4.5 Article

Safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacogenomics and QT concentration- effect modelling of the SirT1 inhibitor selisistat in healthy volunteers

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
卷 79, 期 3, 页码 477-491

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/bcp.12513

关键词

concentration-effect modelling; first-in-human; Huntington's disease; SirT1; transcriptional profile

资金

  1. Siena Biotech SpA
  2. Siena Biotech

向作者/读者索取更多资源

AimSelisistat (SEN0014196), a first-in-class SirT1 inhibitor, is being developed as a disease-modifying therapy for Huntington's disease. This first-in-human study investigated the safety, pharmacokinetics and pharmacogenomics of single and multiple doses of selisistat in healthy male and female subjects. MethodIn this double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study, seven cohorts of eight subjects received a single dose of selisistat at dose levels of 5, 25, 75, 150, 300 and 600mg and four cohorts of eight subjects were administered 100, 200 and 300mg once daily for 7 days. Blood sampling and safety assessments were conducted throughout the study. ResultsSelisistat was rapidly absorbed and systemic exposure increased in proportion to dose in the 5-300mg range. Steady-state plasma concentrations were achieved within 4 days of repeated dosing. The incidence of drug related adverse events showed no correlation with dose level or number of doses received and was comparable with the placebo group. No serious adverse events were reported and no subjects were withdrawn due to adverse events. There were no trends in clinical laboratory parameters or vital signs. No trends in heart rate or ECG parameters, including the QT(c) interval and T-wave morphology, were observed. There were no findings in physical or neurological examinations or postural control. Transcriptional alteration was observed in peripheral blood. ConclusionSelisistat was safe and well tolerated by healthy male and female subjects after single doses up to 600mg and multiple doses up to 300mgday(-1).

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据