Purpose: To assess the pharmacokinetics and safety of pure S-ketamine (esketamine) in Chinese patients undergoing painless gastroscopy and evaluate the potential advantage of esketamine in clinical treatment compared with racemate ketamine hydrochloride injection. Patients and methods: A randomized, open-label, parallel-controlled, Phase I study was performed with 32 patients undergoing painless gastroscopy. Patients received a single dose of esketamine (0.5 mg/kg) or racemic ketamine (1 mg/kg, esketamine:R-ketamine=1:1), injected in 10 s. Blood samples were collected for pharmacokinetic analysis. The concentrations of esketamine, R-ketamine, S-norketamine, and R-norketamine were measured with a validated liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method. Results: After administering a single dose of esketamine and racemate ketamine, the pharmacokinetics parameters of esketamine and S-norketamine are both similar in treatment groups. The clearance of esketamine in two groups was 18.1±3.2 and 18.4±3.4 mL/min•kg, respectively. However, in the ketamine group, esketamine has a larger clearance than R-ketamine (18.4±3.4 mL/min·kg vs 15.8±3.1 mL/min·kg, P<0.001). Further analysis showed that gender did not affect the pharmacokinetics of esketamine and racemate ketamine. Regarding the safety of esketamine and racemate ketamine, no serious adverse events were observed during treatment, and the incidences of adverse events were 75.0% (esketamine) and 87.5% (racemate ketamine). The main adverse reactions were dizziness, agitation, nausea, vomiting, headache, and fatigue. However, compared with racemic ketamine, esketamine offers a shorter recovery time (9 mins vs. 13 mins, P<0.05) and orientation recovery time (11.5 mins vs. 17 mins, P<0.05) after short anesthesia. Conclusion: Esketamine administration as a single dose of 0.5 mg/kg was generally safe and tolerated in patients undergoing painless gastroscopy. In terms of anesthesia, a relatively small dose of esketamine can be used instead of racemate ketamine for routine treatment without consideration of gender differences.

Background: The present study evaluated the safety, pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics (PK/PD), and absolute bioavailability (Fabs) of Dex nasal spray in healthy adult subjects, which serves as a bridge for the subsequent study in children.Methods: Part 1: a double-blind, placebo-controlled, single ascending dose study was performed on 48 subjects. For 20-/40-μg groups, every 6/2 subjects received either Dex/placebo nasal spray or Dex/placebo injection in two periods. In total, 12/4 subjects each received 100 μg Dex/placebo nasal spray. Part 2: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study; 12/4 subjects received 150 μg Dex/placebo nasal spray. Part 3: a randomized, open, self-crossover study; 12 subjects received 20 μg and 100 μg Dex nasal spray in two periods alternately. The method of administration was optimized in Part 2 and Part 3.Results: In part 1, Dex nasal spray was well tolerated up to the maximum dose of 100 μg, whereas the Fabs was tolerated to only 28.9%–32.3%. In Part 2 and Part 3, the optimized nasal spray method was adopted to promote the Fabs of Dex nasal spray to 74.1%–89.0%. A severe adverse event was found in Part 2. In Part 3 (100 μg), the Ramsay score increased the most and lasted the longest, whereas the BIS score decreased most significantly.Conclusion: Using the optimized nasal spray method, a single dose of 20/100 μg of the test drug was safe and tolerable, and 100 μg may have approached or reached the plateau of sedation. In addition, it is found that the optimized method can greatly improve the bioavailability of the test drug, leading to its higher reference value.

Aims: Hetrombopag olamine is a novel small‐molecule, nonpeptide thrombopoietin receptor agonist developed for immune thrombocytopenia treatment. This study aims to determine the safety and the effect of fasting duration after administration of hetrombopag on pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in Chinese healthy subjects.Methods: A randomized, open‐label, single‐dose, 3‐period crossover, self‐control trial was conducted. 15 eligible subjects were enrolled and received hetrombopag 7.5 mg at day 1 of each period followed by a standard meal 4 hours postdose (treatment A/fasting condition), or a high‐calorie, high‐fat meal 1 hour postdose (treatment B), or a high‐calorie, high‐fat meal 2 hours postdose (treatment C). The plasma concentrations of hetrombopag were determined by validated liquid chromatography–tandem mass spectrometry, platelet counts were quantified by blood test. Analysis was performed using a mixed model, including treatment, period as fixed effects and participant as a random effect.Results: Compared with treatment A, peak concentration and area under concentration–time curve extrapolated to infinity decreased by 56 and 74.6%, and 44 and 61% in treatments B and C, respectively. The mean platelet number on day 6 increased by 15.8, 6.96 and 10.26%, respectively, in treatments A, B and C in comparison with baseline platelet level. No severe adverse events happened in any of the 3 treatments.Conclusion: Hetrombopag was well tolerated in healthy male subjects under fasted/fed conditions. The shorter fasting duration resulted in lower hetrombopag exposure, corresponding to a lower level of platelet elevation. Therefore, we recommended oral administration of hetrombopag on an empty stomach (fasting condition) or at least 2 hours before a meal to achieve maximum bioavailability.

Background: Oliceridine is a novel G protein‐biased ligand μ-opioid receptor agonist. This study aimed to assess the pharmacokinetics and safety profile of single-ascending doses of oliceridine fumarate injection in Chinese patients with chronic non-cancer pain. Methods: Conducted as a single-center, open-label trial, this study administered single doses of 0.75, 1.5, and 3.0 mg to 32 adult participants. The trial was conducted in two parts. First, we conducted a preliminary test comprising the administration of a single dose of 0.75mg to 2 participants. Then, we conducted the main trial involving intravenous administration of escalating doses of oliceridine fumarate (0.75 to 3 mg) to 30 participants. Pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters were derived using non-compartmental analysis. Additionally, the safety evaluation encompassed the monitoring of adverse events (AEs). Results: 32 participants were included in the PK and safety analyses. Following a 2-min intravenous infusion of oliceridine fumarate injection (0.75, 1.5, or 3 mg), Cmax and Tmax ranged from 51.293 to 81.914 ng/mL and 0.034 to 0.083 h, respectively. AUC_0-t and half-life (t_1/2) increased more than proportionally with dosage (1.85– 2.084 h). Treatment emergent adverse events (TEAEs) were found to be consistent with the commonly reported adverse effects of opioids, both post-administration and as documented in the original trials conducted in the United States. Critically, no serious adverse events were observed. Conclusion: Oliceridine demonstrated comparable PK parameters and a consistent PK profile in the Chinese population, in line with the PK results observed in the original trials conducted in the United States. Oliceridine was safe and well tolerated in Chinese patients with chronic non-cancer pain at doses ranging from 0.75 mg to 3.0 mg. Trial Registration: The trial is registered at chictr.org.cn (ChiCTR2100047180).

Aims: Type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) is commonly complicated by renal impairment. Polyethylene glycol loxenatide (PEX168) is a novel long‐acting glucagon‐like peptide‐1 receptor agonist for T2DM. PEX168 pharmacokinetics was studied to identify requirements for dose‐modification in T2DM complicated by renal impairment.Methods: This was a single‐centre, open‐labelled, parallel‐group, single‐dose, phase I clinical trial of patients with mild and moderate renal impairment, and with or without T2DM. Age‐, sex‐ and body mass index‐matched subjects with normal renal function, and with or without T2DM were recruited as controls. Subjects received a single abdominal subcutaneous injection of PEX168 200 μg. Pharmacokinetic samples were taken at 0, 24, 48, 72, 96, 120, 144, 216, 312, 480, 648 and 720 hours.Results: Twenty‐three patients were included in the pharmacokinetics analysis. Vz/F and CL/F were lower in the moderate impairment group than in the other groups. The mean t_1/2 (163 hours) in the moderate impairment group was prolonged compared to the mild impairment (117 hours) and normal (121 hours) groups. AUC_0–inf increased by 13 and 100.7% in patients with mild and moderate renal impairment, respectively. Most adverse events were mild gastrointestinal disorders, with only 1 serious adverse event observed.Conclusion: A single dose of 200 μg of PEX168 was in general well tolerated in patients with renal impairment. The in vivo clearance rate of PEX168 in patients with moderate renal impairment is slower than in patients with mild renal impairment and normal renal function and dose adjustment might be required (ClinicalTrials.org #NCT02467790).

Purpose: This is the first study to compare the pharmacokinetics of QL1101, a proposed bevacizumab biosimilar, with Avastin^® sourced from Roche Diagnostics GmbH. Methods: In this double-blind, single-dose, parallel-group study, healthy male subjects were randomized 1:1 to receive QL1101 or Avastin^® 3 mg/kg intravenously. Pharmacokinetic assessments were conducted for 85 days, with additional safety and immunogenicity assessments until day 90. Primary study endpoints were area under the concentration–time curve (AUC) from time zero to infinity (AUC_0–∞), AUC from time zero to the last quantifiable concentration (AUC_0–last), and maximum serum concentration (C_max). Pharmacokinetic equivalence was shown if the 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the geometric mean ratios (GMRs) of the C_0–max, AUC_0–last, and AUC_0–∞ were within the predefined bioequivalence margin of 80–125.00%. Results: A total of 82 subjects were randomized to the following groups: 42 to QL1101 and 40 to Avastin^®. The 90% CIs of the GMRs of AUC_0–∞, AUC_0–last, and C_max of QL1101 and Avastin® were (97.8%, 107.0%), (94.5%, 106.9%), and (94.1%, 107.3%), respectively, which were all within the bioequivalence margin. The incidence of adverse events was 90.5% and 95.0% in the QL1101 and Avastin® groups, respectively. Mean serum concentration–time profiles, secondary pharmacokinetic parameters, and safety and immunogenicity profiles were comparable across the two treatment groups. Conclusions: The study demonstrated the pharmacokinetic equivalence of QL1101 to Avastin^®. QL1101 (3 mg/kg, iv) is safe and tolerable in healthy Chinese subjects. These data support the further clinical evaluation of QL1101 as a bevacizumab biosimilar.