First acute haemodynamic study of soluble guanylate cyclase stimulator riociguat in pulmonary hypertension.

Pulmonary hypertension (PH) is associated with impaired production of the vasodilator nitric oxide (NO). Riociguat (BAY 63-2521; Bayer Healthcare AG, Wuppertal, Germany) acts directly on soluble guanylate cyclase, stimulating the enzyme and increasing sensitivity to low NO levels. The present study evaluates riociguat safety, tolerability and efficacy in patients with moderate-to-severe PH (pulmonary arterial hypertension, distal chronic thromboembolic PH or PH with mild to moderate interstitial lung disease). The optimal tolerated dose was identified by incremental dosing in four patients with PH; pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic parameters were assessed following single-dose administration (2.5 mg or 1 mg) in 10 and five patients with PH, respectively. All subjects (n = 19) were analysed for safety and tolerability. Riociguat had a favourable safety profile at single doses < or =2.5 mg. It significantly improved pulmonary haemodynamic parameters and cardiac index in patients with PH in a dose-dependent manner, to a greater extent than inhaled NO. Although riociguat also had significant systemic effects and showed no pulmonary selectivity, mean systolic blood pressure remained >110 mmHg. The present report is the first to describe the use of riociguat in patients with pulmonary hypertension. The drug was well-tolerated and superior to nitric oxide in efficacy and duration. Riociguat, therefore, has potential as a novel therapy for pulmonary hypertension and warrants further investigation.

Increase in cerivastatin systemic exposure after single and multiple dosing in cyclosporine-treated kidney transplant recipients.

OBJECTIVE: The mutual drug-drug interaction potential of the 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitor cerivastatin and cyclosporine (INN, ciclosporin) in kidney transplant recipients receiving individual immunosuppressive treatment was evaluated with respect to pharmacokinetic behavior of either drug and tolerability of concomitant use. METHODS: Plasma and urine concentrations of cerivastatin and its major metabolites were determined after administration of 0.2 mg single-dose cerivastatin to 12 kidney transplant recipients (9 men and 3 women) who were receiving stable individual cyclosporine treatment (mainly 200 mg twice a day). These results were compared with the single-dose pharmacokinetic results obtained from a healthy control group (n = 12, age-comparable men). Cerivastatin steady-state pharmacokinetics were evaluated in the same patients during continued immunosuppressive treatment 4 to 6 weeks later, after a 7-day treatment of 0.2 mg cerivastatin once a day. Cyclosporine steady-state concentration-time profiles were determined in blood with monoclonal (EMIT [enzyme multiplied immunoassay technique] assay, parent drug specific) and polyclonal antibodies (FPIA [fluorescence polarization immunoassay] assay, cyclosporine plus metabolites) during cerivastatin cotreatment and compared with predosing data. RESULTS: Coadministration of 0.2 mg cerivastatin once a day to the kidney transplant recipients treated with individual doses of cyclosporine and other immunosuppressive agents resulted in a 3- to 5-fold increase in cerivastatin and metabolites plasma concentrations. Cerivastatin and metabolites elimination half-lives were unaffected, and no accumulation occurred during multiple-dosing conditions. Cerivastatin had no influence on steady-state blood concentrations of cyclosporine or cyclosporine metabolites in these patients. The concomitant use of both drugs was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Cerivastatin and metabolites plasma concentrations were significantly increased in kidney transplant recipients treated with cyclosporine and other immunosuppressive agents. Displacement from the main site for cerivastatin distribution-the liver-by cyclosporine-inhibited liver transport processes may explain the decrease in both metabolic clearance and volume of distribution for cerivastatin and metabolites.

Clinical pharmacokinetics of cerivastatin.

Cerivastatin sodium, a novel statin, is a synthetic, enantiomerically pure, pyridine derivative that effectively reduces serum cholesterol levels at microgram doses. Cerivastatin is readily and completely absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract, with plasma concentrations reaching a peak 2 to 3 hours postadministration followed by a monoexponential decay with an elimination half-life (t1/2beta) of 2 to 3 hours. Cerivastatin pharmacokinetics are linear: maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) and area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) are proportional to the dose over the range of 0.05 to 0.8 mg. No accumulation is observed on repeated administration. Cerivastatin interindividual variability is described by coefficients of variation of approximately 30 to 40% for its primary pharmacokinetic parameters AUC, Cmax and t1/2beta. The mean absolute oral bioavailability of cerivastatin is 60% because of presystemic first-pass effects. Its pharmacokinetics are not influenced by concomitant administration of food nor by the time of day at which the dose is given. Age, gender, ethnicity and concurrent disease also have no clinically significant effects. Cerivastatin is highly bound to plasma proteins (>99%). The volume of distribution at steady state of about 0.3 L/kg indicates that the drug penetrates only moderately into tissue; conversely, preclinical studies have shown a high affinity for liver tissue, the target site of action. Cerivastatin is exclusively cleared via metabolism. No unchanged drug is excreted. Cerivastatin is subject to 2 main oxidative biotransformation reactions: demethylation of the benzylic methyl ether moiety leading to the metabolite M-1 [catalysed by cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2C8 and CYP3A4] and stereoselective hydroxylation of one methyl group of the 6-isopropyl substituent leading to the metabolite M-23 (catalysed by CYP2C8). The product of the combined biotransformation reactions is a secondary minor metabolite, M-24, not detectable in plasma. All 3 metabolites are active inhibitors of hydroxymethylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase with a similar potency to the parent drug. Approximately 70% of the administered dose is excreted as metabolites in the faeces, and 30% in the urine. Metabolism by 2 distinct CYP isoforms renders cerivastatin relatively resistant to interactions arising from inhibition of CYP. If one of the pathways is blocked, cerivastatin can be effectively metabolised by the alternative route. In addition, on the basis of in vitro investigations, there is no evidence for either cerivastatin or its metabolites having any inducing or inhibitory activity on CYP. The apparent lack of any clinically relevant interactions with a variety of drugs commonly used by patients in the target population supports this favourable drug-drug interaction profile.

Rational assessment of the interaction profile of cerivastatin supports its low propensity for drug interactions.

Pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions influence drug efficacy, tolerability, and compliance. Such interactions are both more common and of more clinical relevance than often appreciated. The US Food and Drug Administration and the European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products have recently issued guidelines setting out in vitro and in vivo investigations to be conducted during drug development. These guidelines reflect the increasing interest of public health authorities in this topic. Cerivastatin is a novel, potent HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor that effectively reduces serum cholesterol levels at low daily doses. It is completely absorbed after oral administration, undergoes moderate first-pass metabolism and high plasma protein binding, and is cleared exclusively via hepatic cytochrome P450 (CYP). Unlike other drugs of its class, cerivastatin has a dual metabolic pathway, with the involvement of more than one CYP isozyme. Metabolites are cleared via both biliary and renal excretion. On the basis of this pharmacokinetic profile and a knowledge of the target population, the formal in vivo interaction programme for cerivastatin investigated many important potential cerivastatin drug-drug interactions. Cerivastatin appears to lack clinically relevant interactions with digoxin, warfarin, antacid, cimetidine, nifedipine, omeprazole, erythromycin and itraconazole.

Clinical-pharmacological strategies to assess drug interaction potential during drug development.

Drug interactions in patients receiving multiple drug regimens are a constant concern for the clinician. With the increased availability of new drugs and their concomitant use with other drugs, there has been a rise in the potential for adverse drug interactions as demonstrated by the recent withdrawals of newly marketed drugs because of unacceptable interaction profiles. Therefore, the interaction potential of a new compound has to be assessed in detail, starting with preclinical in vitro and in vivo studies at candidate selection and continuously followed up through preclinical and clinical development. Since formal in vivo studies of all possible drug interactions are neither practicable nor suggestive, a careful selection of a limited number of drug combinations to be investigated in vivo during the development phase is indicated. Based on knowledge of pharmacokinetic and biopharmaceutical properties, a well balanced link between in vitro investigations and carefully selected in vivo interaction studies allows full assessment of the potential of a new drug to cause clinically relevant pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions, prediction of a lack of interactions and derivation of the proper dose recommendations. Clinical pharmacology plays a number of key roles within the process of collecting information on drug interactions during preclinical and clinical development: addressing issues and/or favourable properties to be expected, thus contributing to the scientific assessment of development potential; setting up a rational in vivo drug-drug interaction programme; performing early mechanistic studies to link in vitro with in vivo information (employing 'cocktail' approaches if possible); reviewing co-medication sections for clinical trials; and conducting labelling-oriented interaction studies, after proof of concept. The fact that interactions can occur between various active substances should by itself be a conclusive argument against unnecessary polypharmacy. Prescribing fewer drugs on a rational basis can reduce the risk of adverse effects secondary to drug interactions and may help to improve the quality of drug treatment and to save costs.

Pharmacokinetics of cerivastatin in renal impairment are predicted by low serum albumin concentration rather than by low creatinine clearance.

The influence of renal impairment on the clearance of the new HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor cerivastatin was evaluated. A single oral dose of 300 microg cerivastatin was given to 18 patients with different degrees of renal impairment and 6 healthy controls. Concentrations of total cerivastatin, its fraction unbound, and the total concentrations of the active metabolites M1 and M23 were measured in plasma. Serum concentrations of unbound cerivastatin were calculated for each individual from the concentration of total cerivastatin and cerivastatin's fraction unbound at t = 2.5 hours. In contradiction to what had been expected, renal impairment significantly influenced the pharmacokinetics of cerivastatin. The best correlation to the AUC and Cmax of unbound cerivastatin was found with serum albumin concentration. Also, serum albumin concentration was the only factor significantly correlated to t 1/2 of cerivastatin. Significant but slighter correlation with the AUC and Cmax of unbound cerivastatin was also observed for creatinine clearance and cerivastatin's fraction unbound, while no correlation was observed with total plasma protein. No significant correlation of creatinine clearance, serum albumin concentration, fu, or total plasma protein concentration with the AUC and Cmax of total cerivastatin or the AUC, Cmax or t 1/2 of M1 and M23 was observed. The authors conclude that low serum albumin concentration rather than low creatinine clearance predicts the pharmacokinetics of cerivastatin in renal impairment.

Enantiospecific determination of nimodipine in human plasma by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry.

A direct enantiospecific HPLC assay using tandem mass spectrometric (MS-MS) detection via pneumatically-assisted electrospray has been developed for the determination of the calcium antagonist nimodipine in human plasma. By the addition of ammonium acetate (2 mM) to the purely organic eluent ethanol-n-heptane (20:80, v/v) charged species (M+NH4+) were producible by electrospray ionization at sufficient sensitivity. Routine determination of nimodipine enantiomers in human plasma in the working range of 0.5-75 microgram/l plasma for each isomer with an accuracy < or = +/- 10% and a precision of about 10% (20% close to the limit of quantification) was possible. This was comparable to the available LC-GC-MS assay, however, the time required for routine analysis of ca. 150 unknowns could be reduced from 4 weeks to 1 week.

Nimodipine. Potential for drug-drug interactions in the elderly.

Nimodipine is indicated for a variety of conditions in elderly patients. Elderly patients often have multiple morbidity and receive treatment with a variety of drugs. Therefore, it is important to investigate the possible pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions of nimodipine with various drugs commonly prescribed for elderly patients. There were no clinically relevant interactions of nimodipine with any of the following specific agents studied: the antiarrhythmics mexiletine, propafenone, disopyramide or quinidine, digoxin, the beta-adrenoceptor antagonists propranolol or atenolol, nifedipine, warfarin, diazepam, indomethacin, ranitidine or glibenclamide (glyburide). However, there were some notable interactions. In epileptic patients taking the anticonvulsants carbamazepine, phenobarbital (phenobarbitone) and/or phenytoin, there was a 7-fold decrease in the area under the plasma concentration versus time curve (AUC) and an 8- to 10-fold decrease in the maximum plasma concentration of nimodipine. These effects were to be expected, considering the hepatic enzyme-inducing properties of these anticonvulsant drugs. Therefore concomitant use of these agents with oral nimodipine is not recommended. In contrast, epileptic patients treated with nimodipine and valproic acid (sodium valproate) showed an increase in both the AUC (approximately 50%) and maximum plasma concentrations (approximately 30%) of nimodipine, which may be explained by valproic acid inhibiting the presystemic oxidative metabolism of nimodipine. Concomitant administration of cimetidine produced an approximate doubling of the bioavailability of nimodipine. This again was to be expected, considering the known inhibitory effect of cimetidine on cytochrome P450. However, no changes in haemodynamics, clinical or laboratory status or tolerability were observed, and dose adjustment did not appear to be clinically necessary.

Simultaneous assessment of the intravenous and oral disposition of the enantiomers of racemic nimodipine by chiral stationary-phase high-performance liquid chromatography and gas chromatography/mass spectroscopy combined with a stable isotope technique.

An enantioselective method of high specificity and sensitivity for the determination of the enantiomers of two racemic 1,4-dihydropyridine compounds after simultaneous oral (po) and intravenous (iv) administration is reported. The method is suitable for the simultaneous administration by two different routes of a racemic drug labeled with stable isotopes and unlabeled racemate. For workup, an internal racemic standard labeled with a different number of stable isotopes is added. After separation of the enantiomers by chiral stationary-phase high-performance liquid chromatography and subsequent analysis by gas chromatography/mass spectroscopy (GC/MS) with selected ion detection, the R and S enantiomer concentrations arising from i.v. and p.o. administration can be precisely measured because of their mass difference. This method has been applied to assess the disposition of the R and S enantiomers of nimodipine and nitrendipine after simultaneous i.v. and p.o. administration. The assay is highly specific and sensitive, with a limit of quantification per enantiomer of 0.1 ng/mL after extraction of 0.5 mL of human serum samples and monitoring the M- ions in the electron capture, negative ion chemical ionization mode. The calibration curve was linear in the range 0.1-100 ng/mL. Within- and between-day precision were satisfactory (coefficient of variation, < 10%). Enantiomeric excess in the range 0-100% could be accurately determined. Comparison of the enantioselective method with the achiral method (GC/MS only) gave good agreement.

The effect of omeprazole pre- and cotreatment on cerivastatin absorption and metabolism in man.

OBJECTIVE: Cerivastatin, a novel HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor, is exclusively cleared via cytochrome P450-mediated biotransformation and subsequent biliary and renal excretion of the metabolites. The presented study was performed to determine the influence of the gastric acid secretion inhibitor omeprazole on bioavailability and pharmacokinetics of cerivastatin. METHOD: In a controlled, randomized, non-blind two-way crossover study single oral doses of 0.3 mg cerivastatin were administered in 12 healthy male subjects under fasting conditions either alone or together with 20 mg omeprazole following a 4-day pretreatment with oral 20 mg omeprazole once daily. RESULTS: The mean AUC and Cmax ratios (combination treatment versus monotherapy) including 90% confidence intervals were 1.00 (0.92 - 1.09) and 0.94 (0.80 - 1.16) for cerivastatin. Similar results were obtained for the metabolites of cerivastatin and for omeprazole. CONCLUSION: No metabolic inhibitory interaction was noted for either cerivastatin or its major active metabolites, nor for omeprazole, respectively. In addition, the change in gastric pH as consequence of the inhibition of gastric acid secretion exerted by omeprazole had no influence on cerivastatin absorption.

The influence of age on the pharmacokinetics of nimodipine.

Single and multiple dose pharmacokinetics and absolute bioavailability of the calcium antagonist nimodipine (Nimotop) were investigated in 24 young (age: 22 - 40 years) and 24 elderly (age: 59 - 79 years) healthy subjects. There were no significant changes in blood pressure, heart rate, and ECG-parameters in both age groups, and no increase in frequency of adverse events was observed in the elderly. Following a single intravenous infusion of 15 micrograms/kg for 1 hour, there were no significant differences in nimodipine pharmacokinetics between young and elderly volunteers. Oral administration (single dose of 30 mg, 30 mg t.i.d. for 6 days), however, resulted in pronounced differences in AUC and Cmax between elderly and young subjects when the same doses were given. Under steady-state conditions the elderly reached significantly higher Cmax (g.mean/SD: 23.3/1.62 micrograms/l) and AUC-values (47.5/1.62 micrograms*h/l) than the young volunteers (13.5/2.03 micrograms/l, and 25.7/1.73 micrograms*h/l, respectively). The absolute bioavailability was 10.6/1.60% in the elderly and 5.4/2.11% in young subjects. The observed pharmacokinetic differences in the study most likely reflect the reduced metabolic clearance of nimodipine in the elderly.

No interethnic differences in stereoselective disposition of oral nimodipine between Caucasian and Japanese subjects.

Using stereospecific assays plasma samples of 4 clinical-pharmacological studies have been analyzed to obtain enantioselective data on the pharmacokinetics of the calcium channel blocker nimodipine in healthy young and elderly Caucasians as well as in healthy young Japanese subjects. Basic pharmacokinetics (AUC, C(max), t(max), t1/2) and dose-proportionality based on racemic nimodipine plasma concentrations after oral single doses of 30, 60, and 90 mg were comparable in Caucasian and Japanese subjects. Stereoselective disposition of nimodipine could be observed in all cases investigated, resulting in pronounced differences in AUC and C(max) values favoring the (R)-(+)-isomer in respect of higher oral bioavailability: After single doses of 60 mg nimodipine, for instance, (R)/(S)-ratios for AUC were ranging from 5.5 - 10.0 (g.mean/SD: 7.4/1.3) in young Caucasians, for C(max) from 4.4 - 7.7 (g.mean/SD: 5.9/1.3). Corresponding ranges of 4.7 - 5.5 (g.mean/SD: 5.0/1.1) and 4.5 - 6.5 (g.mean/SD: 5.0/1.2), respectively, were calculated for Japanese subjects. The mean (R)/(S)-ratios for AUC and C(max) of all 4 studies were quite comparable between the 2 ethnic groups. The available data suggest that there are neither any differences in racemic nimodipine pharmacokinetics in Caucasians and Japanese subjects nor interethnic differences in its stereoselective disposition after oral therapeutic doses.

Pharmacokinetics of cerivastatin when administered under fasted and fed conditions in the morning or evening.

OBJECTIVE: The influence of food and time of drug dosing on the pharmacokinetics of cerivastatin, a potent HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor, was evaluated in 24 healthy male subjects between 21 and 44 years of age. METHODS: A single-dose, four-way crossover design was employed, with each subject receiving cerivastatin 0.8 mg at weekly intervals under each of four conditions: 8 a.m. dosing after an overnight fast (reference), 8 a.m. dosing with a high-fat breakfast (test), 6 p.m. dosing with the evening meal (low-fat; test), and 10 p.m. dosing 4 h after dinner (reference). Plasma concentrations of the parent compound and its active metabolites were measured by high performance liquid chromatography with fluorescence detection subsequent to post-column derivatization. RESULTS: The calculated 90% confidence intervals for cerivastatin AUC and Cmax were completely contained within the range 0.8 to 1.25. Thus, no relevant influence of food could be detected, although the presence of food increased the Cmax of cerivastatin on average by 12% (90% confidence interval: 1.04 - 1.21) under morning, but not evening dosing. With respect to the effect of daytime on cerivastatin pharmacokinetics, AUCs were bioequivalent for all treatment conditions, with Cmax values slightly lower (8 - 19%) following evening dosing, irrespective of food intake. Cerivastatin was well tolerated by the subjects in the study. CONCLUSION: Food effect bioequivalence according to current guidelines could be demonstrated. Cerivastatin can be administered independent of meal intake at dinner or at bedtime, the preferred time of dosing for statins because the rate of hepatic cholesterol synthesis is greatest at night.

Influence of the antacid Maalox and the H2-antagonist cimetidine on the pharmacokinetics of cerivastatin.

The possible influence of Maalox 70, an antacid based on magnesium-aluminum hydroxide, and the H2-antagonist cimetidine, both commonly prescribed in hypercholesterolemic patients, on the pharmacokinetics of the new HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor cerivastatin was investigated in 2 separate studies in 8 healthy young male subjects each. Cerivastatin plasma concentration/time profiles were assessed by a specific HPLC assay; in addition, total immunoreactive drug (cerivastatin plus metabolites) was determined by RIA. Single oral doses of 200 micrograms cerivastatin were administered under fasting conditions without or with 10 ml Maalox 70 suspension. The mean AUC and Cmax ratios (combined dosing/monodosing) including 90% confidence intervals were 0.92 (0.73-1.15) and 0.89 (0.72-1.10) for the HPLC data, and 0.99 (0.85-1.14) and 1.03 (0.82-1.30) for the RIA data, respectively. Thus, no interaction of the simultaneous administration of Maalox 70 on the pharmacokinetics of cerivastatin was observed. In a similar controlled, randomized nonblind 2-way crossover design the influence of the H2- antagonist and well-known cytochrome P450 enzyme inhibitor cimetidine was investigated. Eight healthy young male volunteers received single oral doses of 200 micrograms cerivastatin alone or on the fourth day of a 4-day cimetidine 400 mg b.i.d. pretreatment. The mean AUC and Cmax ratios (combined dosing/monodosing) including 90% confidence intervals were 0.98 (0.90-1.08) and 0.91 (0.78-1.07) for the RIA data, and 0.89 (0.82-0.96) and 0.93 (0.80-1.09) for the HPLC data, respectively, clearly indicating that cimetidine and cerivastatin did not interact pharmacokinetically. These results do not only reflect the apparent insensitivity of cerivastatin absorption to possible changes in gastric pH, but demonstrate that the metabolic pathways of cerivastatin, involved in its first-pass metabolism and elimination, are rather insensitive to cytochrome P450 enzyme inhibition induced by cimetidine.

Chronic administration of nimodipine and propranolol in elderly normotensive subjects--an interaction study.

Nimodipine (30 mg t.i.d.) and propranolol (40 mg t.i.d.) were given orally to 24 healthy elderly subjects in a randomized, un-blinded, threefold crossover study. Each of the study periods lasted 8 days with a 5-day treatment phase separated by 2-week washout phases. Mean peak nimodipine plasma concentration was decreased after combined administration of the two drugs (16.1 +/- 8.1 micrograms/l vs. 12.4 +/- 9.5 micrograms/l). Nimodipine AUCss slightly decreased under propranolol co-medication from 44.9 +/- 15.1 micrograms x l/l to 38.8 +/- 22.5 micrograms x h/l, resulting in an AUC ratio of 88.8 +/- 44.5%. The relative bioavailability of propranolol was 104.1 +/- 38.3% after the combined propranolol and nimodipine medication, all other pharmacokinetic parameters remained unchanged. The pharmacological effects on the cardiovascular system were negligible after nimodipine alone. The reductions in blood pressure and pulse rate and the prolongations of typical ECG times observed after propranolol monotherapy and after the combination therapy were of similar size and were almost solely attributed to the action of the beta-blocker. The findings of this study indicate that chronic treatment with nimodipine together with propranolol should not be associated with a clinically relevant interaction.

The influence of nimodipine on hemodynamic parameters and peak and trough plasma concentrations of nifedipine chronically administered to elderly hypertensive patients.

Possible drug interactions between the two calcium channel blockers nimodipine and nifedipine were investigated in 12 elderly patients with stable mild to moderate hypertension. Their individually adjusted nifedipine treatment had been unchanged for at least 5 weeks. There was no evidence of significant changes in nifedipine efficacy as seen from blood pressure and heart rate after a 7-day comedication of 30 mg nimodipine t.i.d. as compared with the findings after combined administration of nifedipine and placebo. Nifedipine steady-state trough and peak concentrations were not significantly altered by concomitant nimodipine administration. On the other hand, nifedipine did not affect nimodipine trough and peak concentrations when compared with published data. Differences in clinical chemistry or tolerance between both treatment regimens did not occur or were marginal, respectively. In conclusion, a clinically relevant drug interaction between nifedipine and nimodipine which might be potentially harmful for patients with hypertension was not observed in this study.

The effect of multiple oral dosing of nimodipine on glibenclamide pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics in elderly patients with type-2 diabetes mellitus.

Possible interactions between the calcium channel blocker nimodipine and the hypoglycemic sulphonylurea glibenclamide were investigated in patients with type-2 diabetes mellitus. These 11 patients had taken their individually adjusted antidiabetic treatment unchanged for at least 3 months and showed a satisfactory stabilization on their disease. The concomitant administration of nimodipine 30 mg t.i.d. for 6 days did not change glibenclamide pharmacokinetics as compared with the findings after glibenclamide monotherapy. The normalized AUCss,norm were 11.6 (5.0) kg x h x 1(-1) at glibenclamide monotherapy and 12.3 (5.1) kg x h x 1(-1) after combined medication, resulting in an AUC-ratio for glibenclamide of 109 (23%). Mean elimination half-lives were determined as 2.7 (0.9) h after glibenclamide alone and 3.6 (1.9) h after nimodipine comedication. There was no evidence of significant alterations in glibenclamide efficiency as seen from glucose and insulin kinetics after the simultaneous administration of glibenclamide and nimodipine (insulin Cmax, 57.0 (30.8) mU/l after glibenclamide and 64.4 (32.1) mU/l after combined treatment). Nimodipine pharmacokinetics under nimodipine and glibenclamide steady-state conditions were similar to findings in literature: AUCss,norm 0.10 (0.04) microgram x h x 1(-1), Css,max 20.7 (8.3) microgram x 1(-1). Hemodynamics, clinical chemistry and tolerance did not differ during both treatments. Thus, a clinically relevant drug interaction between nimodipine 30 mg t.i.d. and glibenclamide during long-term treatment can be excluded.

Influence of cholestyramine on the pharmacokinetics of cerivastatin.

The possible influence of the bile acid sequestering agent cholestyramine, a basic comedication in hypercholesterolemic patients, on the pharmacokinetics of the new HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor cerivastatin was investigated. When both drugs were administered concomitantly in the morning under fasting conditions, a decrease in relative bioavailability by 21% could be observed, possibly due to irreversible adsorption of the statin to the resin. In addition, the delay in absorption led to a 41% decrease in cerivastatin mean maximum plasma concentration which also occurred at later time. A second study addressed in detail the question of time interval required between both treatments to minimize the influence of cholestyramine pretreatment on cerivastatin bioavailability: dosing of cerivastatin at dinner (6 p.m.) or bed time (10 p.m.) with cholestyramine pretreatment 1 hour before meal (5 p.m.) in both treatments. The decrease in mean AUC was now approximately 8-16% depending on the time of pretreatment (1-hour-interval: 16%, 5-hour-interval: 8%), and Cmax decreased by approximately 32%, irrespective of the time of pretreatment. Tmax was increased in both treatments, whereas t1/2 was not changed. The presented data support the conclusion that when administered concomitantly, the bioavailability of cerivastatin is moderately reduced by adsorption to cholestyramine. Following, however, the dosing instructions of both cholestyramine (1 hour before meal) and cerivastatin (once-daily in the evening at dinner or at bed time), i.e. administering both drugs several hours (at least 1 hour) apart, the observed effects on rate and extent of absorption of cerivastatin are unlikely to be of clinical relevance.

Absolute and relative bioavailability of the HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor cerivastatin.

To determine the absolute bioavailability of the HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor cerivastatin, 12 healthy young male volunteers received single doses of either 100 micrograms as a 1-minute bolus infusion or 200 micrograms orally as tablets in a controlled, randomized crossover study. In addition, 8 of the 12 subjects participated in a third treatment period in which 200 micrograms cerivastatin were administered as an oral solution as reference for determining the relative bioavailability of the tablet drug formulation. Plasma samples were analyzed for cerivastatin by a specific HPLC assay with fluorescence detection after post-column irradiation of the eluate, with a limit of quantification of 0.1 microgram/l. Following all treatments, cerivastatin was well tolerated and no clinically relevant adverse events or changes in laboratory parameters were observed. Vital signs and ECG remained unchanged. Plasma concentration/time profiles of cerivastatin following intravenous bolus could be described by a 2-compartment model with a distribution half-life of 3-5 min and an elimination half-life of 1.5-2.4 h. For the 2 oral administrations a 1-compartmental pharmacokinetic model with a first-order absorption process was best to describe the plasma concentration/time data. Based on the AUCnorm values of the 7 subjects, valid for complete pharmacokinetic evaluation, the absolute bioavailability of tablet and oral solution was 60.0 and 59.6% (90% confidence intervals 53-68%), respectively. The relative bioavailability of tablet compared with solution was 100.7% (90% confidence interval 89-114%), with tablet and oral solution showing nearly identical in vivo absorption characteristics and almost superimposable plasma concentration/time curves. The tablet formulation, therefore, can be regarded as an optimal oral formulation with respect to galenic aspects.

Pharmacokinetic variability of nimodipine disposition after single and multiple oral dosing to hypertensive renal failure patients: parametric and nonparametric population analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To explore the contribution of renal failure to nimodipine overall pharmacokinetic variability after single and multiple oral dosing and to develop a population pharmacokinetic model by means of the nonparametric expectation maximization (NPEM2) algorithm based on sampled individual drug concentrations close to the estimated patients' C(SS)avs (NPEM2-C(SS)av). PATIENTS, MATERIALS AND METHODS: 24 hypertensive patients with normal and reduced renal function, without clinical and laboratory data for hepatic dysfunction, were enrolled in the study and their nimodipine plasma levels were analyzed by means of a parametric and nonparametric population pharmacokinetic modeling using a maximum a posteriori Bayesian (MAPB) estimator in an iterative two-stage Bayesian population modeling program and NPEM2-algorithm. RESULTS: Comparison of parameter dispersion revealed higher variability of nimodipine disposition after the first dose than at steady-state except for apparent volume of distribution at steady-state, V(SS)/F, whose variability increased from 98% to 223%. The most variable was mean residence time, MRT, whose coefficient of variation (CV) was 288% after the first dose and decreased by more than 2 times at steady-state, followed by terminal elimination half-life, t(1/2el), with CV = 171% after the first dosing and decreasing by more than 3 times at steady-state. Concerning the impact of renal failure on disposition parameters variability, patients with slightly to moderately reduced renal function, creatinine clearances between 51 to 80 and 25 to 50 ml/min, resp., stated higher variation than patients with more definitively altered renal function. The validation of NPEM2-C(SS)av population model was performed by using a set of 272 individual plasma drug concentrations, including trough levels as well as concentrations belonging to mono-exponential elimination phases after single and multiple dosing. Bayesian forecasting, using 4 trough levels per patient as Bayesian priors, revealed highly significant correlation between observed and population model predicted drug concentrations (r = 0.526, p < 0.0001). The predictive performance of NPEM2-C(SS)av population model was characterized by low bias (mean error = -0.48 microg/l, 95% CI = -0.99-0.04 microg/l), and good precision (root mean squared error = 4.32 microg/l, 95% CI = -2.53-11.17 microg/l). CONCLUSIONS: As predicted for high hepatic clearance drugs [Rowland 1985], nimodipine parameters variability decreased after reaching steady-state. NPEM2-C(SS)av population model demonstrated high accuracy and precision in predicting drug levels from terminal exponential phase including trough levels at steady-state.