Why the study?
Does intravenous cinaciguat demonstrate acceptable safety, tolerability, and favorable pharmacodynamics/pharmacokinetics in healthy male volunteers?
Does intravenous cinaciguat demonstrate acceptable safety, tolerability, and favorable pharmacodynamics/pharmacokinetics in healthy male volunteers?
Intravenous cinaciguat is safe and well-tolerated in healthy volunteers, demonstrating dose-proportional pharmacokinetics and potent preload/afterload reduction that supports further investigation in heart failure.
Supports evaluation in heart failure; extends early RCT safety data to potential therapeutic use.
Preclinical data indicate that the nitric oxide-independent soluble guanylate cyclase activator cinaciguat (BAY 58-2667), which is a new drug in development for patients with heart failure, induces vasodilation preferentially in diseased vessels. This study aimed to assess the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of cinaciguat. Seventy-six healthy volunteers were included in this randomized, placebo-controlled study. Cinaciguat (50-250 microg/h) was administered intravenously for up to 4 hours in a maximum of 6 individuals per dose group. No serious adverse events were reported. Four-hour infusions (50-250 microg/h) decreased diastolic blood pressure and increased heart rate (all P values < .05) versus placebo, without significantly reducing systolic blood pressure (P between 0.07 and 0.56). At higher doses (150-250 microg/h), 4-hour infusions decreased mean arterial pressure and increased plasma cyclic guanosine monophosphate levels (all P values < .05). Pharmacokinetics showed dose-proportionality with low interindividual variability. Plasma concentrations declined below 1.0 microg/L within 30 minutes of cessation of infusion. Cinaciguat had potent cardiovascular effects reducing preload and afterload, warranting further investigation in patients with heart failure.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Frey et al. (2008) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: