Abstract CN02-03: Phase 0 chemoprevention trial of SR13668, a novel AKT inhibitor, in normal volunteers
Authors: Reid Joel M. , Walden Chad , Qin Rui , Allen Katie L. , Haslam John L. , Rajewski Roger A. , Warndahl Roger , Fitting Cindy L. , Boring Daniel , Szabo Eva , Crowell James , Perloff Marjorie , Jong Ling , Mandrekar Sumithra J. , Ames Matthew M. , Limburg Paul J. 
Published: January 2011

Abstract
Purpose: SR13668, an orally active AKT pathway inhibitor, has demonstrated cancer chemopreventive potential in preclinical studies. To accelerate the clinical development of this promising agent, we designed and conducted the first-ever phase 0 chemoprevention trial to evaluate and compare the effects of food and formulation on SR13668 bioavailability.
Patients and Methods: Healthy adult volunteers were randomly assigned to receive a single 38-mg oral dose of SR13668 in one of five different formulations, with or without food. Based on existing animal data, SR13668 in a PEG400/Labrasol@ oral solution (formulation 1) was defined as the reference formulation. Four self-emulsifying solid dispersion test formulations in capsules were also investigated: Solutol@ HS 15 (formulation 2), Solutol@ HS 15/Vitamin E TGPS (50/50 w/w %) (formulation 3), Vitamin E TGPS (formulation 4), and Myrj 53 (formulation 5). SR163668 bioavailability was compared using a two-stage study design. In stage I, participants were randomized to receive the formulation 1 with or without a high-fat meal after an overnight fast. In Stage II, participants were randomly assigned to receive the test formulations, using the preferred dietary condition identified in stage I. Blood samples were obtained pre- and post-agent administration for pharmacokinetic analyses. Area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) was defined as the primary endpoint. Data were analyzed and compared using established statistical methods for phase 0 trials with a limited sample size.
Results: Participants (N=20) were rapidly accrued over a 5-month period. Complete pharmacokinetic data were available for 18 randomized participants. The time to peak plasma concentration and half-life values for SR13668 were 3 hours (range, 2 — 6 hours) and 11.2 ± 3.1 hours, respectively, and were not dependent on the formulation. In stage I, the oral bioavailability of SR13668 in formulation 1 was greater under the fed versus fasting dietary state (p = 0.05, Wilcoxon rank-sum test). Therefore, the fed state was selected as the preferred dietary condition for stage II. In stage II, the bioavailability of SR13668 for each of the test formulations were compared with the bioavailability of formulation 1 in the fed state. While not significantly different from formulation 1, formulation 2 AUC0-24h was significantly different (p = 0.004, ANOVA) from formulation 3, 4, and 5 (AUC0-24h, formulation 1- 222 ± 53 ng/ml·hr; AUC0-24h, formulation 2 — 302 ± 78 ng/ml·hr; AUC-177±39ng/ml·hr; AUC-144±29 0-24h, formulation30-24h, formulation 4 ng/ml·hr; AUC0-24h, formulation 5- 98 ± 21 ng/ml·hr). Formulation 1 AUC0-24h was almost 40% lower than the value achieved with formulation 2, and not significantly different from formulation 3, 4, and 5. Thus, formulation 2 provided the highest bioavailability of SR13668.
Conclusions: Using a novel, highly efficient study design, we rapidly identified a lead formulation (Solutol@ HS 15) of SR13668 for further clinical testing. Our findings support application of the phase 0 trial paradigm to accelerate chemoprevention agent development. Supported by NIH grants N01-CN-35000, CA15083-34C3 and UL1 RR024150.
Citation Information: Cancer Prev Res 2010;3(12 Suppl):CN02-03.