Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25845867›Full record

Trial reportAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2015

Open-label, single-dose, parallel-group study in healthy volunteers to determine the drug-drug interaction potential between KAE609 (cipargamin) and piperaquine.

Daniel S Stein, Jay Prakash Jain, Michael Kangas, Gilbert Lefèvre, Surendra Machineni, Paul Griffin, Jason Lickliter

Open access · bronzeAbstract readRandomized Controlled Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
17citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
3.6field-weighted citation impact, top 7% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 31 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Trial
  6. Trial
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Review
  17. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors at 5 institutions in 4 countries.

Daniel S SteinNovartis Institute for BioMedical Research, East Hanover, New Jersey, USA daniel.stein@novartis.com.
Jay Prakash JainNovartis Institute for BioMedical Research, Hyberabad, India.
Michael KangasNovartis Institute for BioMedical Research, Basel, Switzerland.
Gilbert LefèvreNovartis Institute for BioMedical Research, Basel, Switzerland.
Surendra MachineniIntegrated Quantitative Sciences, Hyderabad, India.
Paul GriffinQ-Pharm Pty. Ltd., QIMR Berghofer Medical Research Institute, Mater Health Services and Mater Research, and the University of Queensland, Brisbane, Queensland, Australia.
Jason LickliterNucleus Network Ltd., Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
Novartis (India) · INNovartis Institutes for BioMedical ResearchNovartis (Switzerland) · CHNovartis (United States) · USQ-Pharm · AU

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

KAE609 represents a new class of potent, fast-acting, schizonticidal antimalarials. This study investigated the safety and pharmacokinetics of KAE609 in combination with the long-acting antimalarial piperaquine (PPQ) in healthy volunteers. A two-way pharmacokinetic interaction was hypothesized for KAE609 and PPQ, as both drugs are CYP3A4 substrates and inhibitors. The potential for both agents to affect the QT interval was also assessed. This was an open-label, parallel-group, single-dose study with healthy volunteers. Subjects were randomized to four parallel dosing arms with five cohorts (2:2:2:2:1), receiving 75 mg KAE609 plus 320 mg PPQ, 25 mg KAE609 plus 1,280 mg PPQ, 25 mg KAE609 alone, 320 mg PPQ alone, or 1,280 mg PPQ alone. Triplicate electrocardiograms were performed over the first 24 h after dosing, with single electrocardiograms at other time points. Routine safety (up to 89 days) and pharmacokinetic (up to 61 days) assessments were performed. Of the 110 subjects recruited, 99 completed the study. Coadministration of PPQ had no overall effect on exposure to KAE609, although 1,280 mg PPQ decreased the KAE609 maximum concentration (Cmax) by 17%. The group that received 25 mg KAE609 plus 1,280 mg PPQ showed a 32% increase in the PPQ area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to infinity (AUCinf), while the group that received 75 mg KAE609 plus 320 mg PPQ showed a 14% reduction. Mean changes from baseline in the QT interval corrected by Fridericia's method (QTcF) and the QT interval corrected by Bazett's method (QTcB) with PPQ were consistent with its known effects. PPQ but not KAE609 exposure correlated with corrected QT interval (QTc) increases, and KAE609 did not affect the PPQ exposure-QTc relationship. The QTcF effect for PPQ (least-squares estimate of the difference in mean maximal changes from baseline of 7.47 ms [90% confidence interval, 3.55 to 11.4 ms]) was consistent with the criteria for a positive thorough QT study. No subject had QTcF or QTcB values of >500 ms. Both drugs given alone or in combination were well tolerated, with no deaths, serious adverse events (AEs), or severe AEs reported. Most AEs were mild; upper respiratory tract infections, headache, diarrhea, and oropharyngeal pain were most common. PPQ and KAE609 coadministration had no relevant effect on exposure to either agent, and KAE609 did not affect or potentiate the known effects of PPQ on cardiac conduction.

Indexed as

AdolescentAdultDose-Response Relationship, DrugDrug InteractionsFemaleHealthy VolunteersHumansIndolesMaleMiddle AgedPiperazinesQuinolinesSpiro CompoundsYoung AdultIndolesNITD 609piperaquinePiperazinesQuinolinesSpiro Compounds

Identifiers

PMID25845867
PMCPMC4432206
OpenAlexW2095062799

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.