The use of modeling and simulation to guide clinical development of olmesartan medoxomil in pediatric subjects.

Modeling and simulation were used extensively in the development of an indication for the use of olmesartan medoxomil in pediatric patients with hypertension. Simulations based on models developed in adult patients indicated that two dose groups were sufficient to estimate a dose-response relationship, thereby reducing by one-third the number of subjects required for the phase III pediatric study. Model-based predictions for blood pressure reduction agreed with the observed results of the subsequent phase III study, showing statistically significant dose-response relationships with respect to both systolic and diastolic blood pressure. Previously established pharmacokinetic and exposure-response relationships in adults, adjusted for the influence of body weight on clearance (wt(0.80)), were confirmed in the pediatric population. Together, these findings support an olmesartan dosing recommendation in pediatric subjects aged 6 to 16 years of 10 mg for subjects weighing <35 kg and 20 mg for those weighing ≥35 kg.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of prasugrel in subjects with moderate liver disease.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Prasugrel is a thienopyridine antiplatelet agent under investigation for the prevention of atherothrombotic events in patients with acute coronary syndrome who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention. Patients with chronic liver disease are among those in the target population for prasugrel. As hepatic enzymes play a key role in formation of prasugrel's active metabolite, hepatic impairment could affect the safety and/or efficacy of prasugrel in such patients. METHODS: This was a parallel-design, open-label, multiple dose study of 30 subjects, 10 with moderate hepatic impairment (Child-Pugh Class B) and 20 with normal hepatic function. Prasugrel was administered orally as a 60-mg loading dose (LD) and daily 10-mg maintenance doses (MDs) for 5 days. Pharmacokinetic parameters (AUC(0-t), C(max) and t(max)) and maximal platelet aggregation (MPA) by light transmission aggregometry were assessed after the LD and final MD. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Exposure to prasugrel's active metabolite was comparable between healthy subjects and those with moderate hepatic impairment. Point estimates for the ratios of geometric least square means for AUC(0-t) and C(max) after the LD and last MD ranged from 0.91 to 1.14. MPA to 20 microm ADP was similar between subjects with moderate hepatic impairment and healthy subjects for both the LD and MD. Prasugrel was well tolerated by all subjects, and adverse events were mild in severity. CONCLUSION: Moderate hepatic impairment appears to have no effect on exposure to prasugrel's active metabolite. Furthermore, MPA results suggest that moderate hepatic impairment has little or no effect on platelet aggregation relative to healthy controls. Overall, these results suggest that a dose adjustment would not be required in moderately hepatically impaired patients taking prasugrel.

Prasugrel pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in subjects with moderate renal impairment and end-stage renal disease.

OBJECTIVE: The pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) responses to prasugrel were compared in three studies of healthy subjects vs. those with moderate or end-stage renal impairment. METHODS: Two of the three protocols were parallel-design, open-label, single dose (60-mg prasugrel) studies in subjects with end-stage renal disease (ESRD; n = 12) or moderate renal impairment (n = 10) and matched healthy subjects with normal renal function (n = 10). The third protocol was an open-label, single-dose escalation (5, 10, 30 and 60 mg prasugrel) study in subjects with ESRD (n = 16) and matched healthy subjects with normal renal function (n = 16). Plasma concentrations of prasugrel's active metabolite were determined and pharmacokinetic parameter estimates were derived. Maximum platelet aggregation (MPA) was measured by light transmission aggregometry using 20 mum adenosine diphosphate as agonist. RESULTS: Across all studies, prasugrel's C(max) and AUC(0-t) were 51% and 42% lower in subjects with ESRD than in healthy subjects. AUC(0-t) did not differ between healthy subjects and subjects with moderate renal impairment. The magnitude of change and time-course profiles of MPA was similar for healthy subjects compared with subjects with moderate renal impairment and those with ESRD. Prasugrel was well-tolerated in all subjects. CONCLUSION: There was no difference in pharmacokinetics or PD responses between subjects with moderate renal impairment and healthy subjects. Despite significantly lower exposure to prasugrel's active metabolite in subjects with ESRD, MPA did not differ between healthy subjects and those with ESRD.

Effect of rifampin on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of prasugrel in healthy male subjects.

OBJECTIVE: Prasugrel is a thienopyridine antiplatelet agent for the prevention of atherothrombotic events in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Since cytochrome P450 enzymes CYP3A4 and CYP2B6 play a major role in prasugrel's active metabolite formation, the effect of potent CYP induction by rifampin on the pharmacokinetics of prasugrel and on the pharmacodynamic response to prasugrel was evaluated in healthy male subjects. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was an open-label, two-period, fixed-sequence study conducted at a single clinical research center. In the first treatment period, subjects received prasugrel as an oral 60-mg loading dose (LD) on the first day followed by ten oral, 10-mg daily maintenance doses. After a 2-week washout period, subjects received oral rifampin alone (600 mg once daily) for 8 days, followed by coadministration of oral rifampin with prasugrel, given as a 60-mg LD on the first day followed by five daily 10-mg MDs. Blood collection for pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analyses occurred after the LD and fifth MD of prasugrel in both periods. CLINICAL TRIAL SYNOPSIS: clinicalstudyresults.org ID #8976 RESULTS: Rifampin coadministration (600 mg daily) did not affect exposure to prasugrel's active metabolite (R-138727). However, at 2 and 4 h after the prasugrel loading dose (60 mg), rifampicin coadministration was associated with a 6-9 percentage point decrease (p < 0.01) in the magnitude of platelet inhibition; similarly, a 5-17 percentage point decrease (p < 0.05) was observed with rifampin coadministration during the prasugrel maintenance dose (10 mg) period. Post hoc in vitro experiments demonstrated a dose-dependent R-138727-rifampin interaction at the P2Y(12) level unrelated to enzyme induction. A limitation of this study is that while results of the in vitro post hoc study indicate a pharmacodynamic interaction with rifampin, the mechanism underlying this interaction has not been elucidated. CONCLUSIONS: Dose adjustment should not be necessary when prasugrel is administered with CYP inducers since formation of prasugrel's active metabolite is not affected by potent enzyme induction with rifampin.

Cytochrome P450 3A inhibition by ketoconazole affects prasugrel and clopidogrel pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics differently.

Prasugrel and clopidogrel inhibit platelet aggregation through active metabolite formation. Prasugrel's active metabolite (R-138727) is formed primarily by cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A and CYP2B6, with roles for CYP2C9 and CYP2C19. Clopidogrel's activation involves two sequential steps by CYP3A, CYP1A2, CYP2C9, CYP2C19, and/or CYP2B6. In a randomized crossover study, healthy subjects received a loading dose (LD) of prasugrel (60 mg) or clopidogrel (300 mg), followed by five daily maintenance doses (MDs) (15 and 75 mg, respectively) with or without the potent CYP3A inhibitor ketoconazole (400 mg/day). Subjects had a 2-week washout between periods. Ketoconazole decreased R-138727 and clopidogrel active metabolite Cmax (maximum plasma concentration) 34-61% after prasugrel and clopidogrel dosing. Ketoconazole did not affect R-138727 exposure or prasugrel's inhibition of platelet aggregation (IPA). Ketoconazole decreased clopidogrel's active metabolite AUC0-24 (area under the concentration-time curve to 24 h postdose) 22% (LD) to 29% (MD) and reduced IPA 28% (LD) to 33% (MD). We conclude that CYP3A4 and CYP3A5 inhibition by ketoconazole affects formation of clopidogrel's but not prasugrel's active metabolite. The decreased formation of clopidogrel's active metabolite is associated with reduced IPA.

Loratadine and terfenadine interaction with nefazodone: Both antihistamines are associated with QTc prolongation.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: Nefazodone inhibits CYP3A; therefore coadministration with CYP3A substrates such as terfenadine or loratadine may result in increased exposure to these drugs. A potential pharmacodynamic consequence is electrocardiographic QTc prolongation, which has been associated with torsade de pointes cardiac arrhythmia. Therefore a clinical pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic evaluation of this potential interaction was conducted. METHODS: A randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, parallel group, multiple-dose design was used. Healthy men and women who were given doses of 60 mg of terfenadine every 12 hours, 20 mg of loratadine once daily, and 300 mg of nefazodone every 12 hours were studied. Descriptive pharmacokinetics (time to maximum concentration, maximum concentration, and area under the plasma concentration-time curve) were used for the examination of interactions among the respective parent drugs and metabolites. QTc prolongation (mean value over the dosing interval) was the pharmacodynamic parameter measured. Kinetic and dynamic analysis was used for the examination of pooled concentration and QTc data with the use of a linear model. RESULTS: Concomitant nefazodone treatment markedly increased the dose interval area under the plasma concentration-time curve of both terfenadine (mean value, 17.3 +/- 8.5 ng. mL/h versus 97.4 +/- 48.9 ng. mL/h; P <.001) and carboxyterfenadine (mean value, 1.69 +/- 0.48 microg. h/mL versus 2.88 +/- 0.53 microg. h/mL; P <.001) and moderately increased the dose interval area under the plasma concentration-time curve of both loratadine (mean value, 31.5 +/- 27.9 ng. h/mL versus 43.7 +/- 25.9 ng. h/mL; P <.014) and descarboethoxyloratadine (mean value, 73.4 +/- 54.9 ng. h/mL versus 81.9 +/- 26.2 ng. h/mL; P <.002). The mean QTc was unchanged with terfenadine alone; however, it was markedly prolonged with concomitant nefazodone and terfenadine (mean [90% confidence interval] prolongation 42.4 ms [34.2, 50.6 ms]; P <.05). Similarly, the mean QTc was unchanged with loratadine alone; however, it was prolonged with concomitant nefazodone and loratadine (21.6 ms [13.7, 29.4 ms]; P <.05). Nefazodone alone did not change mean QTc. QTc was positively correlated with terfenadine plasma concentration (r (2) = 0.21; P =.0001). Similarly, QTc was positively correlated with loratadine plasma concentration (r (2) = 0.056; P =.0008) but with a flatter slope. There was no relationship between QTc and nefazodone plasma concentration during treatment with nefazodone alone (r (2) = 0.002, not significant). CONCLUSIONS: In healthy men and women, concomitant nefazodone treatment at a therapeutic dose increases exposure to both terfenadine and carboxyterfenadine. This increased exposure is associated with marked QTc prolongation, which is correlated with terfenadine plasma concentration. A similar interaction occurs with loratadine, although it is of lesser magnitude. Concomitant administration of nefazodone with terfenadine may have predisposed individuals to the arrhythmia associated with QTc prolongation, torsade de pointes, when terfenadine was available for clinical use. However, a new finding is that in the context of higher than clinically recommended daily doses (20 mg) of loratadine concomitant administration with a metabolic inhibitor such as nefazodone can also result in QTc prolongation.

Pharmacokinetics and tolerability of buspirone during oral administration to children and adolescents with anxiety disorder and normal healthy adults.

A 21-day, open-label, multisite, dose escalation study comprising three demographic groups (children, adolescents, and adults) was performed to determine the pharmacokinetics and tolerability of orally administered buspirone. Thirteen children and 12 adolescents with anxiety disorder and 14 normal healthy adults were escalated from 5 to 30 mg buspirone bid over the 3-week study. Pharmacokinetic analysis revealed that buspirone was rapidly absorbed in all study groups, reaching peak levels at about 1 hour after administration. Peak plasma buspirone concentrations (Cmax) were highest in children and lowest in adults at all three dose levels (7.5, 15, 30 mg bid). However, 1-pyrimidinylpiperazine (1-PP), the primary metabolite of buspirone, exhibited a different plasma concentration-time profile; Cmax was significantly higher in children than in either adolescents or adults at all concentrations. In addition, TAUC0-T for 1-PP was significantly higher in the children cohort relative to adolescents and adults. Buspirone was generally safe and well tolerated at doses up to 30 mg bid in adolescents and adults and most of the children. The most frequently reported adverse events in children and adolescents were lightheadedness (68%), headache (48%), and dyspepsia (20%); 2 children withdrewfrom the study at the higher doses (15 mg and 30 mg bid) due to adverse effects. In adults, the most common adverse effect was somnolence (21.4%); lightheadedness, nausea, vomiting, and diarrhea were also reported, although these were mild in intensity.

Carbamazepine-nefazodone interaction in healthy subjects.

The pharmacokinetic interaction between nefazodone and carbamazepine was investigated in 12 healthy male volunteers. Subjects received nefazodone 200 mg twice daily for 5 days, and blood sample collection was performed on day 5 for 0- to 48-hour pharmacokinetic analysis. A 4-day wash-out phase then followed from days 6 to 9. Carbamazepine 200 mg was administered once daily from days 10 to 12, and then 200 mg was given twice daily from days 13 to 44. A 0- to 48-hour pharmacokinetic analysis was performed on day 38. Nefazodone 200 mg twice daily was added to the dosing regimen from days 40 to 44, and a subsequent 0- to 48-hour pharmacokinetic analysis was performed on day 44. Coadministration of nefazodone increased steady-state plasma area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) of carbamazepine from 60.77 (+/-8.44) to 74.98 (+/-12.88) microg x hr/mL (p < 0.001) and decreased the active carbamazepine-10,11-epoxide metabolite AUC concentration from 7.10 (+/-1.16) to 5.71 (+/-0.52) microg x hr/mL (p < 0.005). During the combination, the steady-state AUC of nefazodone decreased from 7,326 (+/-3,768) to 542 (+/-191) ng x hr/mL, and the AUCs of its metabolites (hydroxynefazodone, meta-chlorophenylpiperazine, and triazoledione) decreased significantly as well (p < 0.001). Coadministration of nefazodone 200 mg twice daily and carbamazepine 200 mg twice daily was found to be safe and well tolerated; however, the increased plasma exposure to carbamazepine may warrant monitoring of plasma carbamazepine concentrations with the combination. However, higher doses (>400 mg/day) of carbamazepine could yield more extensive induction, affecting tolerability of the combination. No change in the initial nefazodone dose is necessary, and subsequent dose adjustments should be made on the basis of clinical effects; however, the repercussion of carbamazepine induction of nefazodone metabolism on the antidepressant efficacy has yet to be studied.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of avitriptan during intravenous administration in healthy subjects.

Avitriptan, a selective 5-HT1-like receptor agonist, is an effective compound for the treatment of migraine headaches with a prolonged duration of response. A double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, ascending-dose study in 24 healthy subjects was designed to assess the safety, tolerance, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of avitriptan. This antimigraine drug was administered as two consecutive constant-rate IV infusions at three dose levels (12.7, 25.3, and 38.0 mg), which were targeted to produce plasma concentrations in and above the therapeutic range. The best fitting of the plasma concentration-time data was obtained by using a triexponential function yielding a terminal t1/2 of 8 hours. The areas under the plasma concentration versus time curves were proportional to dose, indicating linear pharmacokinetics. Moreover, the clearance and steady-state volume of distribution values were independent of the dose. The change in pulse rate and supine systolic and diastolic blood pressure was determined as pharmacodynamic effects of avitriptan. A "threshold log-linear" model, which accounts for the linear increase in pharmacodynamic effect with the log of plasma concentrations when the latter was higher than a certain threshold value, adequately described the pharmacodynamic data. The threshold plasma drug concentrations for the pulse rate and the diastolic and systolic blood pressure were 14, 74, and 161 ng/ml, respectively. Overall, avitriptan has consistent, linear pharmacokinetics and increases systolic and diastolic blood pressure in a predictable manner at a higher plasma concentration. However, this drug does not produce a significant change in pulse rate at the dose levels (12.7-38 mg) evaluated in this study.

Pharmacokinetic evaluation of co-administration of nefazodone and lithium in healthy subjects.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the possible pharmacokinetic interaction between nefazodone and lithium. METHODS: Twelve healthy volunteers received nefazodone 200 mg b.i.d. for 5 days. A 4-day washout phase followed from day 6 to day 9. From day 10 to day 20, escalating doses of lithium 250 mg b.i.d. to 500 mg b.i.d. were given; the daily dose of 1000 mg was obtained on day 13. From day 16 to day 20, nefazodone 200 mg b.i.d. was added to the lithium dosing regimen. Venous blood sampling was performed on days 5, 15 and 20 for 0- to 48-h-pharmacokinetic analysis. Nefazodone and its metabolites, hydroxynefazodone, mCPP and triazoledione were assayed by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC). Lithium was assayed by flame photometry. RESULTS: Co-administration of nefazodone did not modify pharmacokinetic parameters of lithium at steady-state. Comparison of the area under the plasma or serum concentration-versus-time curve calculated from 0-12 h (AUC0-12) of nefazodone and hydroxynefazodone revealed no significant differences when nefazodone was administered alone or with lithium. The mean maximum peak plasma concentration Cmax and AUC0-12 of meta-chlorophenyl-piperazine (mCPP) were significantly reduced by 27% (P < 0.001) and 16% (P < 0.001) with the co-administration. The mean Cmax and AUC0-12 of triazoledione were reduced by 23% (P < 0.005) and 16% (P < 0.01) by the co-administration. CONCLUSION: Since there were no clinically significant changes in the pharmacokinetics of the parent compounds or metabolites, and the combination was well tolerated, no dosage adjustments of nefazodone or lithium are necessary when they are co-administered.

A double-blind, randomized, crossover assessment of blood pressure following administration of avitriptan, sumatriptan, or placebo to patients with mild to moderate hypertension.

We examined the effects of avitriptan, a 5-hydroxytryptamine 1-like (5HT1) receptor agonist for the treatment of migraine, in patients with medicated, controlled, mild to moderate hypertension relative to placebo and sumatriptan. The study was randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled, and 4-way crossover in design. Twenty patients (12M, 8F) participated. As required by protocol, all were stable on medications for mild to moderate hypertension, with a supine diastolic blood pressure of < 95 mmHg. Qualified subjects were randomized to receive oral administration of either 75 or 150 mg of avitriptan, 100 mg sumatriptan or placebo during the four treatment visits. Supine blood pressure and pulse rates were recorded up to 24 h after drug administration. Avitriptan 150 mg significantly increased peak diastolic and systolic blood pressure, and mean arterial pressure compared to placebo and sumatriptan 100 mg (p < 0.05). Only those hypertensive patients receiving medication for hypertension should receive anti-migraine medications, such as avitriptan, which are 5HT1-like receptor agonists.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of avitriptan in patients with migraine after oral dosing.

Avitriptan (BMS-180048) is a 5-HT1-like receptor agonist for the treatment of migraine. This double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, parallel-group study evaluated the pharmacokinetics, safety, and preliminary efficacy of avitriptan in patients with migraine during migrainous and pain-free states. Patients met the IHS criteria for migraine with or without aura and suffered one to six migraines per month for at least 1 year. Patients in a clinic experiencing a migraine headache received avitriptan 75 mg, 150 mg, or 200 mg or matching placebo capsules. Blood samples were obtained before and 0.25, 0.75, 1, 1.5, 2, 2.5, 3, 4, 5, and 6 hours after dosing. Headache intensity was rated before and up to 6 hours after dosing. Seven to 30 days after the inclinic treatment, patients returned in a pain-free state for the same study medication. All pharmacokinetic and safety measures were repeated. Forty-eight patients (9 men and 39 women) participated. Peak plasma concentrations of avitriptan were achieved 1 to 2 hours following dosing in migraine and pain-free states for all doses. The pharmacokinetics of avitriptan were proportional to dose during a migraine attack over the 75- to 200-mg dose range. The 150- and 200-mg doses of avitriptan demonstrated a greater decrease in headache intensity scores at 2 hours postdose. The most common adverse event was paresthesia. Thus, avitriptan was rapidly absorbed, well tolerated, and demonstrated preliminary efficacy in this population.

Monitoring of acute migraine attacks: placebo response and safety data.

In the course of evaluating the safety and efficacy of an investigational compound for acute migraine headaches, a large number of patients received placebo at a single site, offering the opportunity to characterize subjective and clinical physiologic responses of migraine patients to placebo in a controlled environment. In a single-site, double-blind, placebo-controlled study, 67 patients reported to the clinic while suffering a moderate to severe acute migraine headache and received oral placebo. For 6 hours after treatment, a continuous electrocardiogram (ECG) was performed, and headache severity, adverse events, and vital signs were recorded. Patients returned and repeated the procedure when free from pain. A headache was considered to be improved if its severity dropped to "mild" or "none." Twenty-five patients (37%; 95% CI: 26% to 50%) experienced headache improvement within 2 hours of receiving placebo, and 32 patients (48%: 36% to 60%) improved within 4 hours. There were no clinically important ECG changes during the migraine visit, and there were no clinically relevant differences in vital signs between the migraine and pain-free visits. Thus, a substantial placebo response occurs in migraine headache. Hemodynamic and ECG parameters are unchanged between migraine and pain-free states.

A pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model of d-sotalol Q-Tc prolongation during intravenous administration to healthy subjects.

The objective of this study was to assess the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the dextro (d-) isomer of sotalol, a class III antiarrhythmic agent, in healthy young men and women after a single intravenous bolus dose. The design was open-label, randomized, parallel group. Each group (4 men and 4 women) received either 0.5, 1.5, or 3.0 mg/kg d-sotalol as an intravenous infusion for 2 minutes. Serial measurements of the d-sotalol plasma concentration and the Q-Tc interval data were recorded before, during, and for 72 hours after drug administration. The pharmacokinetics of d-sotalol were found to be well described by a three-compartment model with linear elimination clearance from the central compartment. There were no significant differences in the elimination clearance or volume of the central compartment between dose levels or between men and women. However, women were found to have a lower steady-state volume of distribution than men (1.20 L/Kg versus 1.43 L/Kg). The Q-Tc versus d-sotalol plasma concentration data were fitted to a model that assumed a distinct "effect compartment" and sigmoidal Emax response. The baseline Q-Tc, determined from the fittings, was found to be significantly higher in women (0.40 versus 0.38 seconds). The effect compartment clearance was found to be highly variable, with a median of 12.3 (range, 0.2-671,300) L/h. There were statistically significant differences in the effect compartment clearance by dose among men and by gender at a dose of 1.5 mg/kg. There were no significant differences detected between dose groups or genders for the d-sotalol effect site concentration at one half the maximum Q-Tc prolongation from baseline (EC50), EMAX, (the maximum Q-Tc prolongation from baseline) or the Hill coefficient. In conclusion, the pharmacokinetics of d-sotalol after intravenous administration are independent of dose and gender, because the difference between men and women in volume of distribution at steady-state is not clinically significant. The pharmacodynamics of Q-Tc prolongation produced by d-sotalol appear to be independent of dose and gender; however, there is considerable variability in the time course of effects on Q-Tc between individuals.

Evaluation of cerebral pharmacokinetics of the novel antidepressant drug, BMS-181101, by positron emission tomography.

BMS-181101 is a novel antidepressant drug that is currently under clinical investigation. The goal of this study was to evaluate the pharmacokinetics and receptor binding of this agent in the brains of healthy human volunteers. BMS-181101 was radiolabeled with 11C by methylation with [11C]CH3I of the 5-hydroxypiperazine precursor and the product was purified by high-performance liquid chromatography. Cerebral pharmacokinetics of [11C]BMS-181101 were studied by dynamic positron emission tomography imaging in six healthy volunteers. Two studies were performed in each subject. For the first study the subject was injected with 10 mCl of high specific activity [11C]BMS-181101 (approximately 1700 mCi/mumol) and serial positron emission tomography images and arterial blood samples were collected over 90 min. Thirty minutes after acquiring the final image, each subject was coinjected with a second dose, 10 mCi of [11C]BMS-181101 plus 3 mg of unlabeled drug (final specific activity approximately 1.5 mCi/mumol), and imaging/blood collection was repeated. The data were analyzed by calculating regional tracer accumulation (percent injected dose/g) at 60 min after injection and compartmental modeling. Measurements of percent injected dose/g yielded similar values for all brain regions, independent of specific activity. Kinetic modeling of time activity curves for cerebellum, caudate, putamen, thalamus, pons and temporal, occipital and frontal cortex demonstrated that tissue distribution can be described by a simple two-compartment flow model. Statistical comparisons of the apparent distribution volumes for each region failed to reveal significant differences between the high and low specific activity studies. These results indicate that the central nervous system distribution of [11C]BMS-181101 is dominated by blood flow and significant receptor-specific localization does not occur in any brain region.

Coadministration of nefazodone and benzodiazepines: III. A pharmacokinetic interaction study with alprazolam.

This study was conducted to determine the potential for an interaction between nefazodone, a new antidepressant, and alprazolam after single- and multiple-dose administration in a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study in 48 healthy male volunteers. A group of 12 subjects received either placebo twice daily, 1 mg of alprazolam twice daily, 200 mg of nefazodone twice daily, or the combination of 1 mg of alprazolam and 200 mg of nefazodone twice daily for 7 days. Serial blood samples were collected after dosing on day 1 and day 7 and before the morning dose on days 4, 5, and 6 for the determination of alprazolam and its metabolites alpha-hydroxyalprazolam (AOH) and 4-hydroxyalprazolam (4OH) and nefazodone and its metabolites hydroxynefazodone (HO-nefazodone), m-chlorophenylpiperazine (mCPP), and a triazole dione metabolite (dione) by validated high-performance liquid chromatography methods. Steady-state levels in plasma were reached by day 4 for alprazolam, 4OH, nefazodone, HO-nefazodone, mCPP, and dione. Noncompartmental pharmacokinetic analysis showed that at steady state, alprazolam Cmax and AUCtau values significantly increased approximately twofold and 4OH Cmax and AUCtau values significantly decreased by 40 and 26%, respectively, when nefazodone was coadministered with alprazolam. There was no effect of alprazolam on the single-dose or steady-state pharmacokinetics of nefazodone, HO-nefazodone, or dione after the coadministration of alprazolam and nefazodone. However, the mean steady-state mCPP Cmax and AUCtau significantly increased by approximately threefold and t1/2 values significantly increased by approximately twofold after the coadministration of alprazolam and nefazodone in comparison to those when nefazodone was given alone. Competitive inhibition between alprazolam and nefazodone metabolism at cytochrome P450 3A4 may be responsible for the pharmacokinetic interaction when alprazolam and nefazodone were coadministered. No adjustment of nefazodone dosage is required when nefazodone and alprazolam are coadministered. Because alprazolam concentrations in plasma are increased in the presence of nefazodone, a reduction in alprazolam dosage is recommended when the two agents are coadministered.

Coadministration of nefazodone and benzodiazepines: IV. A pharmacokinetic interaction study with lorazepam.

This study was conducted to determine the potential for an interaction between nefazodone (NEF), a new antidepressant, and lorazepam (LOR) after single- and multiple-dose administration in a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, placebo-controlled study in healthy male volunteers. A total of 12 subjects per group received either placebo (PLA) twice daily, 2 mg of LOR twice daily, 200 mg of NEF twice daily, or the combination of 2 mg of LOR and 200 mg of NEF (LOR+NEF) twice daily for 7 days. Plasma samples were collected after dosing on day 1 and day 7 and before the morning dose on days 4, 5, and 6 for the determination of LOR, NEF, and NEF metabolites hydroxy (HO)-NEF, m-chlorophenylpiperazine (mCPP), and dione by validated high-performance liquid chromatography methods. Steady-state levels in plasma were reached by day 4 for LOR, NEF, HO-NEF, mCPP, and dione. Noncompartmental pharmacokinetic analysis showed that there was no effect of LOR on the single dose or steady-state pharmacokinetics of NEF, HO-NEF, or dione after coadministration. The steady-state mCPP Cmax values decreased 36% for the LOR+NEF group in comparison to that when NEF was given alone. There was no effect of NEF on the pharmacokinetics of LOR after coadministration. The absence of an interaction appears to be attributable to LOR's metabolic clearance being dependant on conjugation rather than hydroxylation. Overall, no change in LOR or NEF dosage is necessary when the two drugs are coadministered.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic evaluation during coadministration of nefazodone and propranolol in healthy men.

Potential interactions between nefazodone (200 mg every 12 hours) and propranolol (40 mg every 12 hours) were assessed in 18 healthy male volunteers in an open-label, randomized, three-way crossover study. The nature, frequency, and severity of adverse events during coadministration of nefazodone and propranolol were similar to those observed with either treatment alone. There were no clinically significant effects on vital signs, electrocardiographic results, or laboratory parameters. With coadministration, the maximum peak concentration (Cmax) and area under the concentration-time curve over the dosing interval (AUC tau) of propranolol decreased 29% and 14%, respectively; Cmax and AUC tau of 4-hydroxy-propranolol decreased 15% and 21%, respectively. Despite decreased plasma concentrations of the beta-antagonists, the reduction in exercise-induced tachycardia and post-exercise double product was slightly greater with coadministration than with propranolol alone. Administration of nefazodone alone did not significantly affect either pharmacologic parameter. The pharmacokinetics of nefazodone and its metabolites were largely unaffected during coadministration. Coadministration of propranolol and nefazodone results in modest pharmacokinetic inequivalencies, but no clinically significant alterations of the pharmacodynamics of propranolol.

Absorption and presystemic metabolism of nefazodone administered at different regions in the gastrointestinal tract of humans.

PURPOSE: The absorption and disposition of nefazodone (NEF) and its metabolites hydroxynefazodone (HO-NEF), m-chlorophenylpiperazine (mCPP) and triazole dione (dione) were assessed in 10 healthy subjects following infusion of NEF solution into the proximal and distal regions of the intestine vs administration of NEF solution orally by mouth. METHODS: NEF HCl (400 mg) was infused over 5 hours into the proximal or distal intestine through a nasogastric tube, or orally ingested in 10 divided doses over 4.5 hours. The three treatments in the three-period crossover design were separated by one week. RESULTS: The bioavailability of NEF, based on AUC(INF), from proximal and distal regions relative to that from oral administration was 97% and 106%, respectively. NEF was absorbed equally well from all three treatments with median Tmax of 5.0 hours which coincided with the duration of infusion. Mean Cmax of NEF was not different between proximal and oral administrations, however, mean Cmax after distal instillation was 40% lower than that after oral administration. Exposure to HO-NEF, mCPP and dione, following proximal instillation was also comparable to that after oral administration. AUC(INF) of HO-NEF and dione was significantly lower after distal instillation compared to that after oral administration but AUC(INF) of mCPP was not. Cmax of all metabolites was significantly lower after distal administration in comparison to oral treatment. Terminal half-life for NEF, HO-NEF and mCPP after distal administration was longer than the other two treatments. CONCLUSIONS: NEF is absorbed throughout the length of the gastro-intestinal tract which supports the development of an extended-release formulation of NEF. The exposure to the metabolites (relative to NEF) was lower from the distal intestinal site compared to the proximal and oral site which may be explained by a reduced first pass of NEF by the cytochrome P450 3A4 in the distal intestine.