Skip to main content
Log in

The DGAT1 inhibitor pradigastat does not induce photosensitivity in healthy human subjects: a randomized controlled trial using three defined sunlight exposure conditions

  • Paper
  • Published:
Photochemical & Photobiological Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The DGAT1 inhibitor, pradigastat, demonstrated a mild phototoxicity signal in preclinical studies. Therefore, this clinical trial was conducted to assess the risk of photosensitivity in humans. 47 healthy adults were randomized to part A (double-blind, placebo-controlled; 3: 1 pradigastat: placebo) or part B (openlabel positive control ciprofloxacin, investigator blind). Three irradiation conditions (1. full range UVB/UVA, 2. UVA only, 3. 1/2 MED from UVB/UVA + 16 J cm-2 UVA) were applied to simulate different sunlight exposure conditions. Photosensitizing potential was assessed by determining the minimum erythemal dose (MED) and calculating the photosensitivity index (PI) at 1 and 24 h. Local skin reactions were recorded as a secondary endpoint. Following full UVB/UVA irradiation, there were no significant differences in MED or PI between groups. With UVA-only, no changes in MED or PI were observed for the pradigastat or placebo groups. For ciprofloxacin, there was a significant reduction in MED at 24 h (-32%, vs. 24 h baseline), which correlated to a PI of 1.61. The difference in mean PI between ciprofloxacin-pradigastat, and ciprofloxacin-placebo, was significant at 24 h (p < 0.001). Local skin erythema scores were comparable between pradigastat and placebo, but higher with ciprofloxacin. Pradigastat was not shown to induce photosensitivity reactions, while significant responses were seen with the positive control. These results strongly suggest that pradigastat will not induce photosensitivity reactions in individuals administered doses up to 40 mg per day, which is the highest intended clinical dose. Furthermore, the design of this clinical trial may serve as a prototype for future regulatory clinical photosensitivity studies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. D. Bauer, L. A. Averett, A. De Smedt, M. H. Kleinman, W. Muster, B. A. Pettersen, C. Robles, Standardized UV-vis spectra as the foundation for a threshold-based, integrated photosafety evaluation, Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol., 2014, 68, 70–75.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  2. OECD, 2004. OECD Guideline for Testing of Chemicals no. 438. In vitro 3T3 NRU phototoxicity test. <http://www.oecd.org.

  3. J. Schumann, S. Boudon, P. Ulrich, N. Loll, D. Garcia, R. Schaffner, J. Streich, B. Kittel, D. Bauer, Integrated preclinical photosafety testing strategy for systemically applied pharmaceuticals, Toxicol. Sci., 2014, 139, 245–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. ICH Harmonized Tripartite Guideline S10, 2013, Photosafety Evaluation of Pharmaceuticals

  5. T. B. Fitzpatrick, The validity and practicality of sun-reactive skin types I through VI, Arch. Dermatol., 1988, 124, 869–871.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. L. E. Boccumini, C. L. Fowler, T. A. Campbell, L. F. Puertolas, K. H. Kaidbey, Photoreaction potential of orally administered levofloxacin in healthy subjects, Ann. Pharmacother., 2000, 34, 453–458.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. K. H. Kaidbey, A. M. Kligman, The acute effects of long-wave ultraviolet radiation on human skin, J. Invest. Dermatol., 1979, 72, 253–256.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. A. M. Kligman, K. H. Kaidbey, Human models for identification of photosensitizing chemicals, J. Natl. Cancer Inst., 1982, 69, 269–272.

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. R. S. Dawe, S. H. Ibbotson, J. B. Sanderson, E. M. Thomson, J. Ferguson, A randomized controlled trial (volunteer study) of sitafloxacin, enoxacin, levofloxacin and sparfloxacin phototoxicity, Br. J. Dermatol., 2003, 149, 1232–1241.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. I. Man, J. Murphy, J. Ferguson, Fluoroquinolone phototoxicity: a comparison of moxifloxacin and lomefloxacin in normal volunteers, J. Antimicrob. Chemother., 1999, 43, Suppl B, 77–82

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. J. H. Yan, D. Meyers, Z. Lee, K. Danis, S. Neelakantham, T. Majumdar, S. Rebello, G. Sunkara, J. Chen, Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic drug-drug interaction assessment between pradigastat and digoxin or warfarin, J. Clin. Pharmacol., 2014, 54, 7, 800–808.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. C. J. Bowen, K. M. Lobb, J. W. Park, B. Sanderson, J. Ferguson, Eltrombopag (75 mg) does not induce photosensitivity: results of a clinical pharmacology trial, Photodermatol., Photoimmunol. Photomed., 2010, 26, 243–249.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. H. Moseley, J. Ferguson, Which light source should be used for the investigation of clinical phototoxicity: monochromator or solar simulator?, Photodermatol., Photoimmunol. Photomed., 2010, 26, 3–6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. R. M. Sayre, J. C. Dowdy, The FDA proposed solar simulator versus sunlight, Photochem. Photobiol. Sci., 2010, 9, 535–539.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Dan Meyers.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bauer, D., Soon, R.L., Kulmatycki, K. et al. The DGAT1 inhibitor pradigastat does not induce photosensitivity in healthy human subjects: a randomized controlled trial using three defined sunlight exposure conditions. Photochem Photobiol Sci 15, 1155–1162 (2016). https://doi.org/10.1039/c6pp00042h

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1039/c6pp00042h

Navigation