum 5-day washout period. In Part 2, healthy volunteers (n = 16) randomly received pimodivir 600 mg or placebo (3:1) twice daily on Days 1-9, followed by a single morning dose on Day 10. Pharmacokinetics of pimodivir, oseltamivir and oseltamivir carboxylate, and safety were assessed. RESULTS: In Part 1, co-administration of pimodivir with oseltamivir increased the Cmax of pimodivir by 31% (90% CI: 0.92-1.85) with no change in Cmin or AUC12h . Pimodivir had no effect on oseltamivir or oseltamivir carboxylate pharmacokinetics. In Part 2, after single- and multiple-dose administration of pimodivir, there was a 1.2- and 1.8-fold increase in Cmax and AUC12h , respectively, between Day 1 and Day 10. The most frequently reported treatment-emergent adverse event was diarrhoea (n = 7 each in Part 1 and 2). CONCLUSION: Combination treatment with pimodivir and oseltamivir in healthy volunteers showed no clinically relevant drug-drug interactions. No safety concerns were identified with pimodivir 600 mg twice daily alone or in combination with oseltamivir 75 mg twice daily.status: publishe

Digital PCR-based evaluation of nucleic acid extraction kit performance for the co-purification of cell-free DNA and RNA

Blood plasma, one of the most studied liquid biopsies, contains various molecules that have biomarker potential for cancer detection, including cell-free DNA (cfDNA) and cell-free RNA (cfRNA). As the vast majority of cell-free nucleic acids in circulation are non-cancerous, a laboratory workflow with a high detection sensitivity of tumor-derived nucleic acids is a prerequisite for precision oncology. One way to meet this requirement is by the combined analysis of cfDNA and cfRNA from the same liquid biopsy sample. So far, no study has systematically compared the performance of cfDNA and cfRNA co-purification to increase sensitivity. First, we set up a framework using digital PCR (dPCR) technology to quantify cfDNA and cfRNA from human blood plasma in order to compare cfDNA/cfRNA co-purification kit performance. To that end, we optimized two dPCR duplex assays, designed to quantify both cfDNA and cfRNA with the same assays, by ensuring that primers and probes are located within a highly abundant exon. Next, we applied our optimized workflow to evaluate the co-purification performance of two manual and two semi-automated methods over a range of plasma input volumes (0.06–4 mL). Some kits result in higher nucleic acid concentrations in the eluate, while consuming only half of the plasma volume. The combined nucleic acid quantification systematically results in higher nucleic acid concentrations as compared to a parallel quantification of cfDNA and cfRNA in the eluate. We provide a framework to evaluate the performance of cfDNA/cfRNA co-purification kits and have tested two manual and two semi-automated co-purification kits in function of the available plasma input amount and the intended use of the nucleic acid eluate. We demonstrate that the combined quantification of cfDNA and cfRNA has a benefit compared to separate quantification. We foresee that the results of this study are instrumental for clinical applications to help increase mutation detection sensitivity, allowing improved disease detection and monitoring