Cargando…

120. An open-label comparative trial of SUBA-itraconazole (SUBA) versus conventional itraconazole (c-itra) for treatment of proven and probable endemic mycoses (MSG-15): a pharmacokinetic (PK) and adverse Event (AE) analysis

BACKGROUND: C-itra is the drug of choice for treatment of most non-CNS, non-life-threatening forms of endemic mycoses (EM), including histoplasmosis, blastomycosis, coccidioidomycosis, sporotrichosis and talaromycosis. SUBA represents a new formulation of itraconazole that utilizes nanotechnology to...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pappas, Peter G, Spec, Andrej, Miceli, Marisa, McGwin, Gerald, McMullen, Rachel, Thompson III, George R R
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2021
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8644912/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofab466.120
_version_ 1784610195993788416
author Pappas, Peter G
Spec, Andrej
Miceli, Marisa
McGwin, Gerald
McMullen, Rachel
Thompson III, George R R
author_facet Pappas, Peter G
Spec, Andrej
Miceli, Marisa
McGwin, Gerald
McMullen, Rachel
Thompson III, George R R
author_sort Pappas, Peter G
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: C-itra is the drug of choice for treatment of most non-CNS, non-life-threatening forms of endemic mycoses (EM), including histoplasmosis, blastomycosis, coccidioidomycosis, sporotrichosis and talaromycosis. SUBA represents a new formulation of itraconazole that utilizes nanotechnology to improve bioavailability when administered orally. SUBA is formulated as nanoparticles allowing for absorption in the small bowel while not relying on gastric acidity for optimal absorption. MSG-15 is an open-label, comparative clinical trial comparing SUBA to c-itra for the treatment of EM. Herein we report the final PK and AE profiles of these two compounds. METHODS: Subjects with proven and probable EM were eligible this open-label comparative study. The protocol allowed up to 14 d of prior therapy with any antifungal for this episode of EM. Subjects were randomized to receive either SUBA 130 mg po bid or c-itra 200 mg po bid for up to 6 months. Follow up occurred at 7, 14, 28, 42, 84 and 180 d post-enrollment. PK samples were obtained at 7, 14, and 42 d. Clinical assessment, including symptom assessment, AEs, overall drug tolerance, and quality of life were assessed at each visit. We used descriptive statistics for this analysis. RESULTS: 89 subjects with EM entered the trial, including 43 on SUBA and 46 on c-itra. We measured PK serum levels of itra and hydroxyl-itra at days 7, 14, and 42 and these data are depicted in Figures 1-3. There were no significant differences in these levels, including combined itra/hydroxyl-itra levels, among the two study arms. AUC for itra and hydroxyl-itra were similar for both arms. AEs as assessed at each study evaluation were also quite similar among the two study arms. Overall, any AE occurred in 74% vs 85% of SUBA and c-itra recipients, respectively (NS). Drug-related AEs occurred in 35% vs 41% of SUBA and itra recipients, respectively (NS). Most common drug-related AEs included cardiovascular (edema and hypertension), nausea and loss of appetite. [Image: see text] [Image: see text] Combined Itraconazole and Hydroxy-itraconazole Concentration Over Time [Image: see text] CONCLUSION: Compared to c-itra, SUBA demonstrates almost identical serum levels despite being dosed at roughly 60% standard dosing for c-itra (130 mg po bid vs 200 mg po bid). SUBA is slightly better tolerated than c-itra, although the specific AEs are similar. DISCLOSURES: Peter G. Pappas, MD, Astellas (Research Grant or Support)Cidara (Research Grant or Support)F2G (Consultant)Matinas (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator)Mayne Pharma (Research Grant or Support)Scynexis (Research Grant or Support) Andrej Spec, MD, MSCI, Mayne Pharma (Grant/Research Support) Marisa Miceli, MD, SCYNEXIS, Inc. (Advisor or Review Panel member) George R. R. Thompson III, III, MD, Amplyx (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Appili (Consultant)Astellas (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Avir (Grant/Research Support)Cidara (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)F2G (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Mayne (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Merck (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Pfizer (Advisor or Review Panel member)
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8644912
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2021
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-86449122021-12-06 120. An open-label comparative trial of SUBA-itraconazole (SUBA) versus conventional itraconazole (c-itra) for treatment of proven and probable endemic mycoses (MSG-15): a pharmacokinetic (PK) and adverse Event (AE) analysis Pappas, Peter G Spec, Andrej Miceli, Marisa McGwin, Gerald McMullen, Rachel Thompson III, George R R Open Forum Infect Dis Oral Abstracts BACKGROUND: C-itra is the drug of choice for treatment of most non-CNS, non-life-threatening forms of endemic mycoses (EM), including histoplasmosis, blastomycosis, coccidioidomycosis, sporotrichosis and talaromycosis. SUBA represents a new formulation of itraconazole that utilizes nanotechnology to improve bioavailability when administered orally. SUBA is formulated as nanoparticles allowing for absorption in the small bowel while not relying on gastric acidity for optimal absorption. MSG-15 is an open-label, comparative clinical trial comparing SUBA to c-itra for the treatment of EM. Herein we report the final PK and AE profiles of these two compounds. METHODS: Subjects with proven and probable EM were eligible this open-label comparative study. The protocol allowed up to 14 d of prior therapy with any antifungal for this episode of EM. Subjects were randomized to receive either SUBA 130 mg po bid or c-itra 200 mg po bid for up to 6 months. Follow up occurred at 7, 14, 28, 42, 84 and 180 d post-enrollment. PK samples were obtained at 7, 14, and 42 d. Clinical assessment, including symptom assessment, AEs, overall drug tolerance, and quality of life were assessed at each visit. We used descriptive statistics for this analysis. RESULTS: 89 subjects with EM entered the trial, including 43 on SUBA and 46 on c-itra. We measured PK serum levels of itra and hydroxyl-itra at days 7, 14, and 42 and these data are depicted in Figures 1-3. There were no significant differences in these levels, including combined itra/hydroxyl-itra levels, among the two study arms. AUC for itra and hydroxyl-itra were similar for both arms. AEs as assessed at each study evaluation were also quite similar among the two study arms. Overall, any AE occurred in 74% vs 85% of SUBA and c-itra recipients, respectively (NS). Drug-related AEs occurred in 35% vs 41% of SUBA and itra recipients, respectively (NS). Most common drug-related AEs included cardiovascular (edema and hypertension), nausea and loss of appetite. [Image: see text] [Image: see text] Combined Itraconazole and Hydroxy-itraconazole Concentration Over Time [Image: see text] CONCLUSION: Compared to c-itra, SUBA demonstrates almost identical serum levels despite being dosed at roughly 60% standard dosing for c-itra (130 mg po bid vs 200 mg po bid). SUBA is slightly better tolerated than c-itra, although the specific AEs are similar. DISCLOSURES: Peter G. Pappas, MD, Astellas (Research Grant or Support)Cidara (Research Grant or Support)F2G (Consultant)Matinas (Consultant, Scientific Research Study Investigator)Mayne Pharma (Research Grant or Support)Scynexis (Research Grant or Support) Andrej Spec, MD, MSCI, Mayne Pharma (Grant/Research Support) Marisa Miceli, MD, SCYNEXIS, Inc. (Advisor or Review Panel member) George R. R. Thompson III, III, MD, Amplyx (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Appili (Consultant)Astellas (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Avir (Grant/Research Support)Cidara (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)F2G (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Mayne (Consultant, Grant/Research Support)Merck (Scientific Research Study Investigator)Pfizer (Advisor or Review Panel member) Oxford University Press 2021-12-04 /pmc/articles/PMC8644912/ http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofab466.120 Text en © The Author(s) 2021. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of Infectious Diseases Society of America. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted reuse, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Oral Abstracts
Pappas, Peter G
Spec, Andrej
Miceli, Marisa
McGwin, Gerald
McMullen, Rachel
Thompson III, George R R
120. An open-label comparative trial of SUBA-itraconazole (SUBA) versus conventional itraconazole (c-itra) for treatment of proven and probable endemic mycoses (MSG-15): a pharmacokinetic (PK) and adverse Event (AE) analysis
title 120. An open-label comparative trial of SUBA-itraconazole (SUBA) versus conventional itraconazole (c-itra) for treatment of proven and probable endemic mycoses (MSG-15): a pharmacokinetic (PK) and adverse Event (AE) analysis
title_full 120. An open-label comparative trial of SUBA-itraconazole (SUBA) versus conventional itraconazole (c-itra) for treatment of proven and probable endemic mycoses (MSG-15): a pharmacokinetic (PK) and adverse Event (AE) analysis
title_fullStr 120. An open-label comparative trial of SUBA-itraconazole (SUBA) versus conventional itraconazole (c-itra) for treatment of proven and probable endemic mycoses (MSG-15): a pharmacokinetic (PK) and adverse Event (AE) analysis
title_full_unstemmed 120. An open-label comparative trial of SUBA-itraconazole (SUBA) versus conventional itraconazole (c-itra) for treatment of proven and probable endemic mycoses (MSG-15): a pharmacokinetic (PK) and adverse Event (AE) analysis
title_short 120. An open-label comparative trial of SUBA-itraconazole (SUBA) versus conventional itraconazole (c-itra) for treatment of proven and probable endemic mycoses (MSG-15): a pharmacokinetic (PK) and adverse Event (AE) analysis
title_sort 120. an open-label comparative trial of suba-itraconazole (suba) versus conventional itraconazole (c-itra) for treatment of proven and probable endemic mycoses (msg-15): a pharmacokinetic (pk) and adverse event (ae) analysis
topic Oral Abstracts
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8644912/
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/ofid/ofab466.120
work_keys_str_mv AT pappaspeterg 120anopenlabelcomparativetrialofsubaitraconazolesubaversusconventionalitraconazolecitrafortreatmentofprovenandprobableendemicmycosesmsg15apharmacokineticpkandadverseeventaeanalysis
AT specandrej 120anopenlabelcomparativetrialofsubaitraconazolesubaversusconventionalitraconazolecitrafortreatmentofprovenandprobableendemicmycosesmsg15apharmacokineticpkandadverseeventaeanalysis
AT micelimarisa 120anopenlabelcomparativetrialofsubaitraconazolesubaversusconventionalitraconazolecitrafortreatmentofprovenandprobableendemicmycosesmsg15apharmacokineticpkandadverseeventaeanalysis
AT mcgwingerald 120anopenlabelcomparativetrialofsubaitraconazolesubaversusconventionalitraconazolecitrafortreatmentofprovenandprobableendemicmycosesmsg15apharmacokineticpkandadverseeventaeanalysis
AT mcmullenrachel 120anopenlabelcomparativetrialofsubaitraconazolesubaversusconventionalitraconazolecitrafortreatmentofprovenandprobableendemicmycosesmsg15apharmacokineticpkandadverseeventaeanalysis
AT thompsoniiigeorgerr 120anopenlabelcomparativetrialofsubaitraconazolesubaversusconventionalitraconazolecitrafortreatmentofprovenandprobableendemicmycosesmsg15apharmacokineticpkandadverseeventaeanalysis