Search

Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors declare there is no conflict of interests.

Purpose: Currently, body weight-based dosing of rifampicin is recommended. But lately, fat-free mass (FFM) was reported to be superior to body weight (BW). The present evaluation aimed to assess the influence of body mass-related covariates on rifampicin's pharmacokinetics (PK) parameters in more detail using non-linear mixed effects modeling (NLMEM)., Methods: Twenty-four healthy Caucasian volunteers were enrolled in a bioequivalence study, each receiving a test and a reference tablet of 600 mg of rifampicin separated by a wash-out period of at least 9 days. Monolix version 2023R1 was used for NLMEM. Monte Carlo simulations (MCS) were performed to visualize the relationship of body size descriptors to the exposure to rifampicin., Results: A one-compartment model with nonlinear (Michaelis-Menten) elimination and zero-order absorption kinetics with a lag time best described the data. The covariate model including fat-free mass (FFM) on volume of distribution (V/F) and on maximum elimination rate (Vmax/F) lowered the objective function value (OFV) by 56.4. The second-best covariate model of sex on V/F and Vmax/F and BW on V/F reduced the OFV by 51.2. The decrease in unexplained inter-individual variability on Vmax/F in both covariate models was similar. For a given dose, MCS showed lower exposure to rifampicin with higher FFM and accordingly in males compared to females with the same BW and body height., Conclusion: Our results indicate that beyond BW, body composition as reflected by FFM could also be relevant for optimized dosing of rifampicin. This assumption needs to be studied further in patients treated with rifampicin., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Purpose: Adefovir (as dipivoxil) was selected as a probe drug in a previous transporter cocktail phenotyping study to assess renal organic anion transporter 1 (OAT1), with renal clearance (CL R ) as the primary parameter describing renal elimination. An approximately 20% higher systemic exposure of adefovir was observed when combined with other cocktail components (metformin, sitagliptin, pitavastatin, and digoxin) compared to sole administration. The present evaluation applied a population pharmacokinetic (popPK) modeling approach to describe adefovir pharmacokinetics as a cocktail component in more detail., Methods: Data from 24 healthy subjects were reanalyzed. After establishing a base model, covariate effects, including the impact of co-administered drugs, were assessed using forward inclusion then backward elimination., Results: A one-compartment model with first-order absorption (including lag time) and a combination of nonlinear renal and linear nonrenal elimination best described the data. A significantly higher apparent bioavailability (73.6% vs. 59.0%) and a lower apparent absorption rate constant (2.29 h -1 vs. 5.18 h -1 ) were identified in the combined period compared to the sole administration period, while no difference was seen in renal elimination. The population estimate for the Michaelis-Menten constant (K m ) of the nonlinear renal elimination was 170 nmol/L, exceeding the observed range of adefovir plasma maximum concentration, while the maximum rate (V max ) of nonlinear renal elimination was 2.40 µmol/h at the median absolute estimated glomerular filtration rate of 105 mL/min., Conclusion: The popPK modeling approach indicated that the co-administration primarily affected the apparent absorption and/or prodrug conversion of adefovir dipivoxil, resulting in the minor drug-drug interaction observed for adefovir as a victim. However, renal elimination remained unaffected. The high K m value suggests that assessing renal OAT1 activity by CL R has no relevant misspecification error with the cocktail doses used., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Introduction: Noscapine is a commonly used cough suppressant, with ongoing research on its anti-inflammatory and anti-tumor properties. The drug has a pronounced pharmacokinetic variability., Objective: This evaluation aims to describe the pharmacokinetics of noscapine using a semi-mechanistic population pharmacokinetic model and to identify covariates that could explain inter-individual pharmacokinetic variability., Methods: Forty-eight healthy volunteers (30 men and 18 women, mean age 33 years) were enrolled in a randomized, two-period, two-stage, crossover bioequivalence study of noscapine in two different liquid formulations. Noscapine plasma concentrations following oral administration of noscapine 50 mg were evaluated by a non-compartmental analysis and by a population pharmacokinetic model separately., Results: Compared to the reference formulation, the test formulation exhibited ratios (with 94.12% confidence intervals) of 0.784 (0.662-0.929) and 0.827 (0.762-0.925) for peak plasma concentrations and area under the plasma concentration-time curve, respectively. Significant differences in p values (< 0.01) were both observed when comparing peak plasma concentrations and area under the plasma concentration-time curve between CYP2C9 genotype-predicted phenotypes. A three-compartmental model with zero-order absorption and first-order elimination process best described the plasma data. The introduction of a liver compartment was able to describe the profound first-pass effect of noscapine. Total body weight and the CYP2C9 genotype-predicted phenotype were both identified as significant covariates on apparent clearance, which was estimated as 958 ± 548 L/h for extensive metabolizers (CYP2C9*1/*1 and *1/*9), 531 ± 304 L/h for intermediate metabolizers with an activity score of 1.5 (CYP2C9*1/*2), and 343 ± 197 L/h for poor metabolizers and intermediate metabolizers with an activity score of 1.0 (CYP2C9*1/*3, *2/*3, and*3/*3)., Conclusion: The current work is expected to facilitate the future pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic development of noscapine. This study was registered prior to starting at "Deutsches Register Klinischer Studien" under registration no. DRKS00017760., (© 2024. The Author(s).)