RESUMO
Background: Ivacaftor is a modern drug used in the treatment of cystic fibrosis. It is highly lipophilic and exhibits a strong positive food effect. These characteristics can be potentially connected to a pronounced lymphatic transport after oral administration. Methods: A series of studies was conducted to describe the basic pharmacokinetic parameters of ivacaftor in jugular vein cannulated rats when dosed in two distinct formulations: an aqueous suspension and an oil solution. Additionally, an anesthetized mesenteric lymph duct cannulated rat model was studied to precisely assess the extent of lymphatic transport. Results: Mean ± SD ivacaftor oral bioavailability was 18.4 ± 3.2% and 16.2 ± 7.8%, respectively, when administered as an aqueous suspension and an oil solution. The relative contribution of the lymphatic transport to the overall bioavailability was 5.91 ± 1.61% and 4.35 ± 1.84%, respectively. Conclusion: Lymphatic transport plays only a minor role in the process of ivacaftor intestinal absorption, and other factors are, therefore, responsible for its pronounced positive food effect.
RESUMO
Background: Amikacin monotherapy is recommended for urinary tract infection (UTI) treatment with multi-resistant pathogens. Even though amikacin efficacy in the treatment of UTIs is dependent on its urinary concentration, there are no robust data proving that sufficiently high urinary concentration is reached in patients with reduced glomerular filtration rate (GFR). Methods: A prospective study to monitor amikacin penetration into urine of 70 patients [40 males, median (interquartile range) age 70 (65-79) years] with different levels of glomerular filtration decline, including patients treated by dialysis, was conducted. The bactericidal efficacy of amikacin in urine samples has been evaluated. Results: Patients with estimated GFR (eGFR) <30 mL/min had significantly lower median amikacin urinary concentration than patients with eGFR >30 mL/min (89.75 vs 186.0 mg/L, P < .0001; 200.5 vs 830.0 mg/L, P < .0001; and 126.0 vs 408.0 mg/L, P < .0001 for minimal, maximal and minimal together with maximal concentrations, respectively). The amount of amikacin eliminated in the first 10-13 h after dose administration was dependent on eGFR (r2 = 0.6144, P < .0001). The urinary concentration of amikacin in patients treated by dialysis was indirectly proportional to pH of urine. The plasma concentrations of amikacin did not correlate with urinary levels in patients in either of the GFR categories. Microbiological evaluation showed that the critical urinary concentration for efficacy of amikacin during UTI monotherapy in patients treated by dialysis is 100 mg/L. We found that 4 out of 11 patients treated by dialysis did not reach this level during the treatment. Conclusion: Systemic administration of amikacin monotherapy in patients treated by dialysis is questionable as the concentrations of amikacin in their urine are often below the threshold of effectivity. Amikacin plasma concentrations are not a major determinant of amikacin concentration in urine, therefore pulse dosing is neither necessary nor safe in patients treated by dialysis, and may cause undesirable toxicity.