Vincent Chow, Peter J. Winkle, Daniel T. Mytych, Jia Cao, Carolina Barragan, Alexander Colbert, Shalini Gupta, Waldemar Radziszewski, Janet Franklin
ABP 654, a biosimilar to ustekinumab reference product, is available in a prefilled syringe (PFS) for subcutaneous (SC) use. The ABP 654 autoinjector pen (AIP) has recently been developed with an aim to improve the injection experience for patients and caregivers. This study was designed to assess the similarity of pharmacokinetics (PK), safety, and immunogenicity of a 90-mg SC injection of ABP 654 administered via PFS or AIP in healthy volunteers. A total of 156 adults were randomized at a ratio of 1:1. PK bioequivalence was established between the PFS and AIP groups based on the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratios for the primary PK endpoints of maximum observed serum concentration (Cmax) and area under the serum concentration–time curve from time 0 extrapolated to infinity (AUCinf) being contained within the prespecified margin of 0.8 to 1.25. The frequency, type, and severity of adverse events as well as the incidence of antidrug antibodies were similar between the PFS and AIP groups. Overall, the results support a conclusion of PK bioequivalency as well as comparable safety and immunogenicity of ABP 654 administered via PFS and AIP.
{"title":"Pharmacokinetic Comparability of ABP 654, a Biosimilar to Ustekinumab, Administered Either via Prefilled Syringe or Autoinjector in Healthy Adults: Results from a Randomized, Open-Label, Parallel-Group Study","authors":"Vincent Chow, Peter J. Winkle, Daniel T. Mytych, Jia Cao, Carolina Barragan, Alexander Colbert, Shalini Gupta, Waldemar Radziszewski, Janet Franklin","doi":"10.1002/cpdd.70031","DOIUrl":"10.1002/cpdd.70031","url":null,"abstract":"<p>ABP 654, a biosimilar to ustekinumab reference product, is available in a prefilled syringe (PFS) for subcutaneous (SC) use. The ABP 654 autoinjector pen (AIP) has recently been developed with an aim to improve the injection experience for patients and caregivers. This study was designed to assess the similarity of pharmacokinetics (PK), safety, and immunogenicity of a 90-mg SC injection of ABP 654 administered via PFS or AIP in healthy volunteers. A total of 156 adults were randomized at a ratio of 1:1. PK bioequivalence was established between the PFS and AIP groups based on the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratios for the primary PK endpoints of maximum observed serum concentration (C<sub>max</sub>) and area under the serum concentration–time curve from time 0 extrapolated to infinity (AUC<sub>inf</sub>) being contained within the prespecified margin of 0.8 to 1.25. The frequency, type, and severity of adverse events as well as the incidence of antidrug antibodies were similar between the PFS and AIP groups. Overall, the results support a conclusion of PK bioequivalency as well as comparable safety and immunogenicity of ABP 654 administered via PFS and AIP.</p>","PeriodicalId":10495,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Pharmacology in Drug Development","volume":"15 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2026-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12875155/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146123878","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
The growing demand for assisted reproductive technology (ART) has increased the need for effective luteal phase support. Progesterone, essential for maintaining early pregnancy, is a critical component of ART. This open-label, balanced, randomized, two-treatment, crossover, single-dose study compared the bioequivalence of aqueous progesterone 25 mg injection (AqSusten® [Test, Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited]), compared to the innovator's aqueous progesterone 25 mg injection (Lubion® [Reference, IBSA Farmaceutici Italia Srl]), in healthy postmenopausal women under fasting conditions. Forty-eight subjects received either treatment in Period 1, followed by alternate treatment in Period 2, with a 14-day washout period. Pharmacokinetics (Cmax, AUC0–t, AUC0-∞) and mean plasma concentration–time profiles were assessed. Forty-five subjects completed the study. Pharmacokinetic data for both products were comparable, with percentage ratios for AUC0–t, AUC0−∞, and Cmax of 99.16%, 98.78%, and 103.36%, respectively, within the acceptable bioequivalence range of 80%-125%. Plasma concentration–time profiles were similar, and no serious adverse events were reported. Mild adverse events with Lubion® included increased white blood cell count and blood glucose. AqSusten® demonstrated bioequivalence to Lubion® in healthy postmenopausal women under fasting conditions. Both formulations exhibited similar pharmacokinetic profiles, with favorable safety and tolerability, suggesting AqSusten® as a viable alternative in ART treatments.
对辅助生殖技术(ART)日益增长的需求增加了对有效黄体期支持的需求。黄体酮对维持早期妊娠至关重要,是抗逆转录病毒治疗的重要组成部分。这项开放标签、平衡、随机、双治疗、交叉、单剂量的研究比较了25 mg黄体酮水溶液注射液(AqSusten®[Test, Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited])与创新的25 mg黄体酮水溶液注射液(Lubion®[Reference, IBSA Farmaceutici Italia Srl])在禁食条件下健康绝经后妇女中的生物等效性。48名受试者在第一阶段接受任意一种治疗,随后在第二阶段进行交替治疗,洗脱期为14天。评估药代动力学(Cmax, AUC0-t, AUC0-∞)和平均血浆浓度-时间曲线。45名受试者完成了这项研究。两种产品的药代动力学数据具有可比性,AUC0-t、AUC0-∞和Cmax的百分比分别为99.16%、98.78%和103.36%,均在80%-125%的可接受生物等效性范围内。血浆浓度-时间谱相似,无严重不良事件报道。Lubion®的轻度不良事件包括白细胞计数和血糖升高。AqSusten®在健康绝经后妇女禁食条件下显示与Lubion®生物等效性。两种制剂具有相似的药代动力学特征,具有良好的安全性和耐受性,表明AqSusten®是抗逆转录病毒治疗的可行替代方案。
{"title":"A comparative pharmacokinetic evaluation of two aqueous progesterone 25 mg injections in healthy postmenopausal women under fasting conditions: An open-label, balanced, randomized, two-treatment, two-period, two-sequence, single-dose, crossover bioequivalence study","authors":"Noopur Vyas, Amaresh Chakra, Prashant Sarode, Shruti Dharmadhikari, Gaurav Puppalwar, Chintan Khandhedia, Amey Mane, Alpesh Goyani, Ajay Jaysingh Khopade","doi":"10.1002/cpdd.70025","DOIUrl":"10.1002/cpdd.70025","url":null,"abstract":"<p>The growing demand for assisted reproductive technology (ART) has increased the need for effective luteal phase support. Progesterone, essential for maintaining early pregnancy, is a critical component of ART. This open-label, balanced, randomized, two-treatment, crossover, single-dose study compared the bioequivalence of aqueous progesterone 25 mg injection (AqSusten<sup>®</sup> [Test, Sun Pharma Laboratories Limited]), compared to the innovator's aqueous progesterone 25 mg injection (Lubion<sup>®</sup> [Reference, IBSA Farmaceutici Italia Srl]), in healthy postmenopausal women under fasting conditions. Forty-eight subjects received either treatment in Period 1, followed by alternate treatment in Period 2, with a 14-day washout period. Pharmacokinetics (<i>C</i><sub>max</sub>, AUC<sub>0–t</sub>, AUC<sub>0-∞</sub>) and mean plasma concentration–time profiles were assessed. Forty-five subjects completed the study. Pharmacokinetic data for both products were comparable, with percentage ratios for AUC<sub>0–t</sub>, AUC<sub>0−∞</sub>, and <i>C</i><sub>max</sub> of 99.16%, 98.78%, and 103.36%, respectively, within the acceptable bioequivalence range of 80%-125%. Plasma concentration–time profiles were similar, and no serious adverse events were reported. Mild adverse events with Lubion<sup>®</sup> included increased white blood cell count and blood glucose. AqSusten<sup>®</sup> demonstrated bioequivalence to Lubion<sup>®</sup> in healthy postmenopausal women under fasting conditions. Both formulations exhibited similar pharmacokinetic profiles, with favorable safety and tolerability, suggesting AqSusten<sup>®</sup> as a viable alternative in ART treatments.</p>","PeriodicalId":10495,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Pharmacology in Drug Development","volume":"15 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2026-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://accp1.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cpdd.70025","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146123931","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
<p>As we are now in the first quarter of 2026, with renewed strategic plans and operational goals across pharmaceutical clinical pharmacology functions, it is worth pausing to reflect on a central question that many clinical pharmacologists confront repeatedly: <b>what makes an early-phase study worth publishing?</b> In an era where accelerated timelines, complex modalities, and model-informed approaches challenge traditional development paradigms, this is an opportune moment to clarify the editorial value for <i>Clinical Pharmacology in Drug Development</i> of early-phase study reporting and advance community expectations accordingly.</p><p>Early-phase studies, whether first-in-human (FIH), dose–range explorations, or integrated pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) and biomarker investigations, are not merely organizational milestones on the path to registrational decision points. They are critical generators of knowledge that inform dose selection, safety profiling, translational hypotheses, and risk mitigation strategies. Yet, despite their central role in decision making, early-phase studies are generally under-reported in the peer-reviewed literature or published only selectively, particularly when results are neutral or do not lead to further development. This practice diminishes community learning and can slow the cumulative scientific progress that clinical pharmacologists seek to achieve.</p><p>These criteria align with broader scientific values including rigorous methods, transparent reporting, and clear impact on drug development. Manuscripts that thoughtfully explain both what was learned and what remains uncertain serve the industry and regulators alike.</p><p>Regulatory expectations underscore that early-phase data are not transient artifacts of internal decision making; they are evidence that shapes dose rationale, informs benefit–risk assessments, and supports labeling claims. Journals provide the conduit by which these data enter the public scientific domain, enabling cross-program rationalization and cumulative learning.</p><p>As we advance through 2026, we encourage clinical pharmacologists to approach manuscript preparation proactively. Early consideration of publication beginning at protocol design can shape data collection, endpoint selection, and analysis strategies that enhance both regulatory readiness and scientific value.</p><p>Publication is not merely an academic exercise; it is a strategic contribution to the discipline of clinical pharmacology, informing how early-phase insights translate into safer, more efficacious therapies. When a study meaningfully informs a decision, extends understanding, or helps others avoid pitfalls, it deserves to be part of the published record.</p><p>Ultimately, our goal is to build a cumulative, transparent, and actionable body of evidence that advances clinical pharmacology and accelerates the delivery of better medicines to patients worldwide.</p><p>AMI declares no conflict of int
{"title":"What Makes an Early-Phase Study Worth Publishing? A View from the Editor's Desk","authors":"Amalia M. Issa","doi":"10.1002/cpdd.70026","DOIUrl":"10.1002/cpdd.70026","url":null,"abstract":"<p>As we are now in the first quarter of 2026, with renewed strategic plans and operational goals across pharmaceutical clinical pharmacology functions, it is worth pausing to reflect on a central question that many clinical pharmacologists confront repeatedly: <b>what makes an early-phase study worth publishing?</b> In an era where accelerated timelines, complex modalities, and model-informed approaches challenge traditional development paradigms, this is an opportune moment to clarify the editorial value for <i>Clinical Pharmacology in Drug Development</i> of early-phase study reporting and advance community expectations accordingly.</p><p>Early-phase studies, whether first-in-human (FIH), dose–range explorations, or integrated pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) and biomarker investigations, are not merely organizational milestones on the path to registrational decision points. They are critical generators of knowledge that inform dose selection, safety profiling, translational hypotheses, and risk mitigation strategies. Yet, despite their central role in decision making, early-phase studies are generally under-reported in the peer-reviewed literature or published only selectively, particularly when results are neutral or do not lead to further development. This practice diminishes community learning and can slow the cumulative scientific progress that clinical pharmacologists seek to achieve.</p><p>These criteria align with broader scientific values including rigorous methods, transparent reporting, and clear impact on drug development. Manuscripts that thoughtfully explain both what was learned and what remains uncertain serve the industry and regulators alike.</p><p>Regulatory expectations underscore that early-phase data are not transient artifacts of internal decision making; they are evidence that shapes dose rationale, informs benefit–risk assessments, and supports labeling claims. Journals provide the conduit by which these data enter the public scientific domain, enabling cross-program rationalization and cumulative learning.</p><p>As we advance through 2026, we encourage clinical pharmacologists to approach manuscript preparation proactively. Early consideration of publication beginning at protocol design can shape data collection, endpoint selection, and analysis strategies that enhance both regulatory readiness and scientific value.</p><p>Publication is not merely an academic exercise; it is a strategic contribution to the discipline of clinical pharmacology, informing how early-phase insights translate into safer, more efficacious therapies. When a study meaningfully informs a decision, extends understanding, or helps others avoid pitfalls, it deserves to be part of the published record.</p><p>Ultimately, our goal is to build a cumulative, transparent, and actionable body of evidence that advances clinical pharmacology and accelerates the delivery of better medicines to patients worldwide.</p><p>AMI declares no conflict of int","PeriodicalId":10495,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Pharmacology in Drug Development","volume":"15 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2026-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://accp1.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cpdd.70026","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146123903","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
<p>In an era defined by information overload, limited time, and competing professional demands, the role of the peer reviewer often comes at the expense of personal or free time. Yet, despite these challenges, performing this role remains an essential contribution to maintaining trustworthy science. I realize as I write this, I'm also proclaiming “Do as I say, not as I do,” as I have fallen victim to continually declining requests to act as a peer reviewer because of an ever-increasing workload from my employer, or important commitments I have made to my family and friends. However, today, where misinformation about science and medicine spreads rapidly across social media platforms, where political agendas often distort evidence-based discourse, and where questionable ‘science’ circulates without scrutiny, the peer review process, more than ever, serves as a critical safeguard for ensuring the credibility and rigor of science. Thus, if one identifies as a proponent of the scientific method and values a logical, data driven, and evidence-based foundation for scientific and medical dialogue, then active participation as a peer reviewer is less of an option and more of an ethical and professional responsibility. We cannot passively stand by and watch the ongoing deterioration of public trust in the professions we devoted our lives to. Rather, we must collectively reaffirm our commitment to credible research and the mechanisms by which knowledge remains verifiable, reproducible, and transparent.</p><p>At its core, peer review is a process that brings scientific and medical manuscripts to evaluation by independent experts within the same field of study. This process helps to ensure that the research being published meets the standards of validity, originality, and methodological soundness, while also safeguarding ethical integrity.<span><sup>1</sup></span> By filtering out research that doesn't meet these standards, the peer review process serves as a quality assurance mechanism that helps not only protect the academic record on the subject, but ultimately the public welfare.</p><p>Moreover, the peer review process plays an important role in advancing knowledge and fostering innovation. It can facilitate intellectual exchange by encouraging researchers to refine their methods, clarify findings or interpretations, question assumptions, and even explore potential new directions not previously considered.<span><sup>2</sup></span> In this way, peer review is more than just a gatekeeping function, it acts as a source of collaboration, accountability, and innovation that sustains the continuous evolution of science.</p><p>The integrity of this process depends fundamentally on the ethical conduct and professional responsibility of reviewers. Reviewers must approach their task with impartiality, confidentiality, and respect for the intellectual property of others. Declaring conflicts of interest, whether financial, personal, or professional, is not merely a f
{"title":"The Importance of the Peer Review Process to Safeguard Scientific Integrity","authors":"Kenneth T. Moore","doi":"10.1002/cpdd.70032","DOIUrl":"10.1002/cpdd.70032","url":null,"abstract":"<p>In an era defined by information overload, limited time, and competing professional demands, the role of the peer reviewer often comes at the expense of personal or free time. Yet, despite these challenges, performing this role remains an essential contribution to maintaining trustworthy science. I realize as I write this, I'm also proclaiming “Do as I say, not as I do,” as I have fallen victim to continually declining requests to act as a peer reviewer because of an ever-increasing workload from my employer, or important commitments I have made to my family and friends. However, today, where misinformation about science and medicine spreads rapidly across social media platforms, where political agendas often distort evidence-based discourse, and where questionable ‘science’ circulates without scrutiny, the peer review process, more than ever, serves as a critical safeguard for ensuring the credibility and rigor of science. Thus, if one identifies as a proponent of the scientific method and values a logical, data driven, and evidence-based foundation for scientific and medical dialogue, then active participation as a peer reviewer is less of an option and more of an ethical and professional responsibility. We cannot passively stand by and watch the ongoing deterioration of public trust in the professions we devoted our lives to. Rather, we must collectively reaffirm our commitment to credible research and the mechanisms by which knowledge remains verifiable, reproducible, and transparent.</p><p>At its core, peer review is a process that brings scientific and medical manuscripts to evaluation by independent experts within the same field of study. This process helps to ensure that the research being published meets the standards of validity, originality, and methodological soundness, while also safeguarding ethical integrity.<span><sup>1</sup></span> By filtering out research that doesn't meet these standards, the peer review process serves as a quality assurance mechanism that helps not only protect the academic record on the subject, but ultimately the public welfare.</p><p>Moreover, the peer review process plays an important role in advancing knowledge and fostering innovation. It can facilitate intellectual exchange by encouraging researchers to refine their methods, clarify findings or interpretations, question assumptions, and even explore potential new directions not previously considered.<span><sup>2</sup></span> In this way, peer review is more than just a gatekeeping function, it acts as a source of collaboration, accountability, and innovation that sustains the continuous evolution of science.</p><p>The integrity of this process depends fundamentally on the ethical conduct and professional responsibility of reviewers. Reviewers must approach their task with impartiality, confidentiality, and respect for the intellectual property of others. Declaring conflicts of interest, whether financial, personal, or professional, is not merely a f","PeriodicalId":10495,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Pharmacology in Drug Development","volume":"15 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2026-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://accp1.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cpdd.70032","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146123964","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Kejia Fu, Chengcan Lu, Yuping Zhang, He Pan, Zhaoyu Wang, Xijing Chen, Yi Liang
This was a single-center, randomized, open-label, two-formulation, and two-cycle crossover trial conducted in 52 healthy Chinese volunteers, under fasting and fed conditions. The participants received oral doses of the test formulation (gliclazide modified-release tablets) and reference formulation (30 mg) during each study period. Blood samples were collected before and up to 72 h after the formulations were administered to determine changes in the pharmacokinetic parameters and adverse reactions, which were then used to evaluate bioequivalence and safety. The geometric mean ratios (GMRs) of Cmax, AUC0–t, and AUC0–∞ for gliclazide were as follows: 93.9%, 99.2%, and 101.8%, respectively (under fasting conditions); 99.0%, 94.6%, and 98.8%, respectively (under fed conditions). The 90% confidence intervals for the GMRs were within the 80%–125% equivalence interval for both the fasting and fed tests. Ingesting high-fat and high-calorie foods accelerate the absorption rate of gliclazide, does not meaningfully alter the extent of absorption. The safety profiles of the two preparations were similar.
{"title":"Bioequivalence and Pharmacokinetic Evaluation of Gliclazide Modified-Release Tablets in Healthy Chinese Volunteers","authors":"Kejia Fu, Chengcan Lu, Yuping Zhang, He Pan, Zhaoyu Wang, Xijing Chen, Yi Liang","doi":"10.1002/cpdd.70021","DOIUrl":"10.1002/cpdd.70021","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This was a single-center, randomized, open-label, two-formulation, and two-cycle crossover trial conducted in 52 healthy Chinese volunteers, under fasting and fed conditions. The participants received oral doses of the test formulation (gliclazide modified-release tablets) and reference formulation (30 mg) during each study period. Blood samples were collected before and up to 72 h after the formulations were administered to determine changes in the pharmacokinetic parameters and adverse reactions, which were then used to evaluate bioequivalence and safety. The geometric mean ratios (GMRs) of C<sub>max</sub>, AUC<sub>0–t</sub>, and AUC<sub>0–∞</sub> for gliclazide were as follows: 93.9%, 99.2%, and 101.8%, respectively (under fasting conditions); 99.0%, 94.6%, and 98.8%, respectively (under fed conditions). The 90% confidence intervals for the GMRs were within the 80%–125% equivalence interval for both the fasting and fed tests. Ingesting high-fat and high-calorie foods accelerate the absorption rate of gliclazide, does not meaningfully alter the extent of absorption. The safety profiles of the two preparations were similar.</p>","PeriodicalId":10495,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Pharmacology in Drug Development","volume":"15 2","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2026-02-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146123898","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
To investigate the predictive value of interleukin (IL)-4 and IL-21 levels in assessing disease activity score and antihistamine treatment response in chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) patients. One hundred and twenty CSU patients treated at our hospital between January 2023 and January 2025 were retrospectively selected as the study group. Eighty healthy individuals undergoing routine physical examinations during the same period were included as the control group. Serum IL-4 and IL-21 levels, and the proportion of peripheral blood follicular helper T (Tfh) cells within CD4+ T cells were retrieved from the hospital information system. Based on the Urticaria Activity Score over 7 days (UAS7), CSU patients were divided into three subgroups: mild (UAS7 < 16, n = 43), moderate (UAS7 16-27, n = 52), and severe (UAS7 ≥ 28, n = 25). All patients received standard antihistamine therapy for 4 weeks. According to treatment response, patients were categorized into four groups: complete remission, marked improvement, partial remission, and no response. The correlations of IL-4, IL-21, and Tfh cell levels with disease severity were analyzed, and their predictive value for CSU diagnosis and antihistamine treatment response was evaluated. IL-4 and IL-21 are co-upregulated in CSU patients, and their levels increase with disease activity and are positively correlated with UAS7 score (r = .603, 0.314, P < .001). These biomarkers have a certain reference value for diagnosis and severity assessment of CSU. Baseline levels of IL-4 and IL-21 may serve as predictive biomarkers for antihistamine treatment response, providing a potential reference for individualized treatment strategies.
探讨白细胞介素(IL)-4和IL-21水平在评估慢性自发性荨麻疹(CSU)患者疾病活动性评分和抗组胺治疗反应中的预测价值。回顾性选择2023年1月至2025年1月在我院治疗的120例CSU患者作为研究组。同期进行常规体检的健康个体80人作为对照组。从医院信息系统中检索血清IL-4、IL-21水平及外周血滤泡辅助T细胞(Tfh)占CD4+ T细胞的比例。根据7天以上荨麻疹活动评分(UAS7),将CSU患者分为轻度(UAS7 < 16, n = 43)、中度(UAS7 16-27, n = 52)和重度(UAS7≥28,n = 25)三个亚组。所有患者均接受标准抗组胺治疗4周。根据治疗反应,将患者分为完全缓解、显著改善、部分缓解和无反应四组。分析IL-4、IL-21和Tfh细胞水平与疾病严重程度的相关性,并评估其对CSU诊断和抗组胺治疗反应的预测价值。IL-4和IL-21在CSU患者中共上调,且随疾病活动度升高而升高,且与UAS7评分呈正相关(r = 0.603, 0.314, P < 0.001)。这些生物标志物对CSU的诊断和严重程度评估具有一定的参考价值。IL-4和IL-21的基线水平可作为抗组胺治疗反应的预测性生物标志物,为个性化治疗策略提供潜在参考。
{"title":"Clinical Significance of IL-4 and IL-21 Concurrent Elevation in Predicting Disease Activity Score and Antihistamine Treatment Response in Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria.","authors":"Shining Wang, Xiaojing Yang, Xuming Zhao, Leigang Chen, Jiayao Li, Guozhi An","doi":"10.1002/cpdd.70027","DOIUrl":"https://doi.org/10.1002/cpdd.70027","url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>To investigate the predictive value of interleukin (IL)-4 and IL-21 levels in assessing disease activity score and antihistamine treatment response in chronic spontaneous urticaria (CSU) patients. One hundred and twenty CSU patients treated at our hospital between January 2023 and January 2025 were retrospectively selected as the study group. Eighty healthy individuals undergoing routine physical examinations during the same period were included as the control group. Serum IL-4 and IL-21 levels, and the proportion of peripheral blood follicular helper T (Tfh) cells within CD4<sup>+</sup> T cells were retrieved from the hospital information system. Based on the Urticaria Activity Score over 7 days (UAS7), CSU patients were divided into three subgroups: mild (UAS7 < 16, n = 43), moderate (UAS7 16-27, n = 52), and severe (UAS7 ≥ 28, n = 25). All patients received standard antihistamine therapy for 4 weeks. According to treatment response, patients were categorized into four groups: complete remission, marked improvement, partial remission, and no response. The correlations of IL-4, IL-21, and Tfh cell levels with disease severity were analyzed, and their predictive value for CSU diagnosis and antihistamine treatment response was evaluated. IL-4 and IL-21 are co-upregulated in CSU patients, and their levels increase with disease activity and are positively correlated with UAS7 score (r = .603, 0.314, P < .001). These biomarkers have a certain reference value for diagnosis and severity assessment of CSU. Baseline levels of IL-4 and IL-21 may serve as predictive biomarkers for antihistamine treatment response, providing a potential reference for individualized treatment strategies.</p>","PeriodicalId":10495,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Pharmacology in Drug Development","volume":"15 2","pages":"e70027"},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2026-02-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146131352","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
This study evaluated the bioequivalence and safety of two fixed-dose combination (FDC) tablet formulations of metformin/empagliflozin (1000 mg/5 mg) in healthy Chinese subjects. A single-center, open-label, randomized, two-period, two-treatment, and two-sequence crossover study was conducted, enrolling 56 subjects who were assigned to either fasting or fed conditions in a 1:1 ratio. Each subject received both the test and reference formulations, with a 7-day washout period between administrations. Blood samples were collected up to 48 h post-dose, and plasma concentrations of metformin and empagliflozin were determined using a validated liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method. Bioequivalence was assessed based on key pharmacokinetic parameters—Cmax, AUC0–t, and AUC0–∞—with the geometric least-squares mean ratios of the test to reference formulation falling within the accepted bioequivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00% for all 90% confidence intervals under both fasting and fed states. High-fat meals significantly reduced the Cmax of metformin and empagliflozin by approximately 47% and 28%, respectively, and their overall exposure (AUC0−∞) by approximately 29% and 15%, respectively. No serious adverse events were reported. In conclusion, the test and reference formulations of metformin/empagliflozin FDC tablets were bioequivalent and well-tolerated under both fasting and fed conditions.
{"title":"Bioequivalence Evaluation of Two Metformin/Empagliflozin Fixed-Dose Combination Tablets in Healthy Chinese Subjects Under Fasting and Fed Conditions: A Randomized, Open-Label, Crossover Study","authors":"Yuyan Lei, Qin Yi, Shan Ji, Juli Lu, Zhenya Yang","doi":"10.1002/cpdd.70029","DOIUrl":"10.1002/cpdd.70029","url":null,"abstract":"<p>This study evaluated the bioequivalence and safety of two fixed-dose combination (FDC) tablet formulations of metformin/empagliflozin (1000 mg/5 mg) in healthy Chinese subjects. A single-center, open-label, randomized, two-period, two-treatment, and two-sequence crossover study was conducted, enrolling 56 subjects who were assigned to either fasting or fed conditions in a 1:1 ratio. Each subject received both the test and reference formulations, with a 7-day washout period between administrations. Blood samples were collected up to 48 h post-dose, and plasma concentrations of metformin and empagliflozin were determined using a validated liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method. Bioequivalence was assessed based on key pharmacokinetic parameters—C<sub>max</sub>, AUC<sub>0–t</sub>, and AUC<sub>0–∞</sub>—with the geometric least-squares mean ratios of the test to reference formulation falling within the accepted bioequivalence range of 80.00% to 125.00% for all 90% confidence intervals under both fasting and fed states. High-fat meals significantly reduced the C<sub>max</sub> of metformin and empagliflozin by approximately 47% and 28%, respectively, and their overall exposure (AUC<sub>0−∞</sub>) by approximately 29% and 15%, respectively. No serious adverse events were reported. In conclusion, the test and reference formulations of metformin/empagliflozin FDC tablets were bioequivalent and well-tolerated under both fasting and fed conditions.</p>","PeriodicalId":10495,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Pharmacology in Drug Development","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2026-01-24","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146040657","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Ramesh R. Boinpally, Joshua Rowe, Pushpa Chandrasekar, Rebecca B. White, Eugene E. Marcantonio, Nicole Trainor, Yuexia Liang, Cheri Maciolek, James H. Small, Robert Houle, Michael J. Hafey, Huizhi Xie, Jocelyn Yabut, Christine Fandozzi
Ubrogepant is a calcitonin gene–related peptide receptor antagonist approved for the acute treatment of migraine with or without aura in adults. The mass balance and metabolism of ubrogepant was evaluated in six healthy male adults administered a single oral dose of [14C]-ubrogepant 50 mg (∼200 µCi). Overall, the mean total radioactivity recovery was 92.4% (95% CI: 77.8%-107%) of the administered dose, with 82.9% in feces (95% CI: 66.7%-99.1%) and 9.52% in urine (95% CI: 7.78%-11.3%). Ubrogepant was eliminated mainly via metabolism, primarily via biliary/fecal excretion. Approximately 42% and 6% of the dose was excreted as unchanged parent drug in feces and urine, respectively. The major circulating components of drug-related material (DRM) in pooled plasma samples were ubrogepant (55%), M15 (13%), and M20 (3.5%). M15 (glucuronide of methylated catechol) and M20 (glucuronide of mono-oxygenated ubrogepant [M8]) also were the main metabolites in urine, together representing about 2% of DRM. In feces, the main metabolites were the oxidative metabolites M6 (di-oxygenated ubrogepant) and M8, together representing about 29% of DRM. In vitro assays showed that ubrogepant metabolism occurs predominantly via CYP3A4.
{"title":"A Human Mass Balance and Metabolism Study of [14C]-Ubrogepant in Healthy Male Adults","authors":"Ramesh R. Boinpally, Joshua Rowe, Pushpa Chandrasekar, Rebecca B. White, Eugene E. Marcantonio, Nicole Trainor, Yuexia Liang, Cheri Maciolek, James H. Small, Robert Houle, Michael J. Hafey, Huizhi Xie, Jocelyn Yabut, Christine Fandozzi","doi":"10.1002/cpdd.70010","DOIUrl":"10.1002/cpdd.70010","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Ubrogepant is a calcitonin gene–related peptide receptor antagonist approved for the acute treatment of migraine with or without aura in adults. The mass balance and metabolism of ubrogepant was evaluated in six healthy male adults administered a single oral dose of [<sup>14</sup>C]-ubrogepant 50 mg (∼200 µCi). Overall, the mean total radioactivity recovery was 92.4% (95% CI: 77.8%-107%) of the administered dose, with 82.9% in feces (95% CI: 66.7%-99.1%) and 9.52% in urine (95% CI: 7.78%-11.3%). Ubrogepant was eliminated mainly via metabolism, primarily via biliary/fecal excretion. Approximately 42% and 6% of the dose was excreted as unchanged parent drug in feces and urine, respectively. The major circulating components of drug-related material (DRM) in pooled plasma samples were ubrogepant (55%), M15 (13%), and M20 (3.5%). M15 (glucuronide of methylated catechol) and M20 (glucuronide of mono-oxygenated ubrogepant [M8]) also were the main metabolites in urine, together representing about 2% of DRM. In feces, the main metabolites were the oxidative metabolites M6 (di-oxygenated ubrogepant) and M8, together representing about 29% of DRM. In vitro assays showed that ubrogepant metabolism occurs predominantly via CYP3A4.</p>","PeriodicalId":10495,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Pharmacology in Drug Development","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2026-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12821552/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146009286","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva is a rare, progressive autosomal dominant genetic disease caused by an activin receptor-like kinase 2 (ALK2) mutation with a need for effective prophylactic therapies. This single-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluated the pharmacokinetics and safety of DS-6016a, a novel humanized monoclonal anti-ALK2 antibody, in healthy Japanese adults. In each of the 5–1000 mg DS-6016a or placebo single subcutaneous dose cohorts, eight male participants were randomly assigned at a 3:1 ratio. DS-6016a had median times to maximum plasma concentration of 144–240 h and elimination half-lives of 391–844 h. The increase in DS-6016a exposure was greater than dose-proportional across the dose range of 5–1000 mg. The incidence of study drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was 17% in the placebo group and 11% across all DS-6016a groups; all were mild and resolved without treatment. No deaths, serious or severe TEAEs, or TEAEs leading to study discontinuation were reported. Ferritin showed a statistically significant dose-dependent decrease from baseline, while serum iron showed no clear dose-dependency. No relationship was observed between DS-6016a dose and the development of anti-drug antibodies. DS-6016a had an acceptable safety profile at single subcutaneous doses of 5–1000 mg.
{"title":"First-In-Human Study to Assess the Pharmacokinetics and Safety of DS-6016a After Single Subcutaneous Injection in Healthy Japanese Adults","authors":"Kei Okita, Hidetoshi Furuie, Akifumi Kurata, Yasuko Owada, Satoshi Yoshiba, Kei Furihata, Takaaki Oka, Yushi Kashihara, Hitoshi Ishizuka, Kazutaka Yoshihara","doi":"10.1002/cpdd.70023","DOIUrl":"10.1002/cpdd.70023","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Fibrodysplasia ossificans progressiva is a rare, progressive autosomal dominant genetic disease caused by an activin receptor-like kinase 2 (ALK2) mutation with a need for effective prophylactic therapies. This single-center, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study evaluated the pharmacokinetics and safety of DS-6016a, a novel humanized monoclonal anti-ALK2 antibody, in healthy Japanese adults. In each of the 5–1000 mg DS-6016a or placebo single subcutaneous dose cohorts, eight male participants were randomly assigned at a 3:1 ratio. DS-6016a had median times to maximum plasma concentration of 144–240 h and elimination half-lives of 391–844 h. The increase in DS-6016a exposure was greater than dose-proportional across the dose range of 5–1000 mg. The incidence of study drug-related treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was 17% in the placebo group and 11% across all DS-6016a groups; all were mild and resolved without treatment. No deaths, serious or severe TEAEs, or TEAEs leading to study discontinuation were reported. Ferritin showed a statistically significant dose-dependent decrease from baseline, while serum iron showed no clear dose-dependency. No relationship was observed between DS-6016a dose and the development of anti-drug antibodies. DS-6016a had an acceptable safety profile at single subcutaneous doses of 5–1000 mg.</p>","PeriodicalId":10495,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Pharmacology in Drug Development","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2026-01-21","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC12821564/pdf/","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"146009305","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"OA","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}
Seol Ju Moon, Sung Hee Hong, Yirang Lim, Jae-Yong Chung
Antihypertensive drugs are more potent when administered in combinations of two or three different classes of drugs. The objective of this study was to evaluate the pharmacokinetic interaction among amlodipine, losartan, and chlorthalidone. A randomized, open-label, four-sequence, four-period, four-treatment, single-dose study was conducted in healthy Korean male subjects, with oral administrations of two tablets of amlodipine 5 mg, one tablet of losartan 100 mg, one tablet of chlorthalidone 25 mg, or co-administration of all three investigational products. Plasma drug concentrations were measured by liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry. Twenty-six subjects completed the study. The geometric mean ratios and 90% confidence intervals of Cmax and AUClast, respectively, were 1.0928 (1.0412-1.1469) and 1.0360 (0.9958-1.0778) for amlodipine; 1.1016 (0.9136-1.3284) and 1.1606 (1.0885-1.2375) for losartan; 1.0720 (1.0119-1.1356) and 1.0902 (1.0350-1.1148) for EXP3174 (active metabolite of losartan); and 0.9462 (0.8626-1.0379) and 1.0266 (0.9752-1.0807) for chlorthalidone. All the treatments were well tolerated overall. Besides the slight increase in losartan Cmax, the combination therapy did not show clinically significant pharmacokinetic interactions in terms of systemic drug exposure.
{"title":"Pharmacokinetic Interaction Among Amlodipine, Losartan, and Chlorthalidone after a Single Oral Administration in Healthy Male Subjects","authors":"Seol Ju Moon, Sung Hee Hong, Yirang Lim, Jae-Yong Chung","doi":"10.1002/cpdd.70024","DOIUrl":"10.1002/cpdd.70024","url":null,"abstract":"<p>Antihypertensive drugs are more potent when administered in combinations of two or three different classes of drugs. The objective of this study was to evaluate the pharmacokinetic interaction among amlodipine, losartan, and chlorthalidone. A randomized, open-label, four-sequence, four-period, four-treatment, single-dose study was conducted in healthy Korean male subjects, with oral administrations of two tablets of amlodipine 5 mg, one tablet of losartan 100 mg, one tablet of chlorthalidone 25 mg, or co-administration of all three investigational products. Plasma drug concentrations were measured by liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry. Twenty-six subjects completed the study. The geometric mean ratios and 90% confidence intervals of C<sub>max</sub> and AUC<sub>last,</sub> respectively, were 1.0928 (1.0412-1.1469) and 1.0360 (0.9958-1.0778) for amlodipine; 1.1016 (0.9136-1.3284) and 1.1606 (1.0885-1.2375) for losartan; 1.0720 (1.0119-1.1356) and 1.0902 (1.0350-1.1148) for EXP3174 (active metabolite of losartan); and 0.9462 (0.8626-1.0379) and 1.0266 (0.9752-1.0807) for chlorthalidone. All the treatments were well tolerated overall. Besides the slight increase in losartan C<sub>max</sub>, the combination therapy did not show clinically significant pharmacokinetic interactions in terms of systemic drug exposure.</p>","PeriodicalId":10495,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Pharmacology in Drug Development","volume":"15 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":1.8,"publicationDate":"2026-01-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":null,"resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":"145997425","PeriodicalName":null,"FirstCategoryId":null,"ListUrlMain":null,"RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":"","EPubDate":null,"PubModel":null,"JCR":null,"JCRName":null,"Score":null,"Total":0}