Peggy Wong

Comparative Inhibitory Activity of Rofecoxib, Meloxicam, Diclofenac, Ibuprofen, and Naproxen on COX‐2 versus COX‐1 in Healthy Volunteers

Steady‐state inhibitory activity of rofecoxib (Vioxx™) on COX‐2 versus COX‐1 was compared with that of commonly used nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) in 76 healthy volunteers randomized to placebo, rofecoxib 12.5 mg qd, rofecoxib 25 mg qd, diclofenac 50 mg tid, ibuprofen 800 mg tid, sodium naproxen 550 mg bid, or meloxicam 15 mg qd. All of these doses include the high end of the approved clinical dose range. Ex vivo whole‐blood assays were used to determine the effect on COX‐2 and COX‐1 activity, respectively. Urinary prostanoids were also measured. Mean inhibition of COX‐2 (measured as the weighted average inhibition [WAI] of lipopolysaccharide [LPS]‐induced PGE2 generation over 8 hours on day 6 vs. baseline) was −2.4%, 66.7%, 69.2%, 77.5%, 93.9%, 71.4%, and 71.5% for placebo, rofecoxib 12.5 mg, rofecoxib 25 mg, meloxicam, diclofenac, ibuprofen, and naproxen, respectively. Corresponding values for mean inhibition of COX‐1 (measured as TXB2 generation in clotting whole blood) were −5.15%, 7.98%, 6.65%, 53.3%, 49.5%, 88.7%, and 94.9%. Rofecoxib had no significant effect on urinary excretion of 11‐dehydro TXB2, a COX‐ 1‐derived product. These data support the contention that rofecoxib is the only drug of the regimens tested that uniquely inhibits COX‐2 without affecting COX‐1.

Analysis of randomized comparative clinical trial data for personalized treatment selections

Suppose that under the conventional randomized clinical trial setting, a new therapy is compared with a standard treatment. In this article, we propose a systematic, 2-stage estimation procedure for the subject-level treatment differences for future patients disease management and treatment selections. To construct this procedure, we first utilize a parametric or semiparametric method to estimate individual-level treatment differences, and use these estimates to create an index scoring system for grouping patients. We then consistently estimate the average treatment difference for each subgroup of subjects via a nonparametric function estimation method. Furthermore, pointwise and simultaneous interval estimates are constructed to make inferences about such subgroup-specific treatment differences. The new proposal is illustrated with the data from a clinical trial for evaluating the efficacy and toxicity of a 3-drug combination versus a standard 2-drug combination for treating HIV-1-infected patients.

Pharmacokinetics, COX-2 specificity, and tolerability of supratherapeutic doses of rofecoxib in humans.

AbstractObjective: Prostaglandin synthesis is catalyzed by a constitutive cyclo-oxygenase isoform (COX-1) and an inducible isoform (COX-2). It is hypothesized that the analgesic and anti-inflammatory effects of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (nonspecific COX-1/COX-2 inhibitors) such as ibuprofen principally derive from COX-2 inhibition. The purpose of this study was to evaluate steady-state pharmacokinetics, biochemical selectivity and tolerability of rofecoxib (VioxxTM), characterized in vitro as a COX-2 inhibitor. Methods: Four panels of healthy men (n=8 per panel) were administered rofecoxib (n=6) (25, 100, 250, 375 mg) or placebo (n=2) once daily on day 1 and days 3–14. Blood samples for assays of rofecoxib plasma concentration and COX isoform activity were obtained pre-dose and at specified time points post-dose. Results: Rofecoxib pharmacokinetics were found to be complex and nonlinear. Elimination half-life ranged from 9.9 h to 17.5 h after multiple dosing with an accumulation ratio close to 2 for all doses. COX-2 inhibitory activity as assessed by average inhibition of whole blood lipopolysaccharide-stimulated prostaglandin E2 over the 8-h post-dose period on day 14 was 0.3, 67, 96, 92 and 96% for the placebo and the 25-, 100-, 250- and 375-mg treatment groups, respectively. No treatment group showed significant inhibition of COX-1 as assessed by thromboxane B2 generation in clotting whole blood. Side effects were mild and transient. Conclusion: The results indicate that rofecoxib is a potent and specific inhibitor of COX-2 in humans even at doses more than tenfold higher than those associated with efficacy in patients with osteoarthritis.

Plasma lipid profiling across species for the identification of optimal animal models of human dyslipidemia.

In an attempt to understand the applicability of various animal models to dyslipidemia in humans and to identify improved preclinical models for target discovery and validation for dyslipidemia, we measured comprehensive plasma lipid profiles in 24 models. These included five mouse strains, six other nonprimate species, and four nonhuman primate (NHP) species, and both healthy animals and animals with metabolic disorders. Dyslipidemic humans were assessed by the same measures. Plasma lipoprotein profiles, eight major plasma lipid fractions, and FA compositions within these lipid fractions were compared both qualitatively and quantitatively across the species. Given the importance of statins in decreasing plasma low-density lipoprotein cholesterol for treatment of dyslipidemia in humans, the responses of these measures to simvastatin treatment were also assessed for each species and compared with dyslipidemic humans. NHPs, followed by dog, were the models that demonstrated closest overall match to dyslipidemic humans. For the subset of the dyslipidemic population with high plasma triglyceride levels, the data also pointed to hamster and db/db mouse as representative models for practical use in target validation. Most traditional models, including rabbit, Zucker diabetic fatty rat, and the majority of mouse models, did not demonstrate overall similarity to dyslipidemic humans in this study.

Characterization of Etoricoxib, a Novel, Selective COX‐2 Inhibitor

Etoricoxib is a potent selective COX‐2 inhibitor in man. Ex vivo whole‐blood assays assessed COX‐2 inhibition after oral administration of etoricoxib in single (5–500 mg) and multiple (25–150 mg) once‐daily doses to healthy human subjects. A separate study examined ex vivo gastric mucosal PGE2 synthesis after etoricoxib (120 mg qd), naproxen (500 mg bid), or placebo for 5 days. The effect of etoricoxib 120 mg qd on the COX‐1‐mediated antiplatelet effects of low‐dose aspirin (ASA) was also assessed. The mean (time)–weighted average inhibition (WAI) of lipopolysaccharide (LPS)–stimulated PGE2(COX‐2 assay) versus placebo was dose related after single (range: 3.1%–99.1%) and multiple doses (range: 52.5%–96.7%). PGE2 remained significantly inhibited 24 hours postdose at steady state. Inhibition of LPS‐stimulated PGE2 showed a strong relationship with etoricoxib plasma concentrations; ex vivo, IC50 was almost identical to in vitro. Multiple dosing of etoricoxib (up to 150 mg qd) showed no important effects on serum TXB2, bleeding time, or platelet aggregation (COX‐1‐mediated effects). The nonselective nonsteroidal anti‐inflammatory (NSAID) naproxen significantly inhibited (∼78%) ex vivo prostaglandin synthesis in gastric mucosa; etoricoxib had no effect. Etoricoxib did not interfere with the antiplatelet effects of low‐dose ASA, as assessed by serum TXB2 and platelet aggregation. Etoricoxib was generally well tolerated, even at doses above the clinical dose range. Based on these results, etoricoxib is a potent selective inhibitor of COX‐2 after single and multiple dosing regimens and does not inhibit prostaglandin synthesis in the gastric mucosa, even at doses above the clinical dose range of 60 to 120 mg.

A New Cyclooxygenase‐2 Inhibitor, Rofecoxib (VIOXX®), Did Not Alter the Antiplatelet Effects of Low‐Dose Aspirin in Healthy Volunteers

The present study examined whether rofecoxib (VIOXX®), a new specific inhibitor of cyclooxygenase‐2 (COX‐2), would interfere with the desired antiplatelet effects of aspirin. Thus, the effects of rofecoxib on inhibition of ex vivo serumgenerated thromboxane B2 (TXB2) and platelet aggregation by low doses (81 mg) of aspirin were examined in healthy volunteers. This was a double‐blind, randomized, placebo‐controlled, parallel study of two treatment groups (n = 12 per group) in which subjects received 50 mg of rofecoxib or placebo for 10 days in a blinded fashion. Subjects also received 81 mg aspirin once on each of days 4 through 10 in an open‐label fashion. Blood for measurement of serum TXB2 production and platelet aggregation studies was collected on day 1 (prior to rofecoxib/placebo), on day 4 (prior to aspirin), and on day 10 (before and 4 hours following the seventh dose of aspirin). Platelet‐derived serum TXB2 (COX‐1 assay) was measured in blood clotted for 1 hour at 37°C. Platelet aggregation was independently induced employing 1 mM arachidonic acid and 1 μg/mL collagen as agonists. Rofecoxib administered alone had no significant effect on serum TXB2 production or platelet aggregation (day 4). TXB2 production was inhibited 98.4% by aspirin coadministered with either rofecoxib or placebo (day 10). Similarly, platelet aggregation induced by arachidonic acid was inhibited 93.7% and 93.5% by aspirin coadministered with either rofecoxib or placebo, respectively (day 10). The comparable values for inhibition of collagen‐induced platelet aggregation were 86.8% and 90.8%, respectively. No important clinical or laboratory adverse experiences were observed. In conclusion, rofecoxib alone (50 mg QD for 4 days) did not inhibit serum TXB2 production or platelet aggregation. In addition, rofecoxib (50 mg QD for 10 days) did not alter the antiplatelet effects of low‐dose aspirin (inhibition of platelet aggregation and TXB2 production). Rofecoxib was generally well tolerated when administered alone or in combination with low‐dose aspirin.

ACE Gene Polymorphism and Losartan Treatment in Type 2 Diabetic Patients With Nephropathy

Losartan treatment reduced renal outcomes in proteinuric patients with type 2 diabetes in the Reduction of Endpoints in NIDDM with the Angiotensin II Antagonist Losartan (RENAAL) study. It is unknown whether an insertion (I)/deletion (D) polymorphism in the angiotensin I-converting enzyme (ACE) gene predicts renal outcomes and death and influences the effect of losartan in these patients. Pharmacogenetic analyses were performed comparing losartan with placebo administered with conventional blood pressure-lowering therapy in 1435 (95%) of the 1513 RENAAL study patients. The primary endpoint was the composite of doubling of baseline serum creatinine concentration, end-stage renal disease (ESRD) or death. Cox regression models were stratified on baseline proteinuria and included treatment, geographic region, ACE/ID genotype, and treatment x genotype interaction. Within the placebo group, subjects with the ID or DD genotype were more likely than those with the II genotype to reach the composite endpoint (by 17.5% and 38.1%, respectively, P = 0.029) or its individual components. Within the losartan group, genotype did not correlate with reaching the composite endpoint. Compared with placebo, however, losartan reduced the risk of reaching the composite endpoint by 5.8% (95% confidence interval, -23.3, 28.0), 17.6% (3.8, 29.4), and 27.9% (7.0, 44.1) among those with the II, ID, and DD genotypes, respectively. Similar trends were demonstrated for the individual endpoints. In conclusion, proteinuric type 2 diabetic patients with the D allele of the ACE gene have an unfavorable renal prognosis, which can be mitigated and even improved by losartan.

Clinical studies of the DP1 antagonist laropiprant in asthma and allergic rhinitis

BACKGROUND Prostaglandin D(2) is a proinflammatory mediator believed to be important in asthma and allergic rhinitis (AR). Allelic variants in the prostaglandin D(2) receptor type 1 (DP1) gene (PTGDR) have been suggested to be associated with asthma susceptibility. OBJECTIVES We sought to investigate the efficacy of the DP1 antagonist laropiprant (alone or with montelukast) in asthma and seasonal AR and explore whether sequence variations in PTGDR are associated with asthma severity. METHODS For asthma, in a double-blind crossover study, 100 patients with persistent asthma were randomized to placebo or laropiprant, 300 mg/d for 3 weeks, followed by addition of montelukast, 10 mg/d for 2 weeks. PTGDR promoter haplotypes were categorized as high, medium, or low transcriptional efficiency. The primary efficacy end point was FEV(1). For AR, in a double-blind parallel-group study, 767 patients sensitized to a regionally prevalent fall allergen with symptomatic fall rhinitis were allocated to laropiprant, 25 mg/d or 100 mg/d; cetirizine, 10mg/d; or placebo for 2 weeks. The primary end point was the Daytime Nasal Symptoms Score. RESULTS For asthma, no significant differences in FEV(1) or asthma symptoms were noted for laropiprant versus placebo or laropiprant plus montelukast vs montelukast (differences between montelukast and placebo: P <or= .001). No clear association was seen between haplotype pair (ie, diplotype) and asthma severity. For AR, although cetirizine (vs placebo) demonstrated an improvement in the Daytime Nasal Symptoms Score (P < .001), laropiprant did not. CONCLUSION Laropiprant did not demonstrate efficacy in asthmatic patients or patients with AR. Variations in PTGDR did not appear related to baseline asthma severity or treatment response (NCT00533208; NCT00783601).

Effect of ACE insertion/deletion and 12 other polymorphisms on clinical outcomes and response to treatment in the life study

Objective This pharmacogenetics substudy from the Losartan Intervention for Endpoint reduction in Hypertension study in patients with hypertension and left ventricular hypertrophy (LVH) treated with the angiotensin receptor blocker losartan versus the &bgr;-blocker atenolol for 4.8 years tested whether the insertion/deletion (I/D) polymorphism of the angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) gene and 12 other previously well-characterized polymorphisms of hypertension susceptibility genes affected blood pressure reduction, heart rate reduction, cardiovascular events, and/or response to treatment. These polymorphisms were chosen because they could affect blood pressure control or the pharmacological action of losartan or atenolol. Methods We genotyped 3503 patients, 1774 on losartan and 1729 on atenolol. Results ACE and the 12 other genotypes did not affect the reduction in systolic blood pressure, diastolic blood pressure, pulse pressure, mean arterial pressure, or heart rate, or treatment differences between losartan and atenolol on these endpoints, as assessed by general linear models. Also, ACE and the 12 other genotypes did not affect risk of the primary composite endpoint or its components stroke, myocardial infarction, and cardiovascular death, or treatment differences between losartan and atenolol on these endpoints, as assessed by Cox proportional hazards models including baseline Framingham risk score and LVH. Conclusion ACE insertion/deletion and 12 other polymorphisms of hypertension susceptibility genes did not affect blood pressure reduction, heart rate reduction, or cardiovascular events in patients with hypertension and LVH, or treatment differences between losartan and atenolol on these endpoints. These results suggest that the observed effects of losartan versus atenolol in the Losartan Intervention for Endpoint reduction in hypertension study do not depend on ACE and 12 other polymorphisms of hypertension susceptibility genes.

Pharmacokinetics of Etoricoxib in Patients with Renal Impairment

The effect of renal insufficiency on the pharmacokinetics of etoricoxib, a selective inhibitor of cyclooxygenase‐2, was examined in 23 patients with varying degrees of renal impairment (12 moderate [creatinine clearance between 30 and 50 mL/min/1.73 m2], 5 severe [creatinine clearance below 30 mL/min/1.73 m2], and 6 with end‐stage renal disease requiring hemodialysis) following administration of single 120‐mg oral doses of etoricoxib. Even the most severe renal impairment was found to have little effect on etoricoxib pharmacokinetics. The low recovery of etoricoxib in dialysate (less than 6% of the dose) supports that hemodialysis also has little effect on etoricoxib pharmacokinetics, and binding of etoricoxib to plasma proteins was generally unaffected by renal disease. Single doses of etoricoxib were generally well tolerated by patients with renal impairment. Based on pharmacokinetic considerations, dosing adjustments are not necessary for patients with any degree of renal impairment. However, because patients with advanced renal disease (creatinine clearance below 30 mL/min/1.73 m2) are likely to be very sensitive to any further compromise of renal function, and there is no long‐term clinical experience in these patients, the use of etoricoxib is not recommended in patients with advanced renal disease.