Ketoconazole increases fingolimod blood levels in a drug interaction via CYP4F2 inhibition.

The sphingosine-1-phosphate receptor modulator fingolimod is predominantly hydroxylated by cytochrome CYP4F2. In vitro experiments showed that ketoconazole significantly inhibited the oxidative metabolism of fingolimod by human liver microsomes and by recombinant CYP4F2. The authors used ketoconazole as a putative CYP4F2 inhibitor to quantify its influence on fingolimod pharmacokinetics in healthy subjects. In a 2-period, single-sequence, crossover study, 22 healthy subjects received a single 5-mg dose of fingolimod in period 1. In period 2, subjects received ketoconazole 200 mg twice daily for 9 days and a single 5-mg dose of fingolimod coadministered on the 4th day of ketoconazole treatment. Ketoconazole did not affect fingolimod t(max) or half-life, but there was a weak average increase in C(max) of 1.22-fold (90% confidence interval, 1.15-1.30). The AUC over the 5 days of ketoconazole coadministration increased 1.40-fold (1.31-1.50), and the full AUC to infinity increased 1.71-fold (1.53-1.91). The AUC of the active metabolite fingolimod-phosphate was increased to a similar extent by 1.67-fold (1.50-1.85). Ketoconazole predose plasma levels were not altered by fingolimod. The magnitude of this interaction suggests that a proactive dose reduction of fingolimod is not necessary when adding ketoconazole to a fingolimod regimen. The clinician, however, should be aware of this interaction and bear in mind the possibility of a fingolimod dose reduction based on clinical monitoring.

Steady-state pharmacokinetics of rivastigmine in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease not affected by co-administration of memantine: an open-label, crossover, single-centre study.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: It has been shown that combining memantine and a cholinesterase inhibitor, which each affect different neurotransmitter systems, may offer further improvements in efficacy over either treatment alone in patients with Alzheimer's disease. The present study was conducted to determine if memantine has any effects on the steady-state pharmacokinetics of rivastigmine in patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease. METHODS: Rivastigmine-treated Alzheimer's disease patients who had been maintained on a fixed regimen of twice-daily rivastigmine for >or=2 months were eligible to enter the study. Sixteen patients (seven males and nine females, age range 64-88 years, weight range 51.8-104 kg) were enrolled in this open-label, crossover study, which consisted of a 28-day screening period, a 36-hour baseline period, and a 35-day combination treatment phase. The patients spent the baseline period and day 35 at the study centre, where plasma samples for pharmacokinetic evaluation were taken at specified time intervals over a 10-hour time period. In addition, 10-hour (evening pre-dose) memantine plasma samples were taken on days 21, 34 and 35. RESULTS: The combination of memantine (10 mg twice daily) with rivastigmine (1.5-6 mg twice daily) was safe and well tolerated. At each dose level of rivastigmine, the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) values of rivastigmine and its metabolite as well as the metabolite-to-parent AUC ratios were unaffected by co-administration of memantine, confirming the absence of a meaningful pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction. CONCLUSION: Under the study conditions, the extent of systemic exposure to rivastigmine and its metabolite NAP226-90 at steady state did not appear to be affected by concomitant administration of memantine.

Vildagliptin, a novel dipeptidyl peptidase IV inhibitor, has no pharmacokinetic interactions with the antihypertensive agents amlodipine, valsartan, and ramipril in healthy subjects.

We conducted 3 open-label, multiple-dose, 3-period, randomized, crossover studies in healthy subjects to assess the potential pharmacokinetic interaction between vildagliptin, a novel dipeptidyl peptidase IV inhibitor for the treatment of type 2 diabetes, and representatives of 3 commonly prescribed antihypertensive drug classes: (1) the calcium channel blocker, amlodipine; (2) the angiotensin receptor blocker, valsartan; and (3) the angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor, ramipril. Coadministration of vildagliptin 100 mg with amlodipine 5 mg, valsartan 320 mg, or ramipril 5 mg had no clinically significant effect on the pharmacokinetics of these drugs. The 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratios for area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to 24 hours (AUC0-24h) and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) for vildagliptin, amlodipine, and ramipril (and its active metabolite, ramiprilat) were contained within the acceptance range for bioequivalence (0.80-1.25). Valsartan AUC0-24h and Cmax increased by 24% and 14%, respectively, following coadministration of vildagliptin, but this was not considered clinically significant. Vildagliptin was generally well tolerated when given alone or in combination with amlodipine, valsartan, or ramipril in healthy subjects at steady state. No adjustment in dosage based on pharmacokinetic considerations is required should vildagliptin be coadministered with amlodipine, valsartan, or ramipril in patients with type 2 diabetes and hypertension.

Evaluation of a pharmacokinetic interaction between valsartan and simvastatin in healthy subjects.

OBJECTIVE: The potential for a pharmacokinetic drug interaction between valsartan, an antihypertensive drug, and simvastatin, a lipid-lowering agent, was investigated in this study. This was an open-label, multiple-dose, randomized, three-period, cross over study in 18 healthy subjects. Each subject received one 160 mg valsartan tablet or one 40 mg simvastatin tablet or co-administration of valsartan (160 mg) and simvastatin (40 mg) tablets for 7 days, with a 7-day inter-dose washout period. The steady-state pharmacokinetics of valsartan, simvastatin beta-hydroxy acid (active metabolite of simvastatin) and simvastatin (pro-drug) were determined on day 7 of each dosing period. RESULTS: The results were interpreted based on the point estimates and the 90% confidence intervals. These results indicated that the area under the curve of plasma concentration from 0 to 24 hours (AUC(0-24)) of valsartan, simvastatin beta-hydroxy acid and simvastatin was increased by 14%, 19%, and 23%, respectively, with the combination treatment. In addition, the maximum concentration (C(max)) of valsartan and simvastatin beta-hydroxy acid was increased by 10% and 22%, respectively, and the C(max) of simvastatin was decreased by 26% with the combination treatment. All treatments were safe and well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the wide therapeutic dosage ranges of valsartan and simvastatin, and the highly variable pharmacokinetics of three analytes, the observed differences in the exposure and C(max) of valsartan, simvastatin beta-hydroxy acid and simvastatin in the combination treatment are unlikely to be of clinical relevance.

Dose-proportional pharmacokinetics of d-threo-methylphenidate after a repeated-action release dosage form.

A bimodal extended-release formulation of d-methylphenidate (d-MPH) has been developed to enable fast onset of action and once-daily administration in patients with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. The authors studied the dose proportionality of extended-release d-MPH pharmacokinetics. Twenty-five healthy adult volunteers received 5, 10, 20, 30, and 40 mg d-MPH in a crossover study with 7 days between doses. All doses were well tolerated. Dose proportionality was shown for all dose-dependent pharmacokinetic parameters. Geometric means (%gCV) for the first Cmax peak, Cmax0-4, were 3.25 (29.0%), 6.05 (27.1%), 12.6 (31.9%), 18.5 (31.9%), and 25.2 ng/mL (29.3%) for d-MPH 5, 10, 20, 30, and 40 mg, respectively. Geometric means (%gCV) for Cmax4-10 were 3.18 (27.5%), 5.84 (27.7%), 12.5 (31.7%), 17.7 (31.6%), and 23.6 ng/mL (29.0%), respectively. Geometric means for AUC(0-infinity) were 24.3 (30.7%), 45.9 (30.2%), 96.4 (35.5%), 144 (33.3%), and 195 ng x h/mL (30.9%), respectively. The pharmacokinetics of once-daily extended-release d-MPH are proportional to the dose.

The presence of drug in control samples during toxicokinetic investigations--a Novartis perspective.

During a submission procedure, the validity of a few dietary toxicity studies was questioned because low levels of the drug were detected among control toxicokinetic samples. Although several lines of reasoning suggested that these findings arose from ex vivo contamination, the Regulatory Authority stated that it was not possible to establish a no-effect-level in any of the studies and so the submission was withdrawn. In response, Novartis conducted a thorough review and modification of the procedures involved in the collection and analysis of toxicokinetic samples to minimize such contamination in future studies. Ongoing monitoring of contamination in toxicology studies has subsequently revealed that although it was not possible to completely eliminate the problem, the new procedures together with an increasing awareness of the issue have considerably reduced the incidence of contamination. The process of contamination and its control was also modeled in a feeding study in mice. This provided good evidence that the detection of drug in control samples in the previous studies originated from external sources and not from in vivo exposure.

Estimation of the absolute bioavailability of rivastigmine in patients with mild to moderate dementia of the Alzheimer's type.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the bioavailability of rivastigmine, an approved therapy for patients with mild to moderate dementia of the Alzheimer's type, at the highest approved single dose of 6 mg. DESIGN AND SETTING: Randomised, two-period crossover, single-centre, non-blinded, inpatient study. PATIENTS AND PARTICIPANTS: Eleven patients (five females and six males) with mean age 69.5 years. METHODS: The 6 mg oral dose was compared with a 2 mg intravenous dose of rivastigmine infused over a 1-hour period. Plasma concentrations of rivastigmine and its metabolite NAP 226-90 were measured with a gas chromatographic/mass spectrometric method. RESULTS: Following oral administration of a single 6 mg capsule, rivastigmine is rapidly absorbed with an average time to peak plasma concentration of about 1 hour and an average peak concentration of about 25.6 g/L. By a noncompartmental approach, the absolute bioavailability of the 6 mg oral dose of rivastigmine was 71.7% when compared with a 2mg intravenous infusion normalised for dose. By using a population pharmacokinetic model with Michaelis-Menten elimination, absolute bioavailability was estimated at 60.2%. The average terminal elimination half-life of rivastigmine ranged from 1.4 to 1.7 hours for both treatments. Plasma concentrations of the major metabolite, NAP 226-90, formed by the hydrolysis of rivastigmine by cholinesterase are lower than those of the parent compound following oral and intravenous administration. CONCLUSION: A noncompartmental approach and a compartmental approach based on a population pharmacokinetic model with Michaelis-Menten elimination yielded comparable values, 71.7% and 60.2% respectively, for the absolute bioavailability of a single 6 mg oral dose of rivastigmine. Comparison with previous studies confirmed that the oral form of the drug exhibits increased bioavailability with increasing dose, consistent with its nonlinear pharmacokinetics..