ClinicalTrials.gg
CompletedNCT03311841Updated Jan 9, 2020Results posted

Pharmacokinetics of Midazolam, Dabigatran, Pitavastatin, Atorvastatin, and Rosuvastatin in Participants With Renal Insufficiency in the Presence and Absence of Rifampin (MK-0000-386)

A Phase 1 interventional study of Midazolam oral solution and Dabigatran and pitavastatin oral solution in Renal Insufficiency, sponsored by Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC. Completed at 2 sites in United States. Open to participants aged 18 Years to 78 Years, including healthy volunteers. Per ClinicalTrials.gov, last updated 2020-01-09.

Sponsored by Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC (part of Merck & Co., Inc) · Phase 1, Interventional, and Treatment

Help build ClinicalTrials.gg — short surveys, remote interviews or testing, in your language. Take part →

Phase
Phase 1
Study type
Interventional
Enrollment
32
Allocation
Non-randomized
Ages
18 Years to 78 Years
Sex
All
01

Where this study stands

Counted across the records on this site · 2026-11-15

Among 32 studies in Renal Insufficiency by Merck & Co., Inc — 2 open to participants now, 2 under way, none of them phase 3. Renal Insufficiency · Merck & Co., Inc.

Enrollment
12th of 32
32 · median 26
Started
2018
the only one that year
Phase 1
25 of 32
2 open now
Registered
23rd of 32
by date

Among the 32 studies in Renal Insufficiency by Merck & Co., Inc, this one is the 12th largest by enrollment, is the only one that started in 2018, is one of 25 in phase 1, and was the 23rd registered.

Renal Insufficiency

1,412 studies on the registry are indexed under Renal Insufficiency; 145 are open to participants now.

Browse Renal Insufficiency studies →

Open to participants now

2 of the 32 studies in Renal Insufficiency by Merck & Co., Inc are open now, in 1 country. Recruiting first, the newest first:

By country, each count listing its studies:

All 2 open studies →

Where they have run

Who these studies take

Of the 91 Renal Insufficiency studies recruiting now, 48 (53%) set no upper age limit and 18 (20%) stop at 75 or younger; 8 take children under 18; 15 take healthy volunteers.

This study: 18 Years to 78 Years · all sexes · healthy volunteers too.

The full table on the hub →

This tab as a report to print or save as PDF → With an account.

Was this useful?
Get alerts for this landscapeDownload CSVNarrow it in search →With an account: a weekly mail of what changed among 32 studies in Renal Insufficiency by Merck & Co., Inc, or all of them as a file.
02

Study summary

The purpose of this open-label, 2-period, fixed-sequence study is to characterize the plasma pharmacokinetic profiles of midazolam, dabigatran, pitavastatin, atorvastatin, and rosuvastatin following a single oral dose administration of a microdose cocktail in healthy participants, in participants with mild, moderate, severe (not on dialysis) renal impairment, and in participants with end-stage renal disease (ESRD; on dialysis).

03

Conditions studied

  • Renal Insufficiency

Browse trials for

04

Who can participate

Ages eligible
18 Years to 78 Years
Sexes eligible
All
Accepts healthy volunteers
Yes

Go through the criteria one by one — yes, no or not sure — and take the list to your doctor or the study team. Kept in this browser only.

Inclusion criteria

All participants (with mild, moderate or severe renal impairment, end stage renal disease, or healthy):

  • a female must be non-pregnant, non-breast feeding and if she is of : must agree to use (and/or have their partner use) two acceptable methods of beginning at screening, throughout the study and until 2 weeks after the last dosing of study drug
  • a female of non-: must have undergone a sterilization procedure at least 6 months prior to the first dose or be with amenorrhea for at least 1 year prior to the first dose
  • a non-vasectomized male participant must agree to use a condom with spermicide or abstain from sexual intercourse from the first dose until 90 days after the last dose of study drug
  • a male participant must agree not to donate sperm from dosing until 90 days after the last dose of study drug
  • has a (BMI) ≤ 40.0 kg/m\^2
  • is a non-smoker or moderate smoker (≤ 20 cigarettes/day or the equivalent)

Participants with mild, moderate or severe renal impairment or end stage renal disease:

  • has a clinical diagnosis of renal impairment and meets the protocol-specified renal impairment function qualifications at the prestudy visit (screening)

Healthy participants:

  • has baseline ≥ 90 mL/min based on Cockcroft-Gault equation
  • is judged to be in good health based on medical history, physical examination, vital signs, pulse oximetry, and laboratory safety tests

Exclusion criteria

Exclusion Criteria:

All participants (with mild, moderate or severe renal impairment, end stage renal disease, or healthy):

  • is mentally or legally incapacitated or has significant emotional problems at the time of the screening visit or expected during the conduct of the study.
  • history or presence of medical or psychiatric condition or disease
  • history of stroke, chronic seizures, or major neurological disorders
  • history of malignant neoplastic disease
  • history or presence of alcoholism or drug abuse within the past 6 months
  • female participant who is pregnant or lactating

Participants with mild, moderate or severe renal impairment:

  • has had a renal transplant or has had nephrectomy
  • has uncontrolled type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM), a history of Type 1 diabetes, or ketoacidosis
  • history of significant endocrine, gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, hematological, immunological, respiratory, or genitourinary diseases

Participants with end stage renal disease (ESRD):

  • had a failed renal allograft within the last 2 years prior to the first dose, or a successful renal allograft
  • has uncontrolled T2DM, a history of Type 1 diabetes, or ketoacidosis
  • history of significant endocrine, gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, hematological, immunological, respiratory, or genitourinary diseases

Healthy participants:

  • history of hypoglycemia, glucose intolerance, T2DM, or ketoacidosis
  • history of clinically significant endocrine, gastrointestinal, cardiovascular, hematological, hepatic, immunological, renal, respiratory, or genitourinary abnormalities or diseases.
Terms in these criteria, in plain language(7)

Underlined terms in the criteria open these too. Explained by clinicaltrials.gg, not part of the registry record. The study team decides who can take part.

Reproductive potential

Able to have children. For women this usually means from the first period until menopause, unless permanently unable to through surgery; for men, unless permanently sterile. Read who the line is about — participants, women, men, or their partners.

Criteria about it usually ask for contraception during the study and for a time after it.

Contraception

Ways of preventing pregnancy. “Highly effective” methods fail less than 1% of the time a year when used correctly — for example an IUD or an implant.

Criteria usually say which methods count and how long to keep using them after the last dose, sometimes for male participants too. Some studies accept a partner’s vasectomy if it was confirmed successful and that person is the participant’s only sexual partner.

Childbearing potential

Able to become pregnant: from the first period until menopause, unless permanently unable to through surgery (removal of the womb, or of both ovaries or both fallopian tubes).

Criteria for people of childbearing potential usually ask for a negative pregnancy test and for contraception during the study and for a time after it.

Postmenopausal

Periods have stopped for good: usually no period for 12 months in a row without another medical reason, sometimes confirmed by a blood test (FSH).

BMI (body mass index)

Weight in kilograms divided by height in metres squared. Example: 70 kg and 1.75 m gives 70 ÷ (1.75 × 1.75) ≈ 22.9.

What counts as overweight or obesity differs between countries (some use lower cut-offs), so go by the range the study states.

Creatinine clearance (CrCl)

How quickly the kidneys clear creatinine, a waste product, from the blood. A study may estimate it from a blood test with age, weight and sex (often by the Cockcroft–Gault formula), or measure it using blood and urine collected over a set time. Given in mL/min; higher is better.

Clinically significant

Judged by the study doctor to matter for your health or for the study. It is a doctor’s decision, so ask the study team if you are unsure whether something counts.

05

Study design

Phase
Phase 1
Primary purpose
Treatment
Allocation
Non-randomized
Intervention model
Parallel assignment
Masking
None (open label)
Enrollment
32 participants (actual)

Study arms

  • Experimental
    End Stage Renal Disease

    Participants requiring hemodialysis. Period 1/Day 1: participants receive a single oral dose of the microdose cocktail (midazolam oral solution, dabigatran etexilate and pitavastatin oral solution, atorvastatin and rosuvastatin oral solution). Period 2/Day 1: participants receive a single oral dose of the microdose cocktail (midazolam oral solution, dabigatran etexilate and pitavastatin oral solution, atorvastatin and rosuvastatin oral solution). A washout period of at least 14 days will separate dosings.

    Drug: Midazolam oral solution · Drug: Dabigatran and pitavastatin oral solution · Drug: Atorvastatin and rosuvastatin oral solution

  • Experimental
    Severe Impairment

    Participants with \<30 mL/min/1.73m\^2 estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) not on hemodialysis. Period 1/Day 1: participants receive a single oral dose of the microdose cocktail (midazolam oral solution, dabigatran etexilate and pitavastatin oral solution, atorvastatin and rosuvastatin oral solution). Period 2/Day 1: participants receive a single oral dose of the microdose cocktail (midazolam oral solution, dabigatran etexilate and pitavastatin oral solution, atorvastatin and rosuvastatin oral solution) and rifampin. A washout period of at least 14 days will separate dosings.

    Drug: Midazolam oral solution · Drug: Dabigatran and pitavastatin oral solution · Drug: Atorvastatin and rosuvastatin oral solution · Drug: Rifampin

  • Experimental
    Moderate Impairment

    Participants with 30 to \<60 mL/min/1.73m\^2 eGFR not on hemodialysis. Period 1/Day 1: participants receive a single oral dose of the microdose cocktail (midazolam oral solution, dabigatran etexilate and pitavastatin oral solution, atorvastatin and rosuvastatin oral solution). Period 2/Day 1: participants receive a single oral dose of the microdose cocktail (midazolam oral solution, dabigatran etexilate and pitavastatin oral solution, atorvastatin and rosuvastatin oral solution) and rifampin. A washout period of at least 14 days will separate dosings.

    Drug: Midazolam oral solution · Drug: Dabigatran and pitavastatin oral solution · Drug: Atorvastatin and rosuvastatin oral solution · Drug: Rifampin

  • Experimental
    Mild Impairment

    Participants with 60 to \<90 mL/min/1.73m\^2 eGFR not on hemodialysis. Period 1/Day 1: participants receive a single oral dose of the microdose cocktail (midazolam oral solution, dabigatran etexilate and pitavastatin oral solution, atorvastatin and rosuvastatin oral solution). Period 2/Day 1: participants receive a single oral dose of the microdose cocktail (midazolam oral solution, dabigatran etexilate and pitavastatin oral solution, atorvastatin and rosuvastatin oral solution) and rifampin. A washout period of at least 14 days will separate dosings.

    Drug: Midazolam oral solution · Drug: Dabigatran and pitavastatin oral solution · Drug: Atorvastatin and rosuvastatin oral solution · Drug: Rifampin

  • Active comparator
    Healthy Control

    Participants with ≥90 mL/min creatinine clearance. Period 1/Day 1: participants receive a single oral dose of the microdose cocktail (midazolam oral solution, dabigatran etexilate and pitavastatin oral solution, atorvastatin and rosuvastatin oral solution). Period 2/Day 1: participants receive a single oral dose of the microdose cocktail (midazolam oral solution, dabigatran etexilate and pitavastatin oral solution, atorvastatin and rosuvastatin oral solution) and rifampin. A washout period of at least 14 days will separate dosings.

    Drug: Midazolam oral solution · Drug: Dabigatran and pitavastatin oral solution · Drug: Atorvastatin and rosuvastatin oral solution · Drug: Rifampin

Interventions

  • Midazolam hydrochloride 10 μg (1 mL of 10 μg/mL oral solution), administered orally as part of a microdose cocktail

  • DrugDabigatran and pitavastatin oral solution

    Drug pages: Dabigatran · Pitavastatin

    375/10 μg dabigatran etexilate and pitavastatin (1 mL of 375/10 μg/mL oral solution), administered orally as part of a microdose cocktail

  • DrugAtorvastatin and rosuvastatin oral solution

    Drug pages: Atorvastatin · Rosuvastatin

    100/50 μg atorvastatin and rosuvastatin (2 mL of 50/25 μg/mL oral solution), administered orally as part of a microdose cocktail

  • Rifampin 600 mg single dose (two 300 mg capsules) administered orally

06

What researchers measure

Primary outcomes

  1. Area Under the Plasma Concentration-time Curve From Time 0 to Infinity (AUC0-inf) Post-dose Period 1

    AUC0-inf is the area under the plasma concentration versus time curve from time zero (pre-dose) to extrapolated infinite time. Plasma pharmacokinetic data presented in the table below are following the administration of a single oral dose of a microdose cocktail in healthy participants, participants with renal impairment, and 24 hours prior to hemodialysis in participants with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) requiring hemodialysis.

    Time frame: 0 hour (pre-dose) and 0.25, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 48, and 72 hours post-dose

  2. Effect of Rifampin on AUC0-inf Post-dose Period 2

    To evaluate the effect of a single oral dose of rifampin on the AUC0-inf of midazolam, dabigatran, pitavastatin, pitavastatin lactone, atorvastatin, ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin, and rosuvatatin. AUC0-inf is the area under the plasma concentration versus time curve from time zero (pre-dose) to extrapolated infinite time. Plasma pharmacokinetic data presented in the table below are following the administration of a single oral dose of a microdose cocktail and rifampin in healthy participants and participants with renal impairment. As pre-specified in the protocol, this outcome measure does not include data from the end-stage renal disease participants as they did not receive rifampin during Period 2.

    Time frame: Microdose cocktail: 0 hour (pre-dose) and 0.25, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 48, and 72 hours post-dose; rifampin: 0 hour (pre-dose) and 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, and 24 hours post-dose

  3. Area Under the Plasma Concentration-time Curve From Time 0 to 24 Hours (AUC0-24) Post-dose Period 1

    AUC0-24 is the area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to 24 hours post-dose. This is a measure of the average amount of study drug in the blood plasma over a period of 24 hours after the dose. Plasma pharmacokinetic data presented in the table below are following the administration of a single oral dose of a microdose cocktail in healthy participants, participants with renal impairment, and 24 hours prior to hemodialysis in participants with end-stage renal disease requiring hemodialysis.

    Time frame: 0 hour (pre-dose) and 0.25, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, and 24 hours post-dose

  4. Area Under the Plasma Concentration-time Curve From Time 0 to Last (AUC0-last) Post-dose Period 1

    AUC0-last is the area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to time of last measurable concentration. This is a measure of the amount of study drug in the blood plasma from pre-dose until the last measurable concentration of study drug could be determined. Plasma pharmacokinetic data presented in the table below are following the administration of a single oral dose of a microdose cocktail in healthy participants, participants with renal impairment, and 24 hours prior to hemodialysis in participants with end-stage renal disease requiring hemodialysis.

    Time frame: 0 hour (pre-dose) and 0.25, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 48, and 72 hours post-dose

  5. Maximum Plasma Concentration (Cmax) Post-dose Period 1

    Cmax is the peak plasma concentration of study drug after administration. Plasma pharmacokinetic data presented in the table below are following the administration of a single oral dose of a microdose cocktail in healthy participants, participants with renal impairment, and 24 hours prior to hemodialysis in participants with end-stage renal disease requiring hemodialysis.

    Time frame: 0.25, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 48, and 72 hours post-dose

  6. Plasma Concentration at 24 Hours (C24) Post-dose Period 1

    C24hr is a measure of the plasma study drug concentration 24 hours post-dose. Plasma pharmacokinetic data presented in the table below are following the administration of a single oral dose of a microdose cocktail in healthy participants, participants with renal impairment, and 24 hours prior to hemodialysis in participants with end-stage renal disease requiring hemodialysis.

    Time frame: 24 hours post-dose

  7. Time to Maximum Plasma Concentration (Tmax) Post-dose Period 1

    Tmax is the amount of time to reach maximum (peak) plasma drug concentration following drug administration. Plasma pharmacokinetic data presented in the table below are following the administration of a single oral dose of a microdose cocktail in healthy participants, participants with renal impairment, and 24 hours prior to hemodialysis in participants with end-stage renal disease requiring hemodialysis.

    Time frame: 0.25, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 48, and 72 hours post-dose

  8. Apparent Plasma Terminal Half-life (t1/2) Post-dose Period 1

    T1/2 is the elimination half-life of study drug. T1/2 is the time it takes for half of the study drug in the blood plasma to dissipate. Plasma pharmacokinetic data presented in the table below are following the administration of a single oral dose of a microdose cocktail in healthy participants, participants with renal impairment, and 24 hours prior to hemodialysis in participants with end-stage renal disease requiring hemodialysis.

    Time frame: 0.25, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 48, and 72 hours post-dose

  9. Apparent Clearance After Extravascular Administration (CL/F) Post-dose Period 1

    CL/F is the rate at which study drug was removed from the body. Plasma pharmacokinetic data presented in the table below are following the administration of a single oral dose of a microdose cocktail in healthy participants, participants with renal impairment, and 24 hours prior to hemodialysis in participants with end-stage renal disease requiring hemodialysis. CL/F was to be calculated for the parent plasma analytes only, midazolam, dabigatran, pitavastatin, atorvastatin, and rosuvastatin.

    Time frame: 0.25, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 48, and 72 hours post-dose

  10. Apparent Volume of Distribution During the Terminal Phase (Vz/F) Post-dose Period 1

    Vz/F is the distribution of study drug between the plasma and the rest of the body after the dose. Plasma pharmacokinetic data presented in the table below are following the administration of a single oral dose of a microdose cocktail in healthy participants, participants with renal impairment, and 24 hours prior to hemodialysis in participants with end-stage renal disease requiring hemodialysis. Vz/F was to be calculated for the parent plasma analytes only, midazolam, dabigatran, pitavastatin, atorvastatin, and rosuvastatin.

    Time frame: 0.25, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 48, and 72 hours post-dose

Secondary outcomes

  1. Effect of Rifampin on AUC0-24 Post-dose Period 2

    To evaluate the effect of a single oral dose of rifampin on the AUC0-24 of midazolam, dabigatran, pitavastatin, pitavastatin lactone, atorvastatin, ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin, and rosuvatatin. AUC0-24 is the area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to 24 hours post-dose. This is a measure of the average amount of study drug in the blood plasma over a period of 24 hours after the dose. Plasma pharmacokinetic data presented in the table below are following the administration of a single oral dose of a microdose cocktail and rifampin in healthy participants and participants with renal impairment. As pre-specified in the protocol, this outcome measure does not include end-stage renal disease participants as they did not receive rifampin during Period 2.

    Time frame: Microdose cocktail: 0 hour (pre-dose) and 0.25, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, and 24 hours post-dose; rifampin: 0 hour (pre-dose) and 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, and 24 hours post-dose

  2. Effect of Rifampin on AUC0-last Post-dose Period 2

    To evaluate the effect of a single oral dose of rifampin on the AUC0-last of midazolam, dabigatran, pitavastatin, pitavastatin lactone, atorvastatin, ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin, and rosuvatatin. AUC0-last is the area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to time of last measurable concentration. It is a measure of the amount of study drug in the blood plasma from pre-dose until the last measurable concentration of study drug could be determined. Plasma pharmacokinetic data presented in the table below are following the administration of a single oral dose of a microdose cocktail and rifampin in healthy participants and participants with renal impairment. As pre-specified in the protocol, this outcome measure does not include end-stage renal disease participants as they did not receive rifampin during Period 2.

    Time frame: Microdose cocktail: 0 hour (pre-dose) and 0.25, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 48, and 72 hours post-dose; rifampin: 0 hour (pre-dose) and 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, and 24 hours post-dose

  3. Effect of Rifampin on Cmax Post-dose Period 2

    To evaluate the effect of a single oral dose of rifampin on the Cmax of midazolam, dabigatran, pitavastatin, pitavastatin lactone, atorvastatin, ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin, and rosuvatatin. Cmax is the peak plasma concentration of study drug after administration. Plasma pharmacokinetic data presented in the table below are following the administration of a single oral dose of a microdose cocktail and rifampin in healthy participants and participants with renal impairment. As pre-specified in the protocol, this outcome measure does not include end-stage renal disease participants as they did not receive rifampin during Period 2.

    Time frame: Microdose cocktail: 0.25, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 48, and 72 hours post-dose; rifampin: 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, and 24 hours post-dose

  4. Effect of Rifampin on C24 Post-dose Period 2

    To evaluate the effect of a single oral dose of rifampin on the C24 of midazolam, dabigatran, pitavastatin, pitavastatin lactone, atorvastatin, ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin, and rosuvatatin. C24 is a measure of the plasma study drug concentration 24 hours post-dose. C24 is reported as median (minimum and maximum) in severe renal impairment arm due to zero values. Plasma pharmacokinetic data presented in the table below are following the administration of a single oral dose of a microdose cocktail and rifampin in healthy participants and participants with renal impairment. As pre-specified in the protocol, this outcome measure does not include end-stage renal disease participants as they did not receive rifampin during Period 2.

    Time frame: 24 hours post-dose

  5. Effect of Rifampin on Tmax Post-dose Period 2

    To evaluate the effect of a single oral dose of rifampin on the Tmax of midazolam, dabigatran, pitavastatin, pitavastatin lactone, atorvastatin, ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin, and rosuvatatin. Tmax is the amount of time to reach maximum (peak) plasma drug concentration following drug administration. Plasma pharmacokinetic data presented in the table below are following the administration of a single oral dose of a microdose cocktail and rifampin in healthy participants and participants with renal impairment. As pre-specified in the protocol, this outcome measure does not include end-stage renal disease participants as they did not receive rifampin during Period 2.

    Time frame: Microdose cocktail: 0.25, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 48, and 72 hours post-dose; rifampin: 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, and 24 hours post-dose

  6. Effect of Rifampin on t1/2 Post-dose Period 2

    To evaluate the effect of a single oral dose of rifampin on the t1/2 of midazolam, dabigatran, pitavastatin, pitavastatin lactone, atorvastatin, ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin, and rosuvatatin. T1/2 is the elimination half-life of study drug. T1/2 is the time it takes for half of the study drug in the blood plasma to dissipate. Plasma pharmacokinetic data presented in the table below are following the administration of a single oral dose of a microdose cocktail and rifampin in healthy participants and participants with renal impairment. As pre-specified in the protocol, this outcome measure does not include end-stage renal disease participants as they did not receive rifampin during Period 2.

    Time frame: Microdose cocktail: 0.25, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 48, and 72 hours post-dose; rifampin: 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, and 24 hours post-dose

  7. Effect of Rifampin on CL/F Post-dose Period 2

    To evaluate the effect of a single oral dose of rifampin on the CL/F of midazolam, dabigatran, pitavastatin, atorvastatin, and rosuvatatin. CL/F is the rate at which study drug was removed from the body. Plasma pharmacokinetic data presented in the table below are following the administration of a single oral dose of a microdose cocktail and rifampin in healthy participants and participants with renal impairment. As pre-specified in the protocol, this outcome measure does not include end-stage renal disease participants as they did not receive rifampin during Period 2.

    Time frame: Microdose cocktail: 0.25, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 48, and 72 hours post-dose; rifampin: 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, and 24 hours post-dose

  8. Effect of Rifampin on Vz/F Post-dose Period 2

    To evaluate the effect of a single oral dose of rifampin on the Vz/F of midazolam, dabigatran, pitavastatin, pitavastatin lactone, atorvastatin, ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin, and rosuvatatin. Vz/F is the distribution of study drug between the plasma and the rest of the body after the dose. Plasma pharmacokinetic data presented in the table below are following the administration of a single oral dose of a microdose cocktail and rifampin in healthy participants and participants with renal impairment. As pre-specified in the protocol, this outcome measure does not include end-stage renal disease participants as they did not receive rifampin during Period 2.

    Time frame: Microdose cocktail: 0.25, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 48, and 72 hours post-dose; rifampin: 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, and 24 hours post-dose

07

Results

Posted Jan 9, 2020

Participant flow

Period 1
Participant flow — Period 1
MilestoneEnd-Stage Renal DiseaseSevere ImpairmentModerate ImpairmentMild ImpairmentHealthy Control
Started67676
Completed67676
Not completed00000
14-day Wash-out
Participant flow — 14-day Wash-out
MilestoneEnd-Stage Renal DiseaseSevere ImpairmentModerate ImpairmentMild ImpairmentHealthy Control
Started67676
Completed66666
Not completed01010
Withdrew: Adverse event01000
Withdrew: Non-compliance with study drug00010
Period 2
Participant flow — Period 2
MilestoneEnd-Stage Renal DiseaseSevere ImpairmentModerate ImpairmentMild ImpairmentHealthy Control
Started66666
Completed66666
Not completed00000

Outcome measures

PrimaryArea Under the Plasma Concentration-time Curve From Time 0 to Infinity (AUC0-inf) Post-dose Period 1

AUC0-inf is the area under the plasma concentration versus time curve from time zero (pre-dose) to extrapolated infinite time. Plasma pharmacokinetic data presented in the table below are following the administration of a single oral dose of a microdose cocktail in healthy participants, participants with renal impairment, and 24 hours prior to hemodialysis in participants with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) requiring hemodialysis.

Time frame:
0 hour (pre-dose) and 0.25, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 48, and 72 hours post-dose
Reported as:
Geometric least squares mean · pg*hr/mL
Area Under the Plasma Concentration-time Curve From Time 0 to Infinity (AUC0-inf) Post-dose Period 1
pg*hr/mLEnd-Stage Renal DiseaseSevere ImpairmentModerate ImpairmentMild ImpairmentHealthy Control
Midazolam110 (74.6 to 162)260 (181 to 372)364 (247 to 537)176 (119 to 259)273 (185 to 403)
Dabigatran5370 (3410 to 8460)7900 (5010 to 12400)4550 (2890 to 7180)1610 (1020 to 2530)1580 (1010 to 2500)
Pitavastatin676 (456 to 1000)648 (450 to 933)1020 (686 to 1510)688 (464 to 1020)520 (350 to 771)
Pitavastatin lactone (metabolite)1100 (774 to 1560)1680 (1220 to 2320)2240 (1580 to 3170)1610 (1140 to 2290)1540 (1090 to 2190)
Atorvastatin329 (203 to 531)476 (305 to 743)511 (316 to 826)329 (183 to 593)292 (180 to 472)
Ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin (metabolite)163 (112 to 237)226 (160 to 319)273 (181 to 411)286 (181 to 453)208 (143 to 302)
Rosuvastatin208 (116 to 374)365 (213 to 624)575 (319 to 1030)262 (136 to 505)292 (137 to 624)
Statistical analysis
  • Mild Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 0.64 · 95% CI 0.37 to 1.11Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Moderate Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.33 · 95% CI 0.77 to 2.31
  • Severe Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 0.95 · 95% CI 0.56 to 1.62
  • End-Stage Renal Disease vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 0.40 · 95% CI 0.23 to 0.70Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Mild Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.01 · 95% CI 0.53 to 1.93Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Moderate Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 2.87 · 95% CI 1.51 to 5.47Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Severe Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 4.98 · 95% CI 2.62 to 9.48Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • End-Stage Renal Disease vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 3.39 · 95% CI 1.78 to 6.44Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Mild Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.32 · 95% CI 0.76 to 2.31Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Moderate Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.96 · 95% CI 1.12 to 3.42Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Severe Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.25 · 95% CI 0.73 to 2.13Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • End-Stage Renal Disease vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.30 · 95% CI 0.74 to 2.27Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Mild Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.05 · 95% CI 0.64 to 1.72Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Moderate Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.45 · 95% CI 0.88 to 2.38Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Severe Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.09 · 95% CI 0.68 to 1.76Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • End-Stage Renal Disease vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 0.71 · 95% CI 0.43 to 1.17Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Mild Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.13 · 95% CI 0.53 to 2.41Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Moderate Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.75 · 95% CI 0.89 to 3.46Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Severe Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.63 · 95% CI 0.85 to 3.14Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • End-Stage Renal Disease vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.13 · 95% CI 0.57 to 2.22Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Mild Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.38 · 95% CI 0.76 to 2.49Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Moderate Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.31 · 95% CI 0.75 to 2.29Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Severe Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.09 · 95% CI 0.65 to 1.81Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • End-Stage Renal Disease vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 0.79 · 95% CI 0.46 to 1.33Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Mild Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 0.90 · 95% CI 0.33 to 2.45Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Moderate Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.97 · 95% CI 0.75 to 5.14Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Severe Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.25 · 95% CI 0.49 to 3.16Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • End-Stage Renal Disease vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 0.71 · 95% CI 0.27 to 1.86Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
PrimaryEffect of Rifampin on AUC0-inf Post-dose Period 2

To evaluate the effect of a single oral dose of rifampin on the AUC0-inf of midazolam, dabigatran, pitavastatin, pitavastatin lactone, atorvastatin, ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin, and rosuvatatin. AUC0-inf is the area under the plasma concentration versus time curve from time zero (pre-dose) to extrapolated infinite time. Plasma pharmacokinetic data presented in the table below are following the administration of a single oral dose of a microdose cocktail and rifampin in healthy participants and participants with renal impairment. As pre-specified in the protocol, this outcome measure does not include data from the end-stage renal disease participants as they did not receive rifampin during Period 2.

Time frame:
Microdose cocktail: 0 hour (pre-dose) and 0.25, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 48, and 72 hours post-dose; rifampin: 0 hour (pre-dose) and 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, and 24 hours post-dose
Reported as:
Geometric least squares mean · pg*hr/mL
Effect of Rifampin on AUC0-inf Post-dose Period 2
pg*hr/mLEnd Stage Renal Disease (Period 2)Severe Impairment (Period 2)Moderate Impairment (Period 2)Mild Impairment (Period 2)Healthy Control (Period 2)
Midazolam—244 (175 to 340)359 (252 to 512)189 (132 to 269)239 (168 to 341)
Dabigatran—10700 (7390 to 15600)7240 (4990 to 10500)3040 (2090 to 4400)3290 (2270 to 4770)
Pitavastatin—2850 (1840 to 4440)3500 (2200 to 5570)2530 (1590 to 4030)1910 (1200 to 3030)
Pitavastatin lactone (metabolite)—1560 (1160 to 2100)2500 (1830 to 3430)1930 (1410 to 2640)1340 (981 to 1840)
Atorvastatin—2240 (1520 to 3320)2430 (1620 to 3650)1710 (1040 to 2810)1770 (1180 to 2660)
Ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin (metabolite)—1620 (1080 to 2430)1870 (1230 to 2840)1760 (1060 to 2940)1650 (1080 to 2500)
Rosuvastatin—1240 (839 to 1830)1800 (1150 to 2820)1060 (695 to 1620)830 (553 to 1250)
PrimaryArea Under the Plasma Concentration-time Curve From Time 0 to 24 Hours (AUC0-24) Post-dose Period 1

AUC0-24 is the area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to 24 hours post-dose. This is a measure of the average amount of study drug in the blood plasma over a period of 24 hours after the dose. Plasma pharmacokinetic data presented in the table below are following the administration of a single oral dose of a microdose cocktail in healthy participants, participants with renal impairment, and 24 hours prior to hemodialysis in participants with end-stage renal disease requiring hemodialysis.

Time frame:
0 hour (pre-dose) and 0.25, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, and 24 hours post-dose
Reported as:
Geometric mean · pg*hr/mL
Area Under the Plasma Concentration-time Curve From Time 0 to 24 Hours (AUC0-24) Post-dose Period 1
pg*hr/mLEnd-Stage Renal DiseaseSevere ImpairmentModerate ImpairmentMild ImpairmentHealthy Control
Midazolam106 (74.2 to 152)235 (169 to 328)317 (222 to 454)168 (117 to 240)252 (176 to 360)
Dabigatran2100 (1380 to 3200)4470 (3030 to 6590)3440 (2260 to 5240)1380 (907 to 2100)1440 (949 to 2200)
Pitavastatin593 (411 to 857)525 (374 to 738)764 (529 to 1100)543 (376 to 783)415 (288 to 600)
Pitavastatin lactone (metabolite)858 (639 to 1150)1100 (835 to 1440)1280 (950 to 1710)1040 (772 to 1390)1010 (750 to 1350)
Atorvastatin287 (184 to 446)300 (199 to 452)329 (211 to 512)219 (128 to 377)198 (127 to 308)
Ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin (metabolite)115 (78.3 to 168)112 (78.5 to 159)143 (98.0 to 210)139 (86.9 to 221)108 (73.8 to 158)
Rosuvastatin162 (97.2 to 271)223 (139 to 358)343 (206 to 573)191 (109 to 334)153 (91.6 to 255)
Statistical analysis
  • Mild Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 0.67 · 95% CI 0.40 to 1.11Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Moderate Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.26 · 95% CI 0.76 to 2.09Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Severe Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 0.93 · 95% CI 0.57 to 1.52Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • End-Stage Renal Disease vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 0.42 · 95% CI 0.25 to 0.70Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Mild Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 0.96 · 95% CI 0.53 to 1.73Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Moderate Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 2.38 · 95% CI 1.32 to 4.32Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Severe Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 3.09 · 95% CI 1.75 to 5.48Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • End-Stage Renal Disease vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.46 · 95% CI 0.80 to 2.64Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Mild Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.31 · 95% CI 0.78 to 2.20Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Moderate Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.84 · 95% CI 1.09 to 3.09Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Severe Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.26 · 95% CI 0.77 to 2.09Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • End-Stage Renal Disease vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.43 · 95% CI 0.85 to 2.40Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Mild Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.03 · 95% CI 0.68 to 1.56Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Moderate Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.27 · 95% CI 0.83 to 1.92Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Severe Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.09 · 95% CI 0.73 to 1.63Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • End-Stage Renal Disease vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 0.85 · 95% CI 0.56 to 1.29Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Mild Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.11 · 95% CI 0.55 to 2.23Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Moderate Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.66 · 95% CI 0.89 to 3.11Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Severe Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.52 · 95% CI 0.83 to 2.77Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • End-Stage Renal Disease vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.45 · 95% CI 0.78 to 2.71Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Mild Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.28 · 95% CI 0.70 to 2.34Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Moderate Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.33 · 95% CI 0.78 to 2.28Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Severe Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.03 · 95% CI 0.62 to 1.74Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • End-Stage Renal Disease vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.06 · 95% CI 0.62 to 1.82Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Mild Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.25 · 95% CI 0.58 to 2.67Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Moderate Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 2.25 · 95% CI 1.09 to 4.63Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Severe Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.46 · 95% CI 0.72 to 2.93Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • End-Stage Renal Disease vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.06 · 95% CI 0.51 to 2.19Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
PrimaryArea Under the Plasma Concentration-time Curve From Time 0 to Last (AUC0-last) Post-dose Period 1

AUC0-last is the area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to time of last measurable concentration. This is a measure of the amount of study drug in the blood plasma from pre-dose until the last measurable concentration of study drug could be determined. Plasma pharmacokinetic data presented in the table below are following the administration of a single oral dose of a microdose cocktail in healthy participants, participants with renal impairment, and 24 hours prior to hemodialysis in participants with end-stage renal disease requiring hemodialysis.

Time frame:
0 hour (pre-dose) and 0.25, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 48, and 72 hours post-dose
Reported as:
Geometric mean · pg*hr/mL
Area Under the Plasma Concentration-time Curve From Time 0 to Last (AUC0-last) Post-dose Period 1
pg*hr/mLEnd-Stage Renal DiseaseSevere ImpairmentModerate ImpairmentMild ImpairmentHealthy Control
Midazolam105 (70.8 to 156)248 (172 to 358)344 (232 to 511)167 (113 to 248)264 (178 to 392)
Dabigatran3740 (2370 to 5910)7450 (4870 to 11400)4230 (2680 to 6690)1440 (910 to 2270)1410 (891 to 2230)
Pitavastatin649 (435 to 968)602 (416 to 871)950 (637 to 1420)643 (431 to 959)483 (324 to 721)
Pitavastatin lactone (metabolite)1060 (754 to 1480)1570 (1150 to 2140)2020 (1440 to 2830)1490 (1060 to 2080)1450 (1030 to 2030)
Atorvastatin298 (182 to 488)419 (266 to 662)459 (280 to 751)295 (161 to 539)255 (155 to 417)
Ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin (metabolite)126 (80.3 to 198)176 (116 to 267)256 (163 to 402)221 (127 to 385)152 (96.8 to 239)
Rosuvastatin171 (98.0 to 298)269 (161 to 451)479 (274 to 835)231 (125 to 424)181 (104 to 315)
Statistical analysis
  • Mild Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 0.63 · 95% CI 0.36 to 1.11Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Moderate Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.30 · 95% CI 0.75 to 2.28Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Severe Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 0.94 · 95% CI 0.55 to 1.61Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • End-Stage Renal Disease vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 0.40 · 95% CI 0.23 to 0.69Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Mild Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.02 · 95% CI 0.53 to 1.95Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Moderate Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 3.00 · 95% CI 1.57 to 5.74Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Severe Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 5.28 · 95% CI 2.83 to 9.87Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • End-Stage Renal Disease vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 2.65 · 95% CI 1.39 to 5.07Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Mild Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.33 · 95% CI 0.76 to 2.34Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Moderate Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.97 · 95% CI 1.12 to 3.46Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Severe Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.25 · 95% CI 0.72 to 2.15Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • End-Stage Renal Disease vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.34 · 95% CI 0.76 to 2.36Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Mild Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.03 · 95% CI 0.64 to 1.65Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Moderate Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.39 · 95% CI 0.87 to 2.24Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Severe Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.08 · 95% CI 0.68 to 1.71Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • End-Stage Renal Disease vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 0.73 · 95% CI 0.45 to 1.17Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Mild Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.16 · 95% CI 0.53 to 2.52Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Moderate Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.80 · 95% CI 0.90 to 3.62Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Severe Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.65 · 95% CI 0.84 to 3.23Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • End-Stage Renal Disease vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.17 · 95% CI 0.58 to 2.35Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Mild Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.46 · 95% CI 0.71 to 2.97Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Moderate Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.68 · 95% CI 0.89 to 3.19Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Severe Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.16 · 95% CI 0.63 to 2.14Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • End-Stage Renal Disease vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 0.83 · 95% CI 0.44 to 1.57Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Mild Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.27 · 95% CI 0.56 to 2.91Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Moderate Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 2.65 · 95% CI 1.21 to 5.81Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Severe Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.49 · 95% CI 0.70 to 3.18Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • End-Stage Renal Disease vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 0.95 · 95% CI 0.43 to 2.08Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
PrimaryMaximum Plasma Concentration (Cmax) Post-dose Period 1

Cmax is the peak plasma concentration of study drug after administration. Plasma pharmacokinetic data presented in the table below are following the administration of a single oral dose of a microdose cocktail in healthy participants, participants with renal impairment, and 24 hours prior to hemodialysis in participants with end-stage renal disease requiring hemodialysis.

Time frame:
0.25, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 48, and 72 hours post-dose
Reported as:
Geometric mean · pg/mL
Maximum Plasma Concentration (Cmax) Post-dose Period 1
pg/mLEnd-Stage Renal DiseaseSevere ImpairmentModerate ImpairmentMild ImpairmentHealthy Control
Midazolam39.9 (29.5 to 53.9)68.4 (51.8 to 90.4)77.2 (57.1 to 104)70.7 (52.3 to 95.5)73.2 (54.1 to 98.8)
Dabigatran132 (83.1 to 208)319 (209 to 489)312 (197 to 494)153 (96.9 to 243)183 (115 to 290)
Pitavastatin242 (173 to 339)218 (160 to 299)303 (216 to 425)244 (174 to 342)164 (117 to 230)
Pitavastatin lactone (metabolite)78.5 (59.8 to 103)95.4 (74.2 to 123)106 (80.6 to 139)105 (79.9 to 137)88.1 (67.1 to 116)
Atorvastatin63.7 (35.3 to 115)46.7 (27.1 to 80.5)55.0 (30.5 to 99.1)31.9 (15.5 to 65.7)21.6 (12.0 to 38.9)
Ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin (metabolite)8.58 (5.77 to 12.8)7.22 (5.00 to 10.4)9.50 (6.39 to 14.1)8.50 (5.23 to 13.8)7.67 (5.16 to 11.4)
Rosuvastatin22.5 (12.4 to 40.6)24.4 (14.1 to 42.1)40.4 (22.4 to 72.9)23.6 (12.4 to 45.1)21.5 (11.9 to 38.9)
Statistical analysis
  • Mild Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 0.97 · 95% CI 0.63 to 1.48Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Moderate Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.06 · 95% CI 0.69 to 1.62Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Severe Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 0.94 · 95% CI 0.62 to 1.41Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • End-Stage Renal Disease vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 0.55 · 95% CI 0.36 to 0.83Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Mild Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 0.84 · 95% CI 0.44 to 1.61Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Moderate Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.71 · 95% CI 0.89 to 3.27Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Severe Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.75 · 95% CI 0.93 to 3.27Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • End-Stage Renal Disease vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 0.72 · 95% CI 0.38 to 1.38Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Mild Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.49 · 95% CI 0.92 to 2.40Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Moderate Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.84 · 95% CI 1.14 to 2.98Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Severe Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.33 · 95% CI 0.84 to 2.11Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • End-Stage Renal Disease vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.47 · 95% CI 0.91 to 2.38Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Mild Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.19 · 95% CI 0.81 to 1.75Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Moderate Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.20 · 95% CI 0.82 to 1.76Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Severe Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.08 · 95% CI 0.75 to 1.57Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • End-Stage Renal Disease vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 0.89 · 95% CI 0.61 to 1.31Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Mild Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.48 · 95% CI 0.58 to 3.75Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Moderate Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 2.54 · 95% CI 1.11 to 5.85Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Severe Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 2.16 · 95% CI 0.97 to 4.81Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • End-Stage Renal Disease vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 2.94 · 95% CI 1.28 to 6.77Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Mild Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.11 · 95% CI 0.59 to 2.07Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Moderate Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.24 · 95% CI 0.71 to 2.17Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Severe Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 0.94 · 95% CI 0.55 to 1.62Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • End-Stage Renal Disease vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.12 · 95% CI 0.64 to 1.96Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Mild Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.10 · 95% CI 0.46 to 2.64Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Moderate Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.87 · 95% CI 0.81 to 4.32Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Severe Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.13 · 95% CI 0.51 to 2.53Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • End-Stage Renal Disease vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.04 · 95% CI 0.45 to 2.41Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
PrimaryPlasma Concentration at 24 Hours (C24) Post-dose Period 1

C24hr is a measure of the plasma study drug concentration 24 hours post-dose. Plasma pharmacokinetic data presented in the table below are following the administration of a single oral dose of a microdose cocktail in healthy participants, participants with renal impairment, and 24 hours prior to hemodialysis in participants with end-stage renal disease requiring hemodialysis.

Time frame:
24 hours post-dose
Reported as:
Geometric mean · pg/mL
Plasma Concentration at 24 Hours (C24) Post-dose Period 1
pg/mLEnd-Stage Renal DiseaseSevere ImpairmentModerate ImpairmentMild ImpairmentHealthy Control
Midazolam0.283 (0.00 to 0.928)1.83 (0.00 to 8.47)2.64 (1.54 to 4.54)0.734 (0.00 to 1.06)1.57 (0.914 to 2.70)
Dabigatran70.2 (45.3 to 109)107 (71.7 to 161)59.3 (38.3 to 91.8)18.7 (12.1 to 28.9)7.70 (0.00 to 26.6)
Pitavastatin6.07 (0.00 to 7.99)4.04 (2.83 to 5.76)8.13 (5.53 to 11.9)5.32 (3.62 to 7.82)4.10 (2.79 to 6.03)
Pitavastatin lactone (metabolite)12.9 (8.01 to 20.9)23.2 (14.9 to 36.2)32.8 (20.3 to 52.9)22.4 (13.9 to 36.2)21.7 (13.5 to 35.0)
Atorvastatin4.28 (0.00 to 6.63)5.73 (3.80 to 8.64)6.03 (3.86 to 9.40)5.04 (2.73 to 5.89)3.85 (2.47 to 6.00)
Ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin (metabolite)3.67 (0.00 to 4.64)3.25 (2.29 to 4.63)4.43 (3.03 to 6.49)5.02 (2.26 to 9.31)3.08 (2.10 to 4.51)
Rosuvastatin2.64 (0.00 to 4.36)3.40 (2.24 to 5.16)6.01 (3.83 to 9.43)3.59 (2.19 to 5.88)1.94 (1.24 to 3.05)
Statistical analysis
  • Moderate Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.68 · 95% CI 0.78 to 3.62Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Mild Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.30 · 95% CI 0.75 to 2.23Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Moderate Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.98 · 95% CI 1.15 to 3.41Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Severe Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 0.98 · 95% CI 0.58 to 1.66Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Mild Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.03 · 95% CI 0.52 to 2.03Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Moderate Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.51 · 95% CI 0.77 to 2.97Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Severe Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.07 · 95% CI 0.56 to 2.05Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • End-Stage Renal Disease vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 0.60 · 95% CI 0.30 to 1.17Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Moderate Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.57 · 95% CI 0.84 to 2.94Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Severe Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.49 · 95% CI 0.81 to 2.73Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Moderate Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.44 · 95% CI 0.84 to 2.47Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Severe Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.06 · 95% CI 0.63 to 1.78Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Mild Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.85 · 95% CI 0.95 to 3.61Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Moderate Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 3.10 · 95% CI 1.64 to 5.86Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
  • Severe Impairment vs Healthy Control · Geometric least squares mean ratio: 1.75 · 95% CI 0.95 to 3.24Geometric least squares mean ratio and 95% confidence interval could not be determined for comparisons where one or both of the geometric least squares means was not calculable because some individual values were treated as 0.
PrimaryTime to Maximum Plasma Concentration (Tmax) Post-dose Period 1

Tmax is the amount of time to reach maximum (peak) plasma drug concentration following drug administration. Plasma pharmacokinetic data presented in the table below are following the administration of a single oral dose of a microdose cocktail in healthy participants, participants with renal impairment, and 24 hours prior to hemodialysis in participants with end-stage renal disease requiring hemodialysis.

Time frame:
0.25, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 48, and 72 hours post-dose
Reported as:
Geometric mean · hours
Time to Maximum Plasma Concentration (Tmax) Post-dose Period 1
hoursEnd-Stage Renal DiseaseSevere ImpairmentModerate ImpairmentMild ImpairmentHealthy Control
Midazolam0.50 (0.50 to 1.00)0.50 (0.50 to 1.00)0.50 (0.50 to 1.00)0.50 (0.50 to 1.00)1.00 (0.50 to 1.00)
Dabigatran2.00 (1.00 to 4.00)3.00 (2.00 to 4.00)2.50 (2.00 to 3.00)1.50 (1.50 to 3.00)1.50 (1.50 to 3.00)
Pitavastatin0.50 (0.50 to 1.00)0.50 (0.50 to 1.50)1.00 (0.50 to 1.00)0.52 (0.50 to 1.00)0.75 (0.50 to 1.00)
Pitavastatin lactone (metabolite)2.50 (2.00 to 6.33)4.00 (2.00 to 4.00)2.50 (2.00 to 3.00)2.00 (1.50 to 2.00)2.00 (2.00 to 3.00)
Atorvastatin0.25 (0.25 to 0.50)0.25 (0.25 to 6.00)0.25 (0.25 to 1.50)0.25 (0.25 to 0.53)0.50 (0.50 to 6.00)
Ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin (metabolite)5.00 (4.00 to 6.00)6.00 (4.00 to 8.00)6.00 (4.00 to 8.00)6.00 (6.00 to 8.00)6.00 (3.00 to 6.00)
Rosuvastatin3.00 (1.50 to 4.00)4.00 (3.00 to 4.00)4.00 (1.50 to 4.02)2.00 (2.00 to 4.00)3.50 (0.50 to 4.00)
PrimaryApparent Plasma Terminal Half-life (t1/2) Post-dose Period 1

T1/2 is the elimination half-life of study drug. T1/2 is the time it takes for half of the study drug in the blood plasma to dissipate. Plasma pharmacokinetic data presented in the table below are following the administration of a single oral dose of a microdose cocktail in healthy participants, participants with renal impairment, and 24 hours prior to hemodialysis in participants with end-stage renal disease requiring hemodialysis.

Time frame:
0.25, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 48, and 72 hours post-dose
Reported as:
Geometric mean · hours
Apparent Plasma Terminal Half-life (t1/2) Post-dose Period 1
hoursEnd-Stage Renal DiseaseSevere ImpairmentModerate ImpairmentMild ImpairmentHealthy Control
Midazolam4.41 ± 59.67.79 ± 54.110.3 ± 33.06.76 ± 30.67.99 ± 25.0
Dabigatran41.4 ± 47.924.0 ± 22.011.9 ± 30.38.40 ± 10.76.75 ± 19.8
Pitavastatin11.8 ± 61.420.4 ± 63.622.4 ± 15.819.3 ± 23.517.8 ± 26.7
Pitavastatin lactone (metabolite)11.0 ± 55.318.1 ± 31.022.0 ± 13.220.5 ± 31.418.5 ± 15.9
Atorvastatin8.03 ± 28.517.5 ± 57.018.6 ± 41.816.7 ± 14.814.9 ± 10.3
Ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin (metabolite)12.4 ± 25.821.9 ± 65.924.6 ± 18.322.8 ± 35.721.2 ± 29.5
Rosuvastatin14.0 ± 107.318.8 ± 78.324.9 ± 19.415.5 ± 100.216.2 ± 78.6
PrimaryApparent Clearance After Extravascular Administration (CL/F) Post-dose Period 1

CL/F is the rate at which study drug was removed from the body. Plasma pharmacokinetic data presented in the table below are following the administration of a single oral dose of a microdose cocktail in healthy participants, participants with renal impairment, and 24 hours prior to hemodialysis in participants with end-stage renal disease requiring hemodialysis. CL/F was to be calculated for the parent plasma analytes only, midazolam, dabigatran, pitavastatin, atorvastatin, and rosuvastatin.

Time frame:
0.25, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 48, and 72 hours post-dose
Reported as:
Geometric mean · liters/hour
Apparent Clearance After Extravascular Administration (CL/F) Post-dose Period 1
liters/hourEnd-Stage Renal DiseaseSevere ImpairmentModerate ImpairmentMild ImpairmentHealthy Control
Midazolam90.8 ± 46.538.5 ± 62.727.5 ± 46.356.9 ± 32.336.6 ± 50.6
Dabigatran52.5 ± 74.135.7 ± 32.361.8 ± 70.3175 ± 47.3178 ± 61.5
Pitavastatin14.8 ± 60.015.4 ± 58.69.84 ± 29.714.5 ± 41.119.2 ± 52.7
Atorvastatin304 ± 64.7210 ± 82.9196 ± 54.0304 ± 28.7343 ± 56.9
Rosuvastatin240 ± 121.0137 ± 49.087.0 ± 32.3191 ± 82.5171 ± 47.8
PrimaryApparent Volume of Distribution During the Terminal Phase (Vz/F) Post-dose Period 1

Vz/F is the distribution of study drug between the plasma and the rest of the body after the dose. Plasma pharmacokinetic data presented in the table below are following the administration of a single oral dose of a microdose cocktail in healthy participants, participants with renal impairment, and 24 hours prior to hemodialysis in participants with end-stage renal disease requiring hemodialysis. Vz/F was to be calculated for the parent plasma analytes only, midazolam, dabigatran, pitavastatin, atorvastatin, and rosuvastatin.

Time frame:
0.25, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 48, and 72 hours post-dose
Reported as:
Geometric mean · liters
Apparent Volume of Distribution During the Terminal Phase (Vz/F) Post-dose Period 1
litersEnd-Stage Renal DiseaseSevere ImpairmentModerate ImpairmentMild ImpairmentHealthy Control
Midazolam579 ± 45.0433 ± 16.9409 ± 38.0555 ± 58.0422 ± 37.5
Dabigatran3140 ± 38.41230 ± 36.41060 ± 54.12120 ± 57.91730 ± 46.4
Pitavastatin252 ± 19.5454 ± 51.9317 ± 15.4405 ± 46.8495 ± 46.6
Atorvastatin3520 ± 40.35310 ± 47.75240 ± 57.57300 ± 32.57380 ± 58.6
Rosuvastatin4870 ± 63.23720 ± 51.33120 ± 35.94270 ± 117.94010 ± 34.4
SecondaryEffect of Rifampin on AUC0-24 Post-dose Period 2

To evaluate the effect of a single oral dose of rifampin on the AUC0-24 of midazolam, dabigatran, pitavastatin, pitavastatin lactone, atorvastatin, ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin, and rosuvatatin. AUC0-24 is the area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to 24 hours post-dose. This is a measure of the average amount of study drug in the blood plasma over a period of 24 hours after the dose. Plasma pharmacokinetic data presented in the table below are following the administration of a single oral dose of a microdose cocktail and rifampin in healthy participants and participants with renal impairment. As pre-specified in the protocol, this outcome measure does not include end-stage renal disease participants as they did not receive rifampin during Period 2.

Time frame:
Microdose cocktail: 0 hour (pre-dose) and 0.25, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, and 24 hours post-dose; rifampin: 0 hour (pre-dose) and 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, and 24 hours post-dose
Reported as:
Geometric least squares mean · pg*hr/mL
Effect of Rifampin on AUC0-24 Post-dose Period 2
pg*hr/mLEnd Stage Renal Disease (Period 2)Severe Impairment (Period 2)Moderate Impairment (Period 2)Mild Impairment (Period 2)Healthy Control (Period 2)
Midazolam—238 (171 to 330)346 (224 to 490)186 (131 to 263)234 (165 to 332)
Dabigatran—6540 (4730 to 9030)5480 (3900 to 7700)2660 (1890 to 3740)3030 (2160 to 4260)
Pitavastatin—2760 (1780 to 4270)3360 (2120 to 5330)2460 (1550 to 3900)1860 (1170 to 2950)
Pitavastatin lactone (metabolite)—1070 (820 to 1400)1780 (1340 to 2350)1490 (1120 to 1970)1000 (755 to 1320)
Atorvastatin—2230 (1510 to 3290)2420 (1610 to 3630)1700 (1030 to 2790)1760 (1180 to 2650)
Ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin (metabolite)—1580 (1060 to 2350)1800 (1190 to 2730)1720 (1030 to 2870)1620 (1070 to 2460)
Rosuvastatin—1100 (779 to 1550)1670 (1170 to 2400)1010 (682 to 1500)842 (588 to 1210)
SecondaryEffect of Rifampin on AUC0-last Post-dose Period 2

To evaluate the effect of a single oral dose of rifampin on the AUC0-last of midazolam, dabigatran, pitavastatin, pitavastatin lactone, atorvastatin, ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin, and rosuvatatin. AUC0-last is the area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to time of last measurable concentration. It is a measure of the amount of study drug in the blood plasma from pre-dose until the last measurable concentration of study drug could be determined. Plasma pharmacokinetic data presented in the table below are following the administration of a single oral dose of a microdose cocktail and rifampin in healthy participants and participants with renal impairment. As pre-specified in the protocol, this outcome measure does not include end-stage renal disease participants as they did not receive rifampin during Period 2.

Time frame:
Microdose cocktail: 0 hour (pre-dose) and 0.25, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 48, and 72 hours post-dose; rifampin: 0 hour (pre-dose) and 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, and 24 hours post-dose
Reported as:
Geometric least squares mean · pg*hr/mL
Effect of Rifampin on AUC0-last Post-dose Period 2
pg*hr/mLEnd Stage Renal Disease (Period 2)Severe Impairment (Period 2)Moderate Impairment (Period 2)Mild Impairment (Period 2)Healthy Control (Period 2)
Midazolam—236 (168 to 331)353 (246 to 505)182 (127 to 261)231 (161 to 331)
Dabigatran—10400 (7310 to 14800)6830 (4710 to 9920)2830 (1950 to 4110)3140 (2160 to 4550)
Pitavastatin—2850 (1830 to 4430)3480 (2180 to 5540)2510 (1580 to 4000)1890 (1190 to 3010)
Pitavastatin lactone (metabolite)—1470 (1100 to 1980)2380 (1750 to 3250)1850 (1350 to 2520)1270 (935 to 1740)
Atorvastatin—2220 (1490 to 3290)2420 (1600 to 3650)1690 (1020 to 2800)1760 (1160 to 2650)
Ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin (metabolite)—1610 (1080 to 2400)1850 (1220 to 2820)1750 (1050 to 2920)1630 (1070 to 2470)
Rosuvastatin—1150 (806 to 1630)1740 (1200 to 2500)1040 (698 to 1560)854 (592 to 1230)
SecondaryEffect of Rifampin on Cmax Post-dose Period 2

To evaluate the effect of a single oral dose of rifampin on the Cmax of midazolam, dabigatran, pitavastatin, pitavastatin lactone, atorvastatin, ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin, and rosuvatatin. Cmax is the peak plasma concentration of study drug after administration. Plasma pharmacokinetic data presented in the table below are following the administration of a single oral dose of a microdose cocktail and rifampin in healthy participants and participants with renal impairment. As pre-specified in the protocol, this outcome measure does not include end-stage renal disease participants as they did not receive rifampin during Period 2.

Time frame:
Microdose cocktail: 0.25, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 48, and 72 hours post-dose; rifampin: 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, and 24 hours post-dose
Reported as:
Geometric least squares mean · pg/mL
Effect of Rifampin on Cmax Post-dose Period 2
pg/mLEnd Stage Renal Disease (Period 2)Severe Impairment (Period 2)Moderate Impairment (Period 2)Mild Impairment (Period 2)Healthy Control (Period 2)
Midazolam—75.4 (57.1 to 99.7)92.5 (69.0 to 124)73.0 (54.5 to 97.9)81.4 (60.7 to 109)
Dabigatran—422 (305 to 584)443 (314 to 624)243 (173 to 342)351 (249 to 494)
Pitavastatin—981 (591 to 1630)860 (509 to 1450)819 (485 to 1380)599 (354 to 1010)
Pitavastatin lactone (metabolite)—88.4 (72.8 to 107)119 (97.3 to 145)131 (108 to 161)102 (83.7 to 125)
Atorvastatin—531 (354 to 796)508 (337 to 766)505 (305 to 835)405 (269 to 611)
Ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin (metabolite)—150 (97.1 to 231)174 (111 to 272)215 (124 to 372)198 (126 to 310)
Rosuvastatin—208 (133 to 327)396 (248 to 633)254 (152 to 425)236 (148 to 376)
SecondaryEffect of Rifampin on C24 Post-dose Period 2

To evaluate the effect of a single oral dose of rifampin on the C24 of midazolam, dabigatran, pitavastatin, pitavastatin lactone, atorvastatin, ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin, and rosuvatatin. C24 is a measure of the plasma study drug concentration 24 hours post-dose. C24 is reported as median (minimum and maximum) in severe renal impairment arm due to zero values. Plasma pharmacokinetic data presented in the table below are following the administration of a single oral dose of a microdose cocktail and rifampin in healthy participants and participants with renal impairment. As pre-specified in the protocol, this outcome measure does not include end-stage renal disease participants as they did not receive rifampin during Period 2.

Time frame:
24 hours post-dose
Reported as:
Geometric least squares mean · pg/mL
Effect of Rifampin on C24 Post-dose Period 2
pg/mLEnd Stage Renal Disease (Period 2)Severe Impairment (Period 2)Moderate Impairment (Period 2)Mild Impairment (Period 2)Healthy Control (Period 2)
Midazolam—0.394 (0.00 to 4.15)1.42 (0.701 to 2.89)0.00 (0.00 to 0.921)0.601 (0.00 to 1.33)
Dabigatran—174 (115 to 263)100 (65.1 to 154)31.1 (20.2 to 47.9)27.5 (17.9 to 42.4)
Pitavastatin—7.01 (3.81 to 12.9)10.5 (5.54 to 19.8)4.70 (2.49 to 8.87)4.72 (2.50 to 8.91)
Pitavastatin lactone (metabolite)—21.3 (15.0 to 30.3)34.0 (23.5 to 49.3)20.7 (14.3 to 30.0)17.1 (11.8 to 24.8)
Atorvastatin—2.98 (0.00 to 16.1)2.98 (1.65 to 5.40)1.76 (0.00 to 2.32)1.35 (0.00 to 3.20)
Ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin (metabolite)—7.23 (3.70 to 14.1)9.96 (5.02 to 19.8)6.28 (2.71 to 14.5)5.57 (2.81 to 11.1)
Rosuvastatin—4.47 (2.34 to 8.53)6.97 (3.53 to 13.8)4.18 (1.22 to 9.99)2.42 (0.00 to 6.92)
SecondaryEffect of Rifampin on Tmax Post-dose Period 2

To evaluate the effect of a single oral dose of rifampin on the Tmax of midazolam, dabigatran, pitavastatin, pitavastatin lactone, atorvastatin, ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin, and rosuvatatin. Tmax is the amount of time to reach maximum (peak) plasma drug concentration following drug administration. Plasma pharmacokinetic data presented in the table below are following the administration of a single oral dose of a microdose cocktail and rifampin in healthy participants and participants with renal impairment. As pre-specified in the protocol, this outcome measure does not include end-stage renal disease participants as they did not receive rifampin during Period 2.

Time frame:
Microdose cocktail: 0.25, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 48, and 72 hours post-dose; rifampin: 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, and 24 hours post-dose
Reported as:
Median · hours
Effect of Rifampin on Tmax Post-dose Period 2
hoursEnd Stage Renal Disease (Period 2)Severe Impairment (Period 2)Moderate Impairment (Period 2)Mild Impairment (Period 2)Healthy Control (Period 2)
Midazolam—0.50 (0.50 to 1.00)0.75 (0.50 to 1.00)0.50 (0.50 to 1.00)1.00 (0.50 to 1.00)
Dabigatran—3.50 (2.00 to 4.05)3.00 (2.00 to 4.00)2.50 (2.00 to 4.00)2.50 (1.50 to 3.00)
Pitavastatin—1.00 (0.50 to 1.00)1.00 (0.50 to 2.00)1.00 (0.50 to 3.00)1.00 (1.00 to 2.00)
Pitavastatin lactone (metabolite)—3.00 (1.50 to 4.00)4.00 (2.00 to 12.00)3.00 (1.50 to 4.00)2.00 (1.50 to 4.05)
Atorvastatin—0.50 (0.50 to 1.00)1.50 (0.50 to 2.00)1.00 (1.00 to 1.50)1.50 (1.00 to 2.00)
Ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin (metabolite)—1.75 (1.00 to 4.05)2.50 (1.50 to 4.00)1.75 (1.00 to 4.00)3.00 (1.00 to 4.05)
Rosuvastatin—1.00 (1.00 to 2.00)2.00 (1.00 to 3.00)1.00 (1.00 to 3.00)2.00 (1.00 to 6.00)
SecondaryEffect of Rifampin on t1/2 Post-dose Period 2

To evaluate the effect of a single oral dose of rifampin on the t1/2 of midazolam, dabigatran, pitavastatin, pitavastatin lactone, atorvastatin, ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin, and rosuvatatin. T1/2 is the elimination half-life of study drug. T1/2 is the time it takes for half of the study drug in the blood plasma to dissipate. Plasma pharmacokinetic data presented in the table below are following the administration of a single oral dose of a microdose cocktail and rifampin in healthy participants and participants with renal impairment. As pre-specified in the protocol, this outcome measure does not include end-stage renal disease participants as they did not receive rifampin during Period 2.

Time frame:
Microdose cocktail: 0.25, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 48, and 72 hours post-dose; rifampin: 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, and 24 hours post-dose
Reported as:
Geometric least squares mean · hours
Effect of Rifampin on t1/2 Post-dose Period 2
hoursEnd Stage Renal Disease (Period 2)Severe Impairment (Period 2)Moderate Impairment (Period 2)Mild Impairment (Period 2)Healthy Control (Period 2)
Midazolam—4.14 ± 19.55.49 ± 26.24.12 ± 26.74.97 ± 22.0
Dabigatran—19.4 ± 21.311.3 ± 33.17.57 ± 19.06.48 ± 13.7
Pitavastatin—6.99 ± 62.811.5 ± 71.68.40 ± 75.86.50 ± 30.3
Pitavastatin lactone (metabolite)—17.2 ± 41.017.7 ± 25.221.0 ± 22.516.5 ± 33.9
Atorvastatin—3.14 ± 18.92.99 ± 21.13.22 ± 8.62.76 ± 8.4
Ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin (metabolite)—4.56 ± 43.74.25 ± 39.73.83 ± 19.73.49 ± 11.7
Rosuvastatin—4.89 ± 49.97.48 ± 19.89.64 ± 83.86.76 ± 94.3
SecondaryEffect of Rifampin on CL/F Post-dose Period 2

To evaluate the effect of a single oral dose of rifampin on the CL/F of midazolam, dabigatran, pitavastatin, atorvastatin, and rosuvatatin. CL/F is the rate at which study drug was removed from the body. Plasma pharmacokinetic data presented in the table below are following the administration of a single oral dose of a microdose cocktail and rifampin in healthy participants and participants with renal impairment. As pre-specified in the protocol, this outcome measure does not include end-stage renal disease participants as they did not receive rifampin during Period 2.

Time frame:
Microdose cocktail: 0.25, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 48, and 72 hours post-dose; rifampin: 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, and 24 hours post-dose
Reported as:
Geometric least squares mean · liters/hour
Effect of Rifampin on CL/F Post-dose Period 2
liters/hourEnd Stage Renal Disease (Period 2)Severe Impairment (Period 2)Moderate Impairment (Period 2)Mild Impairment (Period 2)Healthy Control (Period 2)
Midazolam—40.5 ± 57.727.8 ± 52.053.0 ± 34.841.8 ± 28.4
Dabigatran—26.3 ± 41.638.9 ± 58.792.8 ± 41.585.6 ± 40.0
Pitavastatin—3.57 ± 50.02.86 ± 60.43.95 ± 51.85.24 ± 75.8
Atorvastatin—44.2 ± 57.641.1 ± 30.358.6 ± 49.456.4 ± 62.2
Rosuvastatin—38.6 ± 37.728.9 ± 41.147.1 ± 51.157.9 ± 63.3
SecondaryEffect of Rifampin on Vz/F Post-dose Period 2

To evaluate the effect of a single oral dose of rifampin on the Vz/F of midazolam, dabigatran, pitavastatin, pitavastatin lactone, atorvastatin, ortho-hydroxyatorvastatin, and rosuvatatin. Vz/F is the distribution of study drug between the plasma and the rest of the body after the dose. Plasma pharmacokinetic data presented in the table below are following the administration of a single oral dose of a microdose cocktail and rifampin in healthy participants and participants with renal impairment. As pre-specified in the protocol, this outcome measure does not include end-stage renal disease participants as they did not receive rifampin during Period 2.

Time frame:
Microdose cocktail: 0.25, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 12, 16, 24, 32, 48, and 72 hours post-dose; rifampin: 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 12, and 24 hours post-dose
Reported as:
Geometric least squares mean · liters
Effect of Rifampin on Vz/F Post-dose Period 2
litersEnd Stage Renal Disease (Period 2)Severe Impairment (Period 2)Moderate Impairment (Period 2)Mild Impairment (Period 2)Healthy Control (Period 2)
Midazolam—242 ± 44.6220 ± 56.5315 ± 30.8300 ± 36.3
Dabigatran—733 ± 29.2632 ± 36.31010 ± 45.2800 ± 41.1
Pitavastatin—36.0 ± 38.747.3 ± 85.847.8 ± 82.549.2 ± 72.1
Atorvastatin—200 ± 55.4177 ± 38.2272 ± 58.4225 ± 68.7
Rosuvastatin—272 ± 39.7313 ± 58.2654 ± 40.8565 ± 76.1

Adverse events

Collected over Up tp approximately 30 days (including 14 days following the last dose). Non-serious events are listed at a 0% frequency threshold.

Adverse event summary by group
GroupDeathsSeriousOther
End Stage Renal Disease: Microdose Cocktail Alone0/6 (0%)0/6 (0%)1/6 (16.7%)
Severe Impairment: Microdose Cocktail Alone0/7 (0%)1/7 (14.3%)2/7 (28.6%)
Severe Impairment: Microdose Cocktail + Rifampin0/6 (0%)0/6 (0%)1/6 (16.7%)
Moderate Impairment: Microdose Cocktail Alone0/6 (0%)0/6 (0%)2/6 (33.3%)
Moderate Impairment: Microdose Cocktail + Rifampin0/6 (0%)0/6 (0%)1/6 (16.7%)
Mild Impairment: Microdose Cocktail Alone0/7 (0%)0/7 (0%)3/7 (42.9%)
Mild Impairment: Microdose Cocktail + Rifampin0/6 (0%)0/6 (0%)2/6 (33.3%)
Healthy Control: Microdose Cocktail Alone0/6 (0%)0/6 (0%)0/6 (0%)
Healthy Control: Microdose Cocktail + Rifampin0/6 (0%)0/6 (0%)0/6 (0%)
Most frequent serious events
Most frequent serious events
EventEnd Stage Renal Disease: Microdose Cocktail AloneSevere Impairment: Microdose Cocktail AloneSevere Impairment: Microdose Cocktail + RifampinModerate Impairment: Microdose Cocktail AloneModerate Impairment: Microdose Cocktail + RifampinMild Impairment: Microdose Cocktail AloneMild Impairment: Microdose Cocktail + RifampinHealthy Control: Microdose Cocktail AloneHealthy Control: Microdose Cocktail + Rifampin
Cardiac failure congestiveCardiac disorders0/61/70/60/60/60/70/60/60/6
Acute kidney injuryRenal and urinary disorders0/61/70/60/60/60/70/60/60/6
Most frequent other events
Most frequent other events
EventEnd Stage Renal Disease: Microdose Cocktail AloneSevere Impairment: Microdose Cocktail AloneSevere Impairment: Microdose Cocktail + RifampinModerate Impairment: Microdose Cocktail AloneModerate Impairment: Microdose Cocktail + RifampinMild Impairment: Microdose Cocktail AloneMild Impairment: Microdose Cocktail + RifampinHealthy Control: Microdose Cocktail AloneHealthy Control: Microdose Cocktail + Rifampin
SomnolenceNervous system disorders0/62/70/62/60/62/70/60/60/6
DiarrhoeaGastrointestinal disorders0/60/71/60/60/60/70/60/60/6
FatigueGeneral disorders0/60/70/60/60/60/71/60/60/6
HeadacheNervous system disorders1/60/70/60/61/60/71/60/60/6
Blood potassium decreasedInvestigations0/60/70/60/60/61/70/60/60/6

Baseline characteristics

Age, Continuous
Age, Continuous(Years)End-Stage Renal DiseaseSevere ImpairmentModerate ImpairmentMild ImpairmentHealthy ControlTotal
Mean56.7 ± 8.0464.9 ± 7.1067.0 ± 11.1965.4 ± 8.9057.8 ± 7.8862.5 ± 9.15
Sex: Female, Male
Sex: Female, Male(Participants)End-Stage Renal DiseaseSevere ImpairmentModerate ImpairmentMild ImpairmentHealthy ControlTotal
Female0143311
Male6624321
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)
Ethnicity (NIH/OMB)(Participants)End-Stage Renal DiseaseSevere ImpairmentModerate ImpairmentMild ImpairmentHealthy ControlTotal
Hispanic or Latino0545620
Not Hispanic or Latino6222012
Unknown or Not Reported000000
Race (NIH/OMB)
Race (NIH/OMB)(Participants)End-Stage Renal DiseaseSevere ImpairmentModerate ImpairmentMild ImpairmentHealthy ControlTotal
American Indian or Alaska Native000101
Asian0000000
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander000000
Black or African American600309
White0763622
More than one race000000
Unknown or Not Reported000000
08

Study locations

2 sites
  • Clinical Pharmacology of Miami ( Site 0001)
    Hialeah, Florida 33014, United States
  • Orlando Clinical Research Center ( Site 0002)
    Orlando, Florida 32809, United States
09

References and documents

Study documents

PDFs hosted by the registry, ClinicalTrials.gov.

Individual participant data

Plan to share: Yes — https://www.merck.com/clinical-trials/pdf/ProcedureAccessClinicalTrialData.pdf

Data sharing details ↗ · engagezone.msd.com

10

Timeline

Tracking since Sep 25, 2026
ElapsedEstimatedEstimated, not yet reachedSimilar studies: half by the dot; the band is the middle halfHalf of similar studies reached it by the dot; the band is the middle half, from a quarter to three quarters

Ran from Mar 2018 to primary completion in Aug 2018, 5 months.

Results were first posted in Jan 2020, 1 year 5 months after primary completion.

Of 212 industry-sponsored phase 1 interventional studies under Renal Insufficiency, half reached primary completion within 8 months of starting (the median), counting those still running; a quarter within 5 and three quarters within 15. This study's 5 months is below that.

Counting every sponsor, half of 230 studies reached it within 8 months; a quarter within 5 and three quarters within 16.

How these figures are worked out, and which studies are left out of them.

Registered
Oct 12, 2017
First posted
Oct 17, 2017
StartActual
Mar 1, 2018
Primary completionActual
Aug 2, 2018
CompletionActual
Aug 2, 2018
Results first posted
Jan 9, 2020
Last update
Jan 9, 2020
What these dates mean
Start.
When the first participant enrolled; while estimated, when the study expects to open to recruitment.
Primary completion.
When the last participant was examined or treated to collect data for the study's main question, its primary outcome. A study that stopped early gives the date its data collection stopped.
Completion.
When the last participant's last visit took place, for every outcome, secondary ones and side effects included: the end of the study. Often later than primary completion, sometimes the same day.
Actual and Est.
Actual means the registry says the date has happened. Est. (estimated) is a date the sponsor plans or expects. It can still move, and the sponsor is expected to change it to actual once it has passed.
No changes since tracking began. The registry record was last updated on Jan 9, 2020, before this site started recording changes on Sep 25, 2026. Its history is on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗
11

Registry details

Key details

Study ID
NCT03311841
Responsible party
Sponsor
First posted
Oct 17, 2017
Start date
Mar 1, 2018
Primary completion
Aug 2, 2018
Completion
Aug 2, 2018
Results posted
Jan 9, 2020
Last update
Jan 9, 2020

Study contacts

Medical Director
study director · Merck Sharp & Dohme LLC

Oversight

Data monitoring committee
No
FDA-regulated drug
Yes
FDA-regulated device
No
View the source record on ClinicalTrials.gov ↗

Not currently enrolling

This study is completed, as verified in Dec 2019. You cannot join it, but the record below documents what was studied.

Follow this study

Get an email when the registry record changes — status, dates, results — or when someone posts here.

Sign in to follow

Discussion

Questions and observations about this study, from anyone following it. Not medical advice, and not a channel to the study team — their contact details are on the registry record.

Sign in to join the discussion. Reading takes no account; posting does. You choose a display name, and a pseudonym is the default.

Nothing here yet. If you are running this trial, taking part in it, or weighing whether to, this is the place to say so.

Studies of the drugs tested here: Midazolam · Dabigatran · Pitavastatin

Start the discussion