Plasma Trough Concentrations of Antihypertensive Drugs for the Assessment of Treatment Adherence: A Meta-Analysis.

Biochemical drug screening by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry in plasma is an accurate method for the quantification of plasma concentrations of antihypertensive medications in patients with hypertension. Trough concentrations could possibly be used as drug-specific cutoff values in the biochemical assessment of (non-)adherence. We performed a literature review and meta-analysis of pharmacokinetic studies to determine plasma trough concentrations of amlodipine, hydrochlorothiazide, and valsartan. PubMed was searched for pharmacokinetic studies up to September 2020. Eligible studies reported steady-state mean trough concentration and their variance. Pooled trough concentrations were estimated using a three-level random effects meta-analytic model. Moderator analyses were performed to explore sources of heterogeneity. One thousand three hundred eighteen potentially relevant articles were identified of which 45 were eligible for inclusion. The pooled mean trough concentration was 9.2 ng/mL (95% CI, 7.5-10.8) for amlodipine, 41.0 ng/mL (95% CI, 17.4-64.7) for hydrochlorothiazide, and 352.9 ng/mL (95% CI, 243.5-462.3) for valsartan. Substantial heterogeneity was present for all 3 pooled estimates. Moderator analyses identified dosage as a significant moderator for the pooled trough concentration of amlodipine (ß1=0.9; P<0.05), mean age, and mean body weight for the mean trough concentration of hydrochlorothiazide (ß1=2.2, P<0.05, respectively, ß1=-4.0, P<0.05) and no significant moderators for valsartan. Plasma trough concentrations of amlodipine, hydrochlorothiazide, and valsartan, measured with liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry, are highly heterogeneous over the different studies. Use of the pooled trough concentration as a cutoff in the biochemical assessment of adherence can result in inaccurate diagnosis of (non-)adherence, which may seriously harm the patient-physician relationship, and is therefore not recommended.

Quantification of Hydrochlorothiazide and Ramipril/Ramiprilate in Blood Serum and Cerebrospinal Fluid: A Pharmacokinetic Assessment of Central Nervous System Adverse Effects.

BACKGROUND: A drug must reach the central nervous system (CNS) in order to directly cause CNS adverse effects (AEs). Our current study addressed the pharmacokinetic (PK) background of the assumption that CNS concentrations of hydrochlorothiazide (HCT) and ramiprilate may directly cause CNS AEs such as headache and drowsiness. METHODS: In neurological patients, paired serum and cerebrospinal fluid (CSF) samples were withdrawn simultaneously. Some of them were treated with HCT (n = 15, daily chronic doses 7.5-25 mg) or ramipril (n = 9, 2.5-10 mg). Total concentrations of HCT and ramiprilate were quantified in these samples. To this end, sensitive liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry methods were developed. RESULTS: CSF reached 4.1% (interquartile ranges 2.5-5%) of total serum concentrations for HCT and 2.3% (1.7-5.7%) for ramiprilate, corresponding to about 11.3% and 5.5% of respective unbound serum concentrations. CONCLUSION: The PK/Pharmacodynamic characteristics of HCT and ramiprilate in the CNS are unknown. However, since the CSF levels of these agents, both free and bound, were much lower than the corresponding concentrations in serum, it is unlikely that the observed CNS AEs are mediated primarily via direct effects in the brain.

Pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction assessment between LCZ696, an angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor, and hydrochlorothiazide, amlodipine, or carvedilol.

LCZ696 is a first-in-class angiotensin receptor neprilysin inhibitor in development for treatments of hypertension and heart failure indications. In 3 separate studies, pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions (DDIs) potential was assessed when LCZ696 was coadministered with hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), amlodipine, or carvedilol. The studies used a open-label, single-sequence, 3-period, crossover design in healthy subjects. Blood samples were collected to determine the pharmacokinetic parameters of LCZ696 analytes (AHU377, LBQ657, and valsartan), HCTZ, amlodipine, or carvedilol (R[+]- and S[-]-carvedilol) for statistical analysis. When coadministered LCZ696 with HCTZ, the 90% CIs of the geometric mean ratios of AUCtau,ss of HCTZ and that of LBQ657 were within a 0.80-1.25 interval, whereas HCTZ Cmax,ss decreased by 26%, LBQ657 Cmax,ss increased by 19%, and the AUCtau,ss and Cmax,ss of valsartan increased by 14% and 16%, respectively. Pharmacokinetics of amlodipine, R(+)- and S(-)-carvedilol, or LBQ657 were not altered after coadministration of LCZ696 with amlodipine or carvedilol. Coadministration of LCZ696 400 mg once daily (qd) with HCTZ 25 mg qd, amlodipine 10 mg qd, or carvedilol 25 mg twice a day (bid) had no clinically relevant pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions. LCZ696, HCTZ, amlodipine, and carvedilol were safe and well tolerated when given alone or concomitantly in the investigated studies.

Assessment of the drug-drug interactions between fimasartan and hydrochlorothiazide in healthy volunteers.

AIM: Fimasartan is a selective angiotensin II receptor blocker. Hydrochlorothiazide (HCTZ), which is used to treat hypertension and edematous conditions, is coadministered with many antihypertensive agents. METHODS: An open-label, randomized, multiple-dosing, 2-arm, 1-sequence, 2-period study was conducted to assess the effects of fimasartan (240 mg) on HCTZ (25 mg) or vice versa in 18 and 14 healthy male volunteers, respectively. During each drug administration period, drugs were given once daily for 7 days, with a 7-day washout period between the 2 administration periods. RESULTS: The respective geometric mean ratios of fimasartan for AUC τ,ss and C max,ss with HCTZ were 1.30 [90% confidence interval (CI), 0.84-2.01] and 1.17 (90% CI, 0.93-1.47) compared with fimasartan alone. The respective geometric mean ratios of HCTZ for AUC τ,ss and C max,ss with fimasartan were 0.94 (90% CI, 0.84-1.04) and 0.88 (90% CI, 0.80-0.97) compared with HCTZ alone. Plasma renin activity indicated no significant differences between fimasartan monotherapy and coadministered treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Fimasartan administered alone or in combination with HCTZ was well tolerated at the described dosages. Coadministration of fimasartan increased the urinary excretion of HCTZ and urine volume, but these observations are unlikely to have any clinical relevance.

Bioequivalence evaluation of a triamterene-hydrochlorothiazide generic product: a new bioequivalence index for fixed-dose combinations.

In this study, an open, double-blind, randomized, two-period, two-group crossover design was conducted in 14 healthy volunteers to study the bioequivalence of a fixed-dose generic product. After administration of test or reference products to each volunteer, both active ingredients were determined simultaneously in plasma samples using a developed and validated HPLC-UV method, and pharmacokinetic parameters, including C(max), T(max), AUC(0-t) , AUC(0∞), terminal elimination rate constant (λz), volume of distribution in steady state (Vd(ss)), mean residence time (MRT), clearance (Cl), terminal elimination rate constant (Kel) were determined in each subject using the standard non-compartmental approach. Statistical comparison showed that the test and reference products were bioequivalent in terms of both the rate and extent of bioavailability of both active ingredients. Finally, a new parameter named range overlap index (ROI) was introduced for the first time in this study in order to judge about the overall bioequivalence of the combination products. This parameter indicates the extent in which the two CI90% ranges of each parameter for two active ingredients overlap with each other. The ROI is suggested to be equal or more than 50% for two combination products in order to be known as bioequivalent. The ROI values of the bioequivalence-indicating parameters were 61.90%, 84.6%, and 76.0% for C(max), AUC(0--->12), and AUC(0--->∞), respectively, which are indicative for bioequivalence in all the cases.