Search

Background: Ciclesonide, an intranasal corticosteroid, is administered as a prodrug and is converted to the active metabolite, desisobutyryl ciclesonide, in the upper and lower airways. Previous studies have assessed systemic exposure with the ciclesonide hydrofluoroalkane metered dose inhaler (CIC HFA-MDI) and the ciclesonide aqueous nasal spray (CIC-AQ) formulations. However, systemic exposure with ciclesonide HFA nasal aerosol (CIC-HFA) developed for the treatment of allergic rhinitis has not been investigated. Objective: This study compared the systemic exposure of ciclesonide and desisobutyryl ciclesonide after administration of ciclesonide formulated as an aqueous nasal spray, an HFA nasal aerosol, or as an orally inhaled HFA-MDI. Methods: Healthy adults (aged 18–60 years) were randomly assigned in an open-label, singledose, 3-period crossover design to CIC-AQ 300 µg, CIC-HFA 300 µg, or CIC HFA-MDI 320 µg. Serum samples were collected before study drug administration and at 5, 15, and 30 minutes and 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 14, 18, 22, and 24 hours after dosing. The primary pharmacokinetic parameters were AUC 0−∞ and C max of desisobutyryl ciclesonide. Adverse events were elicited by direct questioning of participants throughout the study. Results: Thirty volunteers were randomly assigned. Most of the volunteers were male (63% [19/30]) and white (83% [25/30]); the mean age was 36 years and mean weight was 68 kg. Concentrations of desisobutyryl ciclesonide were quantifiable (lower limit of quantitation [LLOQ] = 10 ng/L) in the serum samples of only 5 volunteers (of 30) receiving CIC-AQ, and the highest C max value of desisobutyryl ciclesonide was 26.7 ng/L (mean C max , 15.2 ng/L). The AUC 0−∞ of desisobutyryl ciclesonide for CIC-AQ was below the LLOQ of the bioanalytic assay. Mean C max and AUC 0−∞ of desisobutyryl ciclesonide were 59.1 ng/L and 397.5 ng · h/L, respectively, for CIC-HFA; and 586.2 ng/L and 2685.0 ng · h/L, respectively, for CIC HFA-MDI. Concentrations of the parent compound, ciclesonide, were below the LLOQ in serum samples after administration of CIC-AQ; they were detectable up to 2 hours after administration of CIC-HFA and up to 4 hours after administration of CIC HFA-MDI. Treatment-emergent adverse events occurred with a low frequency in all 3 treatment groups (30% [9/30] overall) and were mild in intensity as determined by the study investigator. Conclusions: In this study, compared with that of CIC HFA-MDI, the systemic exposure of desisobutyryl ciclesonide was 10-fold lower after administration of CIC-HFA and at least 40-fold lower after administration of CIC-AQ. All treatments were well tolerated.

Vildagliptin is a potent, selective, orally active inhibitor of dipeptidylpeptidase-IV being developed for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. The objective of this study was to assess the absolute oral bioavailability of vildagliptin by comparing the systemic exposure after oral and intravenous administration in healthy volunteers. This was an open-label, randomised, two-period, two-treatment, crossover study in 11 healthy volunteers. Subjects received vildagliptin 50mg orally or 25mg as a 30-minute intravenous infusion on two occasions separated by a 72-hour washout period. Vildagliptin concentrations were determined by a specific assay in urine (lower limit of quantification [LLQ] = 5 ng/mL) and serial plasma samples (LLQ = 2 ng/mL) obtained up to 24 hours after dosing. Noncompartmental analysis and population pharmacokinetic modelling were performed. Both noncompartmental analysis and population pharmacokinetic modelling estimated the absolute oral bioavailability of vildagliptin to be 85%. Renal elimination of unchanged vildagliptin accounted for 33% and 21% of the administered dose 24 hours after intravenous and oral administration, respectively. Renal clearance (13 L/h) was approximately one-third of the total systemic clearance (41 L/h). Two peaks were observed in plasma concentrations at 1 and 3 hours after oral administration in nine of 11 subjects. Modelling based on the population approach identified two absorption sites with lag-times of 0.225 and 2.46 hours. Both absorption rate constants were slower than the elimination rate constant, indicating ‘flip-flop’ kinetics after oral administration. Bodyweight was identified as a factor with an impact on the volume of distribution of the peripheral compartment. Clearance was 24% greater in males (44.6 L/h) than in females (36.1 L/h). Vildagliptin is rapidly and well absorbed with an estimated absolute bioavailability of 85%. Two possible sites of absorption were identified, and the absorption rates were slower than the elimination rate, indicating a flip-flop phenomenon after oral dosing.

This two-way crossover study evaluated the effect of fluconazole on the pharmacokinetics and selective COX-2 inhibition of lumiracoxib. Thirteen healthy subjects were randomized to fluconazole (day 1: 400 mg; days 2-4: 200 mg) or no drug. On day 4, all subjects received a single dose of lumiracoxib (400 mg). Lumiracoxib pharmacokinetics were assessed during the following 48 hours. Thromboxane B(2) (TxB(2)) inhibition was measured prior to lumiracoxib dosing and 2 hours afterwards. Fluconazole caused a small (18%) but not clinically relevant increase in lumiracoxib mean AUC(0- infinity ) but had no effect on lumiracoxib mean C(max). The geometric mean ratio (lumiracoxib plus fluconazole/lumiracoxib alone) for AUC(0- infinity ) was 1.19 (90% confidence interval [CI] = 1.12, 1.27) and for C(max) was 1.11 (90% CI = 0.98, 1.27). The decrease in TxB(2) from predose was not significantly different for lumiracoxib (11.8%) or lumiracoxib plus fluconazole (7.1%); no correlation between lumiracoxib concentration and TxB(2) decrease was seen. As fluconazole is a strong inhibitor of cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2C9, other CYP2C9 inhibitors are unlikely to affect lumiracoxib pharmacokinetics with clinical relevance, making dosage adjustment unnecessary.

A single-center, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized study was conducted to determine the pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of single, rising intramuscular (i.m.) doses and the single maximum tolerated dose of parecoxib sodium, a prodrug of the novel COX-2 selective anti-inflammatory analgesic drug valdecoxib, in 56 healthy male volunteers, ages 18 to 45 years inclusive. Cohorts of up to 6 subjects in each dose schedule were administered either parecoxib sodium (1 mg, 2 mg, 5 mg, 10 mg, 20 mg, or 40 mg) or matching placebo. Following i.m. administration, serial blood samples for measurement of plasma concentrations of parecoxib, valdecoxib, and valdecoxib metabolite (M1) were collected at predetermined intervals (from 15 minutes prior to dose and through 96 hours postdose). Urine collections were obtained for drug assay (from -12 to 0 hours, 0 to 12 hours, and 12 to 24 hours postdose). After i.m. administration, peak plasma concentrations of parecoxib were reached within 15 minutes and then declined rapidly as prodrug was converted to the active moiety, valdecoxib. Change in plasma concentrations of valdecoxib, which declined more slowly (t(1/2) = 5.4-9.9 hours), reflected transformation to several metabolites, one of which was the minor active metabolite M1. As measured by the AUC(0-infinity), Cmax, and XU(0-24) of valdecoxib, parecoxib sodium demonstrated dose proportionality when administered in the range of 1 mg to 40 mg of parecoxib. All single i.m. doses up to the maximum of 40 mg of parecoxib, as well as concentrations of up to 20 mg/ml, were well tolerated.

A single-center, open-label, three-way crossover study was conducted in 24 healthy subjects to assess (1) the bioequivalence of a combined lamivudine 150 mg/zidovudine 300 mg tablet relative to the separate brand-name components administered concurrently and (2) the effect of food on the bioavailability of the drugs from the combination tablet. The subjects were randomly assigned to receive each of the following three treatments, separated by a 5- to 7-day washout period: one lamivudine/zidovudine combination tablet after an overnight fast, one lamivudine 150 mg tablet and one zidovudine 300 mg tablet simultaneously after an overnight fast, or one lamivudine/zidovudine combination tablet 5 minutes after completing a standardized high-fat breakfast (67 g fat, 58 g carbohydrate, and 33 g protein). Serial blood samples were collected up to 24 hours postdose for the determination of lamivudine and zidovudine plasma concentrations. Standard pharmacokinetic parameters were estimated. Treatments were considered bioequivalent if 90% confidence intervals for the ratio of least squares (LS) means for the lamivudine and zidovudine area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC infinity) and maximum observed plasma concentration (Cmax) fell entirely within 0.80 to 1.25 for log-transformed parameters. The combined lamivudine/zidovudine tablet was bioequivalent in the extent (AUC infinity) and rate of absorption (Cmax and time of Cmax [tmax]) to the individual brand-name drug components administered concurrently under fasted conditions. Geometric LS mean ratios and 90% confidence intervals for AUC infinity and Cmax were 0.97 (0.92, 1.03) and 0.94 (0.84, 1.06), respectively, for lamivudine and 0.99 (0.91, 1.07) and 0.97 (0.82, 1.15), respectively, for zidovudine. The extent of absorption of lamivudine and zidovudine from the combination tablet was not altered by administration with meals, indicating that this formulation may be administered with or without food. However, food slowed the rate of absorption, delayed the tmax, and reduced the Cmax of lamivudine and zidovudine. These changes were not considered clinically important. All formulations were well tolerated under fasted and fed conditions.

Alogliptin is a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor under investigation for treatment of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Potential pharmacokinetic (PK) drug-drug interactions of alogliptin with pioglitazone or glyburide were evaluated in healthy adults. In a randomized, 6-sequence, 3-period crossover study (study I), participants (n = 30 enrolled; n = 27 completed) received monotherapy with pioglitazone 45 mg once daily (qd), alogliptin 25 mg qd, or coadministration of the 2 agents. The 12-day treatment periods were separated by a > or =10-day washout interval. In a nonrandomized, single-sequence study (study II), participants (n = 24 completed) received a single 5-mg dose of the sulfonylurea glyburide, alone and after 8 days of dosing with alogliptin 25 mg qd. Sequential samples of blood (both studies) and urine (first study) were obtained for determination of PK parameters for alogliptin, pioglitazone, their metabolites, and glyburide. Minor changes in PK parameters between combination therapy and monotherapy were obtained but not judged to be clinically relevant. The combination treatments were well tolerated, although glyburide frequently caused hypoglycemia. Most adverse events were of mild intensity and occurred with a frequency similar to that with monotherapy. It is concluded that pioglitazone or glyburide can be administered with alogliptin without dose adjustment to any component of the combination therapy.

An open-label, randomized, 2-sequence, 4-period crossover (7-day washout period between treatment), replicate design study was conducted in 37 healthy subjects to assess intersubject and intrasubject variabilities in the peak (Cmax) and total (AUC) exposures to 2 oral antidiabetic drugs, pioglitazone and glimepiride, after single doses of 30 mg pioglitazone and 4 mg glimepiride, given under fasted state, as commercial tablets coadministered or as a single fixed-dose combination tablet. Variabilities for AUC(infinity) for coadministered and fixed-dose combination treatments were similar: 16% to 19% (intra) and 23% to 25% (inter) for pioglitazone and 18% to 19% (intra) and 29% to 30% for glimepiride (inter, excluding 1 poor metabolizer). Fixed-dose combination/coadministered least squares mean ratios ofor=0.86 and the 90% confidence intervals of these ratios for pioglitazone and glimepiride of between 0.80 and 1.25 for Cmax, AUC(lqc), and AUC(infinity) met the bioequivalency standards. Gender analysis showed that women showed mean of 16% and 30% higher exposure than men for glimepiride (excluding 1 poor metabolizer) and pioglitazone, respectively. There was considerable overlapping in the AUC(infinity) values, making gender-dependent dosing unnecessary. Patients taking pioglitazone and glimepiride as cotherapy may replace their medication with a single fixed-dose combination tablet containing these 2 oral antidiabetic drugs.

An open-label, randomized, crossover study involving 28 healthy subjects was conducted to compare the peak (Cmax) and total (AUC(lqc), AUC(infinity)) exposures to pioglitazone and metformin after single-dose administration of a fixed-dose combination tablet containing 15 mg of pioglitazone plus 850 mg metformin when given under fasted versus fed states, with a washout period of 7 days between treatments. Two different fixed-dose combination formulations (bilayer and pioglitazone-micronized fixed-dose combination tablets) were tested. The pioglitazone-micronized fixed-dose combination formulation was selected for clinical development and regulatory approval; the present study describes food effect results with this formulation. For pioglitazone, least squares mean ratios (fed/fasted) and the 90% confidence intervals of these ratios were 1.05 (0.93-1.18) for Cmax, 1.13 (1.02-1.25) for AUC(lqc), and 1.11 (1.01-1.22) for AUC(infinity). For metformin, these values were 0.72 (0.65-0.79) for Cmax, 0.87 (0.81-0.94) for AUC(lqc), and 0.87 (0.81-0.94) for AUC(infinity). Dosing with food resulted in median prolongation of tmax values by 1.5 hours for metformin and 2.0 hours for pioglitazone. Because bioequivalency criteria were met (fed/fasted 90% confidence interval between 0.80 and 1.25) for both pioglitazone and metformin AUC, fixed-dose combination tablets can be taken with or without food, but to minimize gastrointestinal adverse effects of metformin, the fixed-dose combination tablets are recommended to be taken with food.

This study assessed the pharmacokinetic profiles of administering tegaserod (HTF 919) at different time intervals with respect to a meal. It was a randomized, open-label, two-phase, five-period crossover study. In the first phase, 18 healthy subjects received a single 12 mg oral dose of tegaserod administered either 30 or 15 minutes prior to the start of the 600-calorie, fat-rich breakfast. In the second phase, subjects received a single 12 mg oral dose of tegaserod 1 minute before, 2.5 hours after the start of meal, or with a continued 4-hour postdose fast. Safety assessment and plasma samples for the determination of drug concentration were obtained for 24 hours postdose. Noncompartmental analysis results indicated that the AUC of tegaserod was reduced by almost half under fed conditions compared to the fasted condition. Exploratory analyses were implemented to further investigate the absorption characteristics of tegaserod under different fed conditions. A numerical deconvolution approach was used to obtain the tegaserod oral absorption versus time profiles under both fasted and fed conditions. The tegaserod oral absorption versus time profiles were then fitted by NONMEM to a model containing two absorption phases. Based on the absorption analyses, we found that the reduction in the bioavailability of tegaserod under fed conditions was primarily due to a decrease in the extent of absorption and less so to a decrease in the absorption rate(s). Therefore, although the timing of administration of food does not appear to significantly alter the pharmacokinetics of tegaserod, the administration of food reduces the AUC by approximately 50%.

The effect of multiple doses of indinavir on the pharmacokinetics of a single dose of theophylline was investigated in 16 healthy male subjects using a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study design. On days 1 and 7, all of the subjects received a single oral 250 mg dose of theophylline. From days 2 to 7, the subjects received orally administered 800 mg doses ofindinavir or a matched placebo every 8 hours. On day 7, theophylline and indinavir (or a placebo) were coadministered. The geometric mean AUC (0-24 h) of theophylline increased 18% when coadministered with indinavir compared to when theophylline was administered alone. This small increase in AUC (0.24 h) , although considered statistically significant, did not meet the prespecified criterion for clinical significance. The geometric mean C max of theophylline, when coadministered with indinavir, was within 8% of theophylline when administered alone. The mean t max (± SD) value for theophylline, when coadministered with indinavir (0.9 ± 0.5 h), was comparable to that observed for theophylline alone (1.0 ± 0.5 h). In conclusion, the administration of multiple doses of indinavir followed by a single dose of theophylline did not appear to result in a clinically significant pharmacokinetic interaction for theophylline.