Pharmacokinetics and Bioequivalence Evaluation of 2 Olmesartan Medoxomil and Amlodipine Besylate Fixed-Dose Combination Tablets in Healthy Chinese Volunteers Under Fasting and Fed Conditions.

Combined antihypertensive drugs have become the basic method of treating hypertension. Olmesartan and amlodipine, as representative drugs of angiotensin receptor blockers and calcium channel blockers, were developed as a compound formulation for antihypertensive treatment. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the bioequivalence of olmesartan medoxomil/amlodipine besylate tablet (20 mg/5 mg) under fasting and fed conditions in healthy Chinese volunteers. A phase 1 randomized, open-label, 2-period, single-dose crossover study (n = 56) was designed, with subjects under fasting (n = 28) or fed (n = 28) conditions. Of the 56 enrolled participants, 55 healthy volunteers completed the study. Blood samples for pharmacokinetic analysis were collected from 1.5 hours before dosing to 168 hours after dosing. The 90%CIs for the geometric mean ratios of maximum plasma drug concentration, area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) from time 0 to the last measurable concentration and AUC from time 0 to infinity of the test/reference were all within the acceptance range for bioequivalence (80%-125%). The data showed that the absorption of amlodipine is not affected by food, but the exposure of olmesartan (both AUC from time 0 to the last measurable concentration and AUC from time 0 to infinity were P < .05) reduced significantly after consuming a high-fat meal, which indicates that the effects of food on olmesartan exposure in healthy Chinese were clinically relevant. During the study, there were no suspected serious adverse reactions or serious adverse events. All adverse events were determined to be mild after Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events 5.0 evaluation. These results indicated that both the test and reference formulations were bioequivalent with similar safety profiles.

Herb-drug interaction: pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of anti-hypertensive drug amlodipine besylate in presence of Lepidium sativum and Curcuma longa.

Effects of Lepidium sativum and Curcuma longa were investigated on pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of antihypertensive drug (amlodipine).Hypertensive rats were treated with amlodipine, Lepidium sativum, Lepidium sativum + amlodipine, Curcuma longa and Curcuma longa + amlodipine, and their blood pressures were measured. Amlodipine in plasma samples was analysed using UPLC-TQD. Product ions of amlodipine were monitored at m/z 409.18 > 238 and 409.18 > 294, and of nitrendipine at m/z 361.16 > 315.1 and 361.16 > 329.10.Lepidium sativum + amlodipine treatment showed highest reduction in systolic blood pressure (SBP). Mean anti-hypertensive effect of Lepidium sativum and Curcuma longa was similar to amlodipine. Mean SBPs (1-24 h) of amlodipine, Lepidium sativum, Lepidium sativum + amlodipine, Curcuma longa and Curcuma longa + amlodipine-treated animals were found as 149.5 ± 2.4 mmHg, 151.6 ± 1.09 mmHg and 141.8 ± 2.5 mmHg, 154.9 ± 2.2 mmHg and 144.4 ± 2.6 mmHg (p-value ≤0.05), respectively. Lepidium sativum and Curcuma longa significantly increased amlodipine Cmax by 83% (p-value 0.018) and 53% (p-value 0.035), and AUC0-t by 48% (p-value >0.05) and 56% (p-value 0.033), respectively.Results of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic studies are in agreement. Lepidium sativum and Curcuma longa augment antihypertensive effect of amlodipine, which is also supported by pharmacokinetic observations.

Effect of Hibiscus sabdariffa and Zingiber officinale on pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of amlodipine.

OBJECTIVES: To study the effect of Zingiber officinale and Hibiscus sabdariffa on pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of amlodipine. METHODS: Hypertension was induced in rats (SBP 173.2 ± 1.7 mmHg, mean, 1-24 h). Systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), mean blood pressure (MBP) and heart rate (HR) of group-I (amlodipine treated), group-II (Z. officinale, and Z. officinale + amlodipine) and group-III (H. sabdariffa, and H. sabdariffa + amlodipine) animals were measured by "tail-cuff system". Pharmacokinetics of amlodipine with and without herbs (Z. officinale or H. sabdariffa) was also investigated. RESULTS: Z. officinale as well as H. sabdariffa decreased the SBP, DBP and MBP. Concurrent treatment with Z. officinale + amlodipine (SBP 129.4 ± 4.5) or H. sabdariffa + amlodipine (SBP 130.4 ± 3.9) showed higher decrease in BP (mean, 1-24h), than individually administered amlodipine (SBP 149.5 ± 2.4) or Z. officinale (SBP 150.2 ± 3.1) or H. sabdariffa (SBP 139.1 ± 1.2). These herbs also influenced the Cmax, AUC0-t, and Tmax of amlodipine. H. sabdariffa increased AUC0-t of amlodipine from 81.8 ± 14.7 to 125.0 ± 10.6 (ng h/mL). CONCLUSION: Simultaneous administration of Z. officinale or H. sabdariffa with amlodipine, improves its pharmacodynamic response.

Fixed Dose Single Tablet Formulation with Differential Release of Amlodipine Besylate and Simvastatin and Its Pharmacokinetic Profile: QbD and Risk Assessment Approach.

PURPOSE: A differential release fixed dose matrix tablet of amlodipine besylate (AML-B) and simvastatin (SIM) was formulated to enhance patient compliance. MATERIAL AND METHOD: In the first phase, release controlling parameters of AML-B and SIM granules were identified and in the second phase a fixed dose AML-B and SIM tablet formulation was prepared and optimized for a differential release of the drugs using a quality by design (QbD) and risk assessment approach. A validated HPLC method was employed for simultaneous determination of AML-B and SIM for FDC formulation. A pharmacokinetics of the above drugs was studied in healthy dogs in the third phase. RESULTS: In QbD-based optimized formulation, Eudragit® RSPO-dicalcium phosphate (DCP) blend controlled the release of AML-B over 8 h, though this diffusion-controlled release assumed first order kinetics. DCP and Eudragit® RS 100 also retarded release of SIM causing SIM release over 8 h after AML-B release from the optimized FDC tablet formulation. The HPLC retention times of AML-B and SIM were 2.10 and 15.52 min, respectively. Linearity for AML-B was 5.0-50 ng/mL and 0.01-2.0 µg/mL for SIM with percent recoveries of 92.85-101.53% and 94.51-117.75% for AML-B and SIM. AUC0-∞ of AML-B was increased 3 fold, while AUC0-∞ of SIM was decreased 2 fold. The tmax values for AML-B and SIM were 12 and 6 h, respectively. AML-B was absorbed without any lag time (tlag) while tlag was 6.33 ± 0.81 h for SIM, thus met the study objective. CONCLUSION: The pharmacokinetic study showed an immediate absorption of AML-B while that of SIM was withheld for 6 h, close to the desired delay time of 8 h.

Comprehensive Exploration of Medications That Affect the Bleeding Risk of Oral Anticoagulant Users.

Oral anticoagulants (OACs) pose a major bleeding risk, which may be increased or decreased by concomitant medications. To explore medications that affect the bleeding risk of OACs, we conducted a nested case-control study including 554 bleeding cases (warfarin, n = 327; direct OACs [DOACs], n = 227) and 1337 non-bleeding controls (warfarin, n = 814; DOACs, n = 523), using a Japanese health insurance database from January 2005 to June 2017. Major bleeding risk associated with exposure to concomitant medications within 30 d of the event/index date was evaluated, and adjusted odds ratios (aORs) were calculated using logistic regression analysis. Several antihypertensive drugs, such as amlodipine and bisoprolol, were associated with a decreased risk of bleeding (warfarin + amlodipine [aOR, 0.64; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.41-0.98], DOACs + bisoprolol [aOR, 0.51; 95% CI, 0.33-0.80]). As hypertension is considered a significant risk factor for intracranial bleeding in antithrombotic therapy, antihypertensive drugs may suppress intracranial bleeding. In contrast, telmisartan, a widely used antihypertensive drug, was associated with an increased risk of bleeding [DOACs + telmisartan (aOR, 4.87; 95% CI, 1.84-12.91)]. Since telmisartan is an inhibitor of P-glycoprotein (P-gp), the elimination of rivaroxaban and apixaban, which are substrates of P-gp, is hindered, resulting in increased blood levels of both drugs, thereby increasing the risk of hemorrhage. In conclusion, antihypertensive drugs may improve the safety of OACs, and the pharmacokinetic-based drug interactions of DOACs must be considered.

Mechanistic Considerations About an Unexpected Ramipril Drug-Drug Interaction in the Development of a Triple Fixed-Dose Combination Product Containing Ramipril, Amlodipine, and Atorvastatin.

This open-label, repeat-dose, fixed-sequence study in healthy subjects examined pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions between the components of a novel fixed-dose combination product containing ramipril, amlodipine, and atorvastatin. Sequential 5-day monotreatments (MTs) of ramipril (5 mg/d) and atorvastatin (40 mg/d) were followed by a 9-day amlodipine MT (5 mg/d), separated by 96 hours washout intervals. After amlodipine MT, all 3 single-entity drugs were coadministered for 5 days. Blood samples were taken over the dosing intervals and drug concentrations quantified by high-performance liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry. Pharmacokinetic parameters were assessed and compared between the MTs and combination treatments by analysis of variance. Eighteen healthy subjects were enrolled and completed the study. No significant difference in maximum concentration (Cmax ) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve over the dosing interval (AUC0-τ ) for amlodipine and AUC0-τ of atorvastatin was observed upon combination treatments versus MTs. Cmax of atorvastatin was slightly decreased (Cmax ratio, 89.3%) when given in combination. Increased exposure of ramipril and less pronounced exposure of ramiprilat were observed in the presence of amlodipine and atorvastatin, with Cmax ratios for ramipril and ramiprilat of 182.6% and 155.9%, and corresponding AUC0-τ ratios of 150.0% and 112.1%, respectively. These ramiprilat increases are unlikely of clinical relevance, because complete angiotensin-converting enzyme occupation is achieved with ≥5-mg ramipril doses, and free ramiprilat is rapidly eliminated. As ramipril is known to be subject to a site-dependent absorption in the upper small intestine, it is hypothesized that slowing of intestinal motility by atorvastatin or amlodipine or a combined effect of both, increased the residence time of ramipril in its "absorption window," thereby enhancing its bioavailability.

Population pharmacokinetic modelling to quantify the magnitude of drug-drug interactions between amlodipine and antiretroviral drugs.

PURPOSE: Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) with antiretroviral drugs (ARVs) represent an important issue in elderly people living with HIV (PLWH). Amlodipine is a commonly prescribed antihypertensive drug metabolized by CYP3A4, thus predisposed to a risk of DDIs. Guidance on the management of DDIs is mostly based on theoretical considerations derived from coadministration with other CYP3A4 inhibitors. This study aimed at characterizing the magnitude of DDIs between amlodipine and ARV drugs in order to establish dosing recommendations. METHODS: A population pharmacokinetic analysis was developed using non-linear mixed effect modelling (NONMEM) and included 163 amlodipine concentrations from 55 PLWH. Various structural and error models were compared to characterize optimally the concentration-time profile of amlodipine. Demographic and clinical characteristics as well as comedications were tested as potential influential covariates. Model-based simulations were performed to compare amlodipine exposure (i.e. area under the curve, AUC) between coadministered ARV drugs. RESULTS: Amlodipine concentration-time profile was best described using a one-compartment model with first-order absorption and a lag-time. Amlodipine apparent clearance was influenced by both CYP3A4 inhibitors and efavirenz (CYP3A4 inducer). Model-based simulations revealed that amlodipine AUC increased by 96% when coadministered with CYP3A4 inhibitors, while efavirenz decreased drug exposure by 59%. CONCLUSION: Coadministered ARV drugs significantly impact amlodipine disposition in PLWH. Clinicians should adjust amlodipine dosage accordingly, by halving the dosage in PLWH receiving ARV with inhibitory properties (mainly ritonavir-boosted darunavir), whereas they should double amlodipine doses when coadministering it with efavirenz, under appropriate monitoring of clinical response and tolerance.

Safety of Candesartan, Amlodipine, and Atorvastatin in Combination: Interaction Study in Healthy Subjects.

For efficient cardiovascular risk protection antihypertensive treatment is often combined with cholesterol-lowering treatment, although solid data of interaction and side effects are missing. This is a prospective, single-center interaction study conducted in a fixed sequence design at steady state of candesartan, amlodipine, and atorvastatin. Five-day monotherapy of candesartan 8 mg was followed by 5-day atorvastatin 40 mg monotherapy and subsequently 9-day amlodipine 5 mg monotherapy; each treatment separated by washout phases. Immediately after amlodipine monotherapy, all 3 drugs were administered concomitantly for 5 days. Pharmacokinetic parameters as well as safety were assessed. Eighteen healthy subjects enrolled and completed the study. No significant difference in the maximum concentration (Cmax ) and the area the under plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) for amlodipine and AUC of atorvastatin was detected following combination versus monotherapy. Cmax of atorvastatin decreased slightly but clinically not relevantly when given in combination. A statistically significant but not below 0.80-fold decrease between candesartan following combination vs monotherapy was detected for Cmax and AUC. In general, all treatments were well tolerated. Concluding, systemic exposure of candesartan, amlodipine, and atorvastatin is not clinically significantly changed upon coadministration. These data support a fixed-dose combination of the 3 components for dual cardiovascular risk prevention.

Determination of amlodipine, indapamide and perindopril in human plasma by a novel LC-MS/MS method: Application to a bioequivalence study.

A robust and rapid UPLC-MS/MS method has been developed, optimized and validated for determination of amlodipine (AML), indapamide (IND) and perindopril (PRN) in human plasma. A positive electrospray ionization mode was used in a Xevo TQD LC-MS/MS instrument. A single sample preparation step using extraction technique was applied to extract the three analytes from plasma samples. There was no need to extract indapamide from blood samples in a further step. Extraction of the three drugs and internal standards was done using a solvent mixture composed of methyl tertiary butyl ether, dichloromethane and ethyl acetate. The prepared samples were analyzed using an Acquity UPLC HSS C18 (100 × 2.1 mm, 1.7 µm) column. Ammonium acetate and methanol, pumped at a flow rate of 0.3 ml/min, were used as a mobile phase. Method validation was done as per the US Food and Drug Administration guidelines. Linearity was achieved in the range of 0.2-15 ng/ml for AML, 0.5-50 ng/ml for IND and 0.5-120 ng/ml for PRN. Accuracy and precision were estimated and found to be within the acceptable ranges. The rapid chromatography permits analysis of many samples per batch, making the method suitable for clinical and pharmacokinetic investigations. The developed and validated method was applied to estimate AML, IND, and PRN in a fasting bioequivalence study in healthy human volunteers.

Drug-drug interaction of rivaroxaban and calcium channel blockers in patients aged 80 years and older with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation.

Objectives For revealing the peculiarities of the drug-drug interaction of rivaroxaban (substrate CYP3A4 and P-gp) and calcium channel blockers (CCBs) (verapamil - inhibitor CYP3A4 and P-gp and amlodipine - substrate CYP3A4) in patients 80 years and older with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation (NAF) we studied 128 patients. Methods All patients were divided into groups depending on the therapy taken: the 1st - rivaroxaban + amlodipine (n=51), the 2nd - rivaroxaban + verapamil (n=30), the control group - rivaroxaban without CCBs (n=47). A trough steady-state plasma concentration (C min,ss) of rivaroxaban, prothrombin time (PT) in the blood plasma and the event of clinically relevant non-major (CRNM) bleeding were assessed for each patient. Results Patient in group 2 had higher C min,ss of rivaroxaban, PT and CRNM than subjects in the control group (Me 73.8 [50.6-108.8] ng/mL vs. 40.5 [25.6-74.3] ng/mL; Me 14.8 [13.4-17.3] s vs. 13.8 [12.6-14.4] s; 34% vs. 13%, respectively, p<0.05 for all). When compared, the PT and complication rate in group 1 with the control group C min,ss of rivaroxaban were practically the same (p>0.05 for all). Conclusions In patients ≥80 years with NAF, the use of rivaroxaban in combination with verapamil may not be safe and can lead to CRNM bleeding.

Pharmacokinetic interactions of esaxerenone with amlodipine and digoxin in healthy Japanese subjects.

BACKGROUND: To investigate the effects of coadministration of esaxerenone with amlodipine on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of each drug, and of esaxerenone on the PK of digoxin. METHODS: In three open-label, single-sequence, crossover studies, healthy Japanese males received single oral doses of esaxerenone 2.5 mg (Days 1, 15), with amlodipine 10 mg/day (Days 8-18) (Study 1, N = 24); single doses of amlodipine 2.5 mg (Days 1, 21), with esaxerenone 5 mg/day (Days 8-25) (Study 2; N = 20); or digoxin 0.25 mg/day (Days 1-15) with esaxerenone 5 mg/day (Days 11-15) (Study 3; N = 20). PK parameters and safety were assessed. RESULTS: Study 1: esaxerenone peak plasma concentration (Cmax) and time to Cmax were unaltered by amlodipine coadministration, but mean half-life was slightly prolonged from 18.5 to 20.9 h. Geometric least-squares mean (GLSM) ratios for Cmax, area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) from zero to last measurable concentration and from zero to infinity for esaxerenone + amlodipine versus esaxerenone were 0.958, 1.154, and 1.173, respectively. Study 2: corresponding GLSM ratios for amlodipine + esaxerenone versus amlodipine were 1.099, 1.185, and 1.214. Study 3: esaxerenone did not markedly alter digoxin PK. GLSM ratios for Cmax, trough plasma concentration, and AUC during a dosing interval for digoxin versus esaxerenone + digoxin were 1.130, 1.088, and 1.072, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: No drug-drug interactions are expected during combination therapy with esaxerenone and either amlodipine or digoxin, based on a lack of any clinically relevant PK changes. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Studies 1 and 2: JapicCTI-163379 (registered on 20 September 2016); Study 3: JapicCTI-163443 (registered on 24 November 2016).

Effects of curcumin on the pharmacokinetics of amlodipine in rats and its potential mechanism.

Context: Hyperlipidaemia and hypertension are often treated together with curcumin and amlodipine. It is necessary to investigate the drug-drug interaction between curcumin and amlodipine.Objective: The interaction between curcumin and amlodipine was investigated in rats and with rat liver microsomes.Methods: The pharmacokinetics of amlodipine (1 mg/kg) was investigated in rats with or without curcumin pre-treatment (2 mg/kg), six rats in each group. The metabolic stability of amlodipine was investigated with rat liver microsomes.Results: Curcumin significantly increased the Cmax (26.19 ± 2.21 versus 17.80 ± 1.56 µg/L), AUC(0-t) (507.27 ± 60.23 versus 238.68 ± 45.59 µg·h/L), and t1/2 (14.69 ± 1.64 versus 11.43 ± 1.20 h) of amlodipine (p < 0.05). The metabolic stability of amlodipine was significantly increased with the half-life time in rat liver microsomes increased from 34.23 ± 3.33 to 44.15 ± 4.12 min, and the intrinsic rate decreased from 40.49 ± 3.26 to 31.39 ± 2.78 µL/min/mg protein.Discussion and conclusions: These results indicated that drug-drug interaction might appear during the co-administration of curcumin and amlodipine. The potential mechanism may be due to the inhibition of CYP3A4 by curcumin. Thus, this interaction should be given special attention in the clinic and needs further experiments to characterize the effect in humans.

Effect of Nigella sativa and Fenugreek on the Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Amlodipine in Hypertensive Rats.

BACKGROUND: The present article is related to in-vitro and in-vivo herb-drug interaction studies. OBJECTIVES: This study aimed to investigate the effect of Nigella sativa and fenugreek on the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of amlodipine. METHOD: Hypertensive rats of group-I were treated with amlodipine and rats of group-II and III were treated with N. sativa, and N. sativa + amlodipine and fenugreek, and fenugreek + amlodipine, respectively. Systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP) and mean blood pressure (MBP) of group-I, II and III rats were measured by the "tail-cuff system". RESULTS: N. sativa, as well as fenugreek, reduced the SBP, DBP and MBP. Simultaneously, administration of fenugreek + amlodipine or N. sativa + amlodipine showed better control of BP. Individually, fenugreek, as well as N. sativa, showed a surprising reduction in the heart rate. There was no remarkable effect of any of these two herbs on Cmax, AUC0-t, Kel, and terminal elimination half-life of amlodipine, but fenugreek altered the Tmax of amlodipine significantly, from 2 ± 1.2h in control to 7.2 ± 1.7h in fenugreek treated group, probably by delaying the absorption. CONCLUSION: Results of pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics studies suggested that simultaneous administration of fenugreek or N. sativa with amlodipine improved the pharmacological response of amlodipine in hypertensive rats, though there was no remarkable change in pharmacokinetic parameters (Cmax, Kel, elimination t1/2, and AUC0-t).

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic evaluation of nano-fixed dose combination for hypertension.

OBJECTIVE: The current study was planned to formulate, characterize and evaluate the pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of a novel 'NanoFDC' comprising hydrochlorothiazide, candesartan (CNDT) and amlodipine. METHODOLOGY: The candidate drugs were loaded in poly(DL-lactide-co-glycolide) by emulsion-diffusion-evaporation method. The formulations were evaluated for their size, morphology, drug loading and in-vitro release individually. Repeat dose pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic study of the nano-fixed dose combination (FDC) was done in dexamethasone-induced animal model. RESULTS: The entrapment efficiencies ranged from 44 ±â€Š2.1, 32.2 ±â€Š4 and 40.5 ±â€Š2.6% for amlodipine, hydrochlorothiazide and CNDT, respectively. The nanoparticles ranged in size from 164 to 215 nm. In-vitro release profile of the nanoformulation showed unto 90% release by day 7 in simulated gastric fluid and simulated intestinal fluid, respectively. In pharmacokinetic analysis a sustained-release for 7 days was observed in nano-FDC group. Once weekly oral dosing of nano-FDC of amlodipine, CNDT and hydrochlorothiazide provided adequate antihypertensive effect which was not statistically different from daily dosing of free drugs in dexamethasone-induced animal model. CONCLUSION: Once weekly oral dosing of nano-FDC of amlodipine, CNDT and hydrochlorothiazide provided adequate antihypertensive effect and was not statistically different from daily dosing of free drugs in dexamethasone-induced animal model. This study provides proof of concept of feasibility of once weekly dosing of a nano-FDC comprising three antihypertensive drugs, which can lead to significant improvement in patient adherence to therapy.

Use of amlodipine oral solution for the treatment of hypertension in children.

Background Amlodipine is a widely used antihypertensive agent for the treatment of paediatric hypertension, but the commercially available tablets are not suitable to treat young patients, who need lower, flexible dosages and a liquid formulation. Objective To determine the pharmacokinetic properties of amlodipine and the acceptability of a standardised, extemporaneous oral solution. Method A newly developed liquid formulation of amlodipine was administered to hypertensive children between the age of 6 months and 11 years. Using a limited sampling strategy, population PK analysis was performed using nonlinear mixed effects modelling. Results Nine children, with a median age of 2.9 years (IQR 1.8-8.4), receiving stable amlodipine therapy in a median dose of 0.15 mg kg-1 day-1 (IQR 0.11-0.18), were switched to study medication. The population pharmacokinetic model was able to accurately predict the clearance of amlodipine in the study population. Based on the final model, clearance was reduced by 31.2% (RSE: 10%) in females. Patient reported outcomes on taste from a five-point hedonic scale were available for five patients, who scored the taste from positive to slightly negative. Conclusion The results from the PK study and the acceptability assessment show that the amlodipine oral solution presented in this study offers an appropriate treatment option for young children.

Blood Pressure-Lowering Profiles and Clinical Effects of Angiotensin Receptor Blockers Versus Calcium Channel Blockers.

Blood pressure-lowering drugs have different blood pressure-lowering profiles. We studied if differences in blood pressure mean and variability can explain the differences in risks of cardiovascular events and death among 15 245 high-risk hypertensive patients randomized to valsartan or amlodipine and followed for 4.2 years in the VALUE trial (Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-Term Use Evaluation). We selected patients with ≥3 visits and performed Cox regression analyses, defining mean blood pressure as a time-dependent covariate and visit-to-visit and within-visit blood pressure variability as the SD. Of 14 996 eligible patients, participants in the valsartan group had higher systolic mean blood pressure by 2.2 mm Hg, higher visit-to-visit systolic variability by 1.4 mm Hg, and higher within-visit systolic variability by 0.2 mm Hg (P values <0.0001). The higher risks of myocardial infarction and stroke in the valsartan group was attenuated after adjustment for mean and variability of systolic blood pressure, from HR 1.19 (95% CI, 1.02-1.39) to 1.11 (0.96-1.30) and from HR 1.13 (0.96-1.33) to 1.00 (0.85-1.18), respectively. The lower risk of congestive heart failure in the valsartan group was accentuated after adjustment, from HR 0.86 (0.74-1.00) to 0.76 (0.65-0.89). A smaller effect was seen on risk of death, from 1.01 (0.92-1.12) to 0.94 (0.85-1.04). In conclusion, the higher risks of myocardial infarction and stroke in patients randomized to valsartan versus amlodipine were related to the drugs' different blood pressure modulating profiles. The risk of congestive heart failure with valsartan was lower, independent of the less favorable blood pressure modulating profile.

Contribution of Trough Concentration Data in the Evaluation of Multiple-Dose Pharmacokinetics for Drugs with Delayed Distributional Equilibrium and Long Half-Life.

PURPOSE: The performance of "trough sampling before reaching steady-state" and "serial sampling beyond the interval between steady-state" in a multiple-dose pharmacokinetic evaluation was compared. Drugs with long half-lives, following multi-compartment pharmacokinetics, and whose distribution-related characteristics are less likely to be assessed within one dosing interval are focused. PATIENTS AND METHODS: Amlodipine pharmacokinetic data were collected from a human pharmacology study performed in Seoul St. Mary's Hospital (Seoul, Korea). Plasma concentration data until 144 hrs after a single administration was used. Nonlinear mixed-effects modeling was conducted to obtain the "true" model structure and pharmacokinetic parameter estimates. Then, stochastic simulation and estimation were performed using multiple-dose scenarios in various sampling strategies. Parameter accuracy and precision from each scenario were evaluated. RESULTS: A two-compartment model with first-order absorption followed by zero-order absorption with a lag time then first-order elimination was chosen as the final model and used in the stochastic simulation and estimation. In terms of parameter precision, the scenario incorporating data only within one dosing interval showed the worst results (V p /F = 313%, Q/F = 64.3%). Some scenarios including early trough samples yielded comparable outcomes (V p /F = 18.4%, Q/F = 32.1%) to the extended full-PK sampling scenario (V p /F = 15.9%, Q/F = 30.3%), which was the best case. The quality of distribution-related parameters was the major difference between scenarios. CONCLUSION: In multiple-dose studies on drugs with delayed distributional equilibrium, information from a few trough samples can augment the limit of serial sampling within the dosing interval for parameter estimation. With informative trough samples, extended hospitalization for serial sampling (until 3-5 half-lives after the last dose), which is particularly problematic for long half-life drugs, may be avoided. Trough samples obtained at the beginning of the repeated dose were more effective for mixed-effects modeling.

Comparison of Pharmacokinetics of a Fixed-Dose Combination of Amlodipine/Losartan/Rosuvastatin with Concomitant Administration of Amlodipine/Losartan and Rosuvastatin in Healthy Volunteers.

BACKGROUND: A fixed-dose combination (FDC) tablet formulation of amlodipine/losartan/rosuvastatin 5/100/20 mg was developed to improve medication compliance in patients with both hypertension and dyslipidemia. The comparative pharmacokinetic study was performed to compare the profile of an FDC tablet formulation of amlodipine/losartan/rosuvastatin with that of concomitant administration of a currently marketed FDC tablet of amlodipine/losartan with a rosuvastatin tablet. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A randomized, open-label, single oral dose, two-way crossover study was conducted in 60 healthy subjects. Subjects were orally administered the FDC tablet of amlodipine/losartan/rosuvastatin and a loose combination (LC) of two tablets comprising an FDC of amlodipine/losartan and rosuvastatin. Blood samples were collected for up to 144 h post dose for pharmacokinetic evaluations. Plasma concentrations of amlodipine, losartan, EXP3174 (an active metabolite of losartan), and rosuvastatin were measured by using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and its 90% confidence interval (90% CI) in the FDC treatment to LC treatment for the area under the concentration-time curve from zero to the last quantifiable time point (AUClast) and the maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) were calculated. Safety was monitored throughout the study. RESULTS: The GMR (90% CI) values of AUClast and Cmax were 0.9946 (0.9663-1.0238) and 0.9690 (0.9379-1.0011) for amlodipine, 0.9855 (0.9422-1.0308) and 0.9178 (0.8349-1.0089) for losartan, 0.9814 (0.9501-1.0136) and 0.9756 (0.9313-1.0219) for EXP3174, and 0.9448 (0.8995-0.9923) and 0.9609 (0.8799-1.0494) for rosuvastatin, respectively. No clinically significant changes were observed in any of the safety parameters, including clinical laboratory tests, vital signs, electrocardiograms, and physical examinations, between the FDC treatment and the LC treatment. CONCLUSION: We confirmed the pharmacokinetic equivalence of the FDC and LC treatments. This triple combination FDC formulation could be a clinically useful replacement for LC therapy.

Evaluation of pharmacokinetics and safety with bioequivalence of Amlodipine in healthy Chinese volunteers: Bioequivalence Study Findings.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Amlodipine, a main series of L-type calcium channel blockers (CCBs), exerts potent antihypertensive effects. The aim of this trial was to explore the pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety with bioequivalence of orally administered Amlodipine provided by two sponsors in healthy volunteers (HVs). METHODS: Two separate randomized, open-label, single-dose, crossover-design studies were conducted: a fasting study (n = 24) and a fed study (n = 24). In each study, HVs were randomized to Fangming Pharmaceutical Group (Test, T) followed by NORVASC® (Reference, R), or vice versa. Each study subject received a 5-mg Amlodipine tablet with a 15-day washout. The plasma concentrations of Amlodipine were measured using a LC-MS/MS method, and PK parameters were determined by noncompartmental model. RESULTS: Forty-eight healthy volunteers were enrolled. And overall demographics were as follows: the fasting study: female (n = 16/24), age (18-54 years), weight (47-76 kg), and BMI (19.5-26.0). The fed study: female (n = 16/24), age (20-49 years), weight (45.5-69 kg), and BMI (19.1-25.0). All PK endpoints met the pre-specific criteria for PK equivalence. In fasting subjects, the maximum plasma concentration (Cmax ) was 3.881 ± 0.982 ng/mL at 6 hours (median) of sponsor T, and 4.042 ± 1.147 ng/mL at 6 hours (median) of sponsor R. In fed subjects, Cmax was 3.312 ± 0.789 ng/mL at 6 hours (median) of sponsor T, and 3.392 ± 0.902 ng/mL at 5 hours (median) of sponsor R. Both fasting and fed studies achieved a plausible bioequivalence. CONCLUSIONS: Amlodipine is well tolerated and have a favorable safety profile. The observed adverse events were mild (the severity was assessed according to the Common Terminology Criteria for Adverse Events [version CTCAE4.03]) and all of them were recovered without severe sequences. And the bioequivalence is achieved under fasting and fed conditions, supporting the demonstration of biosimilarity.