Co-Administration of Vonoprazan, Not Tegoprazan, Affects the Pharmacokinetics of Atorvastatin in Healthy Male Subjects.

Potassium-competitive acid blocker is a new class of drugs inhibiting gastric acid. It is controversial that vonoprazan showed the inhibitory activities of cytochrome P450 3A4. This study aimed to evaluate the pharmacokinetics (PK) of atorvastatin and safety when atorvastatin was administered alone and co-administered with vonoprazan or tegoprazan. An open-label, multiple-dose, 3-intervention, 4-sequence, 4-period, partial replicate crossover study was conducted, and three interventions were; one is orally administered atorvastatin 40 mg alone once daily for 7 days, another is atorvastatin co-administered with vonoprazan 20 mg, and the other is atorvastatin co-administered with tegoprazan 50 mg. PK blood samples were collected up to 24 h after the last dose, and PK parameters for atorvastatin, 2-hydroxyatorvastatin and atorvastatin lactone were estimated by a non-compartmental method. Safety was evaluated, including adverse events and clinical laboratory tests. A total of 28 subjects completed the study. When atorvastatin was co-administered with vonoprazan, the systemic exposures of atorvastatin and atorvastatin lactone significantly increased, and the metabolic ratio of 2-hydroxyatorvastatin significantly decreased. Hypergastrinemia only occurred when atorvastatin was co-administered with vonoprazan. However, the plasma concentration profiles of atorvastatin, 2-hydroxyatorvastatin and atorvastatin lactone were similar when atorvastatin was administered alone or co-administered with tegoprazan. In conclusion, after multiple doses of atorvastatin co-administered with vonoprazan in healthy subjects, the systemic exposure of atorvastatin and the incidence of hypergastrinemia increased. With tegoprazan, however, those interactions were not observed.

A Fully Automated Analytic System for Measuring Endolymphatic Hydrops Ratios in Patients With Ménière Disease via Magnetic Resonance Imaging: Deep Learning Model Development Study.

BACKGROUND: Recently, the analysis of endolymphatic hydropses (EHs) via inner ear magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) for patients with Ménière disease has been attempted in various studies. In addition, artificial intelligence has rapidly been incorporated into the medical field. In our previous studies, an automated algorithm for EH analysis was developed by using a convolutional neural network. However, several limitations existed, and further studies were conducted to compensate for these limitations. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study is to develop a fully automated analytic system for measuring EH ratios that enhances EH analysis accuracy and clinical usability when studying Ménière disease via MRI. METHODS: We proposed the 3into3Inception and 3intoUNet networks. Their network architectures were based on those of the Inception-v3 and U-Net networks, respectively. The developed networks were trained for inner ear segmentation by using the magnetic resonance images of 124 people and were embedded in a new, automated EH analysis system-inner-ear hydrops estimation via artificial intelligence (INHEARIT)-version 2 (INHEARIT-v2). After fivefold cross-validation, an additional test was performed by using 60 new, unseen magnetic resonance images to evaluate the performance of our system. The INHEARIT-v2 system has a new function that automatically selects representative images from a full MRI stack. RESULTS: The average segmentation performance of the fivefold cross-validation was measured via the intersection of union method, resulting in performance values of 0.743 (SD 0.030) for the 3into3Inception network and 0.811 (SD 0.032) for the 3intoUNet network. The representative magnetic resonance slices (ie, from a data set of unseen magnetic resonance images) that were automatically selected by the INHEARIT-v2 system only differed from a maximum of 2 expert-selected slices. After comparing the ratios calculated by experienced physicians and those calculated by the INHEARIT-v2 system, we found that the average intraclass correlation coefficient for all cases was 0.941; the average intraclass correlation coefficient of the vestibules was 0.968, and that of the cochleae was 0.914. The time required for the fully automated system to accurately analyze EH ratios based on a patient's MRI stack was approximately 3.5 seconds. CONCLUSIONS: In this study, a fully automated full-stack magnetic resonance analysis system for measuring EH ratios was developed (named INHEARIT-v2), and the results showed that there was a high correlation between the expert-calculated EH ratio values and those calculated by the INHEARIT-v2 system. The system is an upgraded version of the INHEARIT system; it has higher segmentation performance and automatically selects representative images from an MRI stack. The new model can help clinicians by providing objective analysis results and reducing the workload for interpreting magnetic resonance images.

A first-in-human study of KMRC011, a potential treatment for acute radiation syndrome, to explore tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics.

KMRC011 is a novel Toll-like receptor 5 agonist under development as a treatment for acute radiation syndrome (ARS). The aim of this first-in-human study was to investigate the tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of a single intramuscular dose of KMRC011 in healthy subjects. A randomized, single-blind, placebo-controlled, single dose-escalation study was conducted with the starting dose of 5 µg. Eight (4 only for 5 µg cohort) subjects per cohort were randomly assigned to KMRC011 or placebo in a 3:1 ratio. Dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) was assessed throughout the study. Serum concentrations of KMRC011, granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (G-CSF), and interleukin-6 (IL-6) were measured up to 48 h postdose. Based on safety review, the dose of KMRC011 escalated up to 20 µg, and consequently, a total of 4 dose levels (5, 10, 15, and 20 µg) were explored. The most common adverse event was injection site reaction, showing no dose-related trend. Three DLTs (2 cases of hepatic enzyme increased and 1 of pyrexia) were observed; 1 in the 15 µg cohort and 2 in the 20 µg cohort. A developed method could not detect any KMRC011 in serum. KMRC011 15 µg and 20 µg showed significant increases of G-CSF, IL-6, and absolute neutrophil counts, compared with the placebo. A single intramuscular administration of KMRC011 ranging from 5 to 15 µg was tolerated in healthy subjects. Doses of KMRC011 equal to or greater than 15 µg exerted TLR5 agonist-like activities by increasing serum G-CSF and IL-6. It suggests that KMRC011 has the potential for a treatment for ARS.

Poly (ADP-Ribose) Polymerase Inhibitor Treatment as a Novel Therapy Attenuating Renal Ischemia-Reperfusion Injury.

Intrarenal robust inflammatory response following ischemia-reperfusion injury (IRI) is a major factor in the pathogenesis of renal injury in ischemic acute kidney injury (AKI). Although numerous studies have investigated various agents of immune modulation or suppression for ischemic AKI, few showed reproducible effects. We hypothesized that poly (ADP-ribose) polymerase (PARP) inhibitor may favorably change post-ischemic intrarenal immunologic micromilieu by reducing damage-associated molecular pattern (DAMP) signals and improve renal outcome in ischemic AKI. The effects of JPI-289 (a PARP inhibitor) on early renal injury in a murine IRI model and hypoxic HK-2 cell model were investigated. Bilateral IRI surgery was performed in three groups of 9-week-old male C57BL/6 mice (control, JPI-289 50 mg/kg, and JPI-289 100 mg/kg; n = 9-10 in each group). Saline or JPI-289 was intraperitoneally injected. Renal function deterioration was significantly attenuated in the JPI-289 treatment groups in a dose-dependent manner. Inflammatory cell infiltration and proinflammatory cytokine/chemokine expressions in the post-ischemic kidneys were also attenuated by JPI-289 treatment. JPI-289 treatment at 0.5 and 0.75 µg/ml facilitated the proliferation of hypoxic HK-2 cells. PARP inhibition with JPI-289 treatment showed favorable effects in ischemic AKI by attenuating intrarenal inflammatory cascade in a murine model and facilitating proliferation of hypoxic HK-2 cells.

Automated measurement of hydrops ratio from MRI in patients with Ménière's disease using CNN-based segmentation.

Ménière's Disease (MD) is difficult to diagnose and evaluate objectively over the course of treatment. Recently, several studies have reported MD diagnoses by MRI-based endolymphatic hydrops (EH) analysis. However, this method is time-consuming and complicated. Therefore, a fast, objective, and accurate evaluation tool is necessary. The purpose of this study was to develop an algorithm that can accurately analyze EH on intravenous (IV) gadolinium (Gd)-enhanced inner-ear MRI using artificial intelligence (AI) with deep learning. In this study, we developed a convolutional neural network (CNN)-based deep-learning model named INHEARIT (INner ear Hydrops Estimation via ARtificial InTelligence) for the automatic segmentation of the cochlea and vestibule, and calculation of the EH ratio in the segmented region. Measurement of the EH ratio was performed manually by a neuro-otologist and neuro-radiologist and by estimation with the INHEARIT model and were highly consistent (intraclass correlation coefficient = 0.971). This is the first study to demonstrate that automated EH ratio measurements are possible, which is important in the current clinical context where the usefulness of IV-Gd inner-ear MRI for MD diagnosis is increasing.

Pharmacokinetic and Safety Profiles of a Fixed-Dose Combination of Amlodipine, Valsartan, and Atorvastatin: A 3-Period Replicate Crossover Study.

The objective of study was to compare the pharmacokinetic and safety profiles of a fixed-dose combination (FDC) formulation of 5/160/20 mg amlodipine/valsartan/atorvastatin with those of separate formulations of a 5/160-mg amlodipine/valsartan tablet and a 20-mg atorvastatin tablet. This was a randomized, open-label, single-dose, 3-sequence, 3-period replicate crossover study with 42 subjects. Serial blood samples for pharmacokinetic assessment were collected up to 72 hours postdose. For establishing bioequivalence (BE) for amlodipine, valsartan, and atorvastatin, a reference-scaled average BE approach was used if applicable, as well as the conventional limit of 0.80-1.25. The 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for the geometric mean ratios (GMRs) for the maximum plasma concentration (Cmax ) and the area under the curve to the last measurable concentration (AUCt ) between the FDC and separate formulations were within the 0.80-1.25 limit for all analytes but atorvastatin. The estimated within-subject standard deviation of the log-transformed values of the separate formulations, the reference intervention, was 0.3804 for the Cmax of atorvastatin, being set at 0.7489-1.3352 for the BE acceptance limit. For both the Cmax and AUCt for atorvastatin, the GMRs lay within 0.80-1.25, and the 90%CIs for the GMRs were within the BE acceptance limit. This 3-period replicate crossover study demonstrated the BE of the FDC formulation of amlodipine, valsartan, and atorvastatin and the separate formulations of an amlodipine/valsartan tablet and an atorvastatin tablet. A similar incidence of treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) was observed in both interventions, and headache was the most common TEAE.

Effects of Celecoxib on the QTc Interval: A Thorough QT/QTc Study.

PURPOSE: Celecoxib is a selective cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitor widely used in patients with osteoarthritis and rheumatoid arthritis. Recently, nonclinical data on the inhibition of human ether-à-go-go-related gene potassium channels by celecoxib were reported, but there is no compelling evidence for this finding in humans. The aim of this study was to assess the potential effects of celecoxib on cardiac repolarization by conducting a thorough QT study, which was designed in compliance with the related guidelines. METHODS: This randomized, open-label, positive- and negative-controlled, crossover clinical study was conducted in healthy male and female subjects. Each subject received, in 1 of 4 randomly assigned sequences, all of the following 3 interventions: celecoxib 400 mg once daily for 6 days; a single dose of moxifloxacin 400 mg, which served as a positive control to assess the assay sensitivity; and water without any drug, which served as a negative control. Serial 12-lead ECG and blood samples for pharmacokinetic analysis were collected periodically over 24 h. Individually RR-corrected QT intervals (QTcI) and Fridericia method-corrected QT intervals (QTcF) were calculated and evaluated. FINDINGS: Twenty-eight subjects were allocated to 1 of the 4 intervention sequences. The largest time-matched mean effects of celecoxib on the QTcI and QTcF were <5 ms, and the upper bounds of the 1-sided 95% CIs of those values did not exceed 10 ms. Moreover, none of the subjects had an absolute QTcI value of >450 ms or a change from baseline in QTcI of >60 ms after multiple administrations of celecoxib. The QTcI did not show a positive correlation with celecoxib concentrations in the range up to ~2700 µg/L. The overall effects of moxifloxacin on the QTcI and QTcF were enough to establish assay sensitivity. No serious adverse events were reported, with a total of 11 AEs reported in 8 subjects. IMPLICATIONS: Celecoxib caused no clinically relevant increase in the QT/QTc interval at the maximum dose level used in current practice settings. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03822520.

Effect of Cilostazol on the Pharmacokinetics of Simvastatin in Healthy Subjects.

PURPOSE: We evaluated potential drug-drug interactions between cilostazol and simvastatin, both CYP3A substrates, in healthy subjects. METHODS: An open-label, two-period, fixed-sequence clinical study was conducted. Seventeen subjects were given a single oral dose of simvastatin 40 mg on day 1 and multiple oral doses of cilostazol 100 mg twice daily on days 2 to 5 followed by a single dose of cilostazol and simvastatin on day 6. Plasma concentrations of simvastatin and its active metabolite, simvastatin acid, were measured using liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry for pharmacokinetic assessment. Moreover, serum lipid profiles under fasting conditions were determined. RESULTS: The geometric mean ratios of the area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to time infinity of simvastatin combined with cilostazol to that of simvastatin alone were 1.64 (90% CI, 1.38-1.95) for simvastatin and 1.31 (1.04-1.66) for simvastatin acid. In addition, coadministration with cilostazol significantly increased the maximum concentration of simvastatin and simvastatin acid, up to 1.8-fold and 1.6-fold, respectively. However, the effects of a single dose of simvastatin on serum lipid profiles were not affected notably when simvastatin was coadministered with cilostazol. CONCLUSIONS: Multiple doses of cilostazol increased the systemic exposure of simvastatin and simvastatin acid following a single dose of simvastatin.

Comparison of the Pharmacokinetic-Pharmacodynamic Relationships of Two Darbepoetin Alfa Formulations in Healthy Male Volunteers.

OBJECTIVE: This study compared the pharmacokinetic (PK), pharmacodynamic (PD), and safety properties of the test (CJ-40001) and reference (NESP®) versions of darbepoetin alfa following a single subcutaneous (SC) or intravenous (IV) administration in healthy male subjects. METHODS: A single-blind, randomized, single-dose, two-period, two-intervention crossover study was conducted, with two separate parts consisting of SC or IV administration. In each period, either a test or reference product was administered via the SC or IV route. Serial blood samples for PK analysis and the reticulocyte, hematocrit, hemoglobin, and red blood cell counts for PD analysis were collected for up to 360 or 264 h after SC or IV administration, respectively. The PK and PD parameters were calculated using non-compartmental methods. The 90% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratios for the PK and PD parameters between the two interventions were estimated. Safety and anti-drug antibody profile assessments were performed. RESULTS: The mean darbepoetin alfa concentration-time profiles were comparable between the two products for SC and IV administration. Additionally, the PD and safety profiles were similar between the two products. Anti-drug antibody reactivity was negative for all samples from both intervention groups for SC and IV administration. The time-matched serum darbepoetin alfa concentration and the PD markers presented a counter-clockwise hysteresis, which suggests a time delay between the exposure and response. CONCLUSION: The test and reference darbepoetin alfa formulations had similar PK, PD, and safety profiles. Thus, it is expected that the two formulations are able to be used interchangeably in clinical settings. ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03542916.

No pharmacokinetic interactions between candesartan and amlodipine following multiple oral administrations in healthy subjects.

PURPOSE: To evaluate the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of candesartan and amlodipine in the absence and presence of each other in healthy subjects. METHODS: This study consisted of two parts: part 1, the effect of amlodipine on candesartan; part 2, the effect of candesartan on amlodipine. Each part was designed as a randomized, open-label, two-sequence, two-period, two-intervention crossover study with 20 subjects and performed separately in different populations. Pharmacokinetic assessments were performed over 48 hours for candesartan in part 1 and 72 hours for amlodipine in part 2 after drug administration on Day 10. Safety data included the results of physical examinations, clinical laboratory tests, vital signs, an electrocardiogram, and adverse events. RESULTS: For both candesartan and amlodipine, the 90% confidence intervals for the geometric mean ratios of area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to the time of dosing interval of 24 hours and maximum concentration after drug administration fell within the bioequivalence acceptance criteria. Although this study was conducted in normotensive subjects, blood pressure lowering effects were observed in all intervention groups and co-administration of candesartan and amlodipine reduced blood pressure more than amlodipine alone, but similar to candesartan alone. No serious adverse event was reported throughout the study, and all treatment emergent adverse events were mild to moderate in severity and were recovered without sequelae. CONCLUSION: Co-administration of candesartan and amlodipine did not change the systemic exposure of each drug alone in healthy subjects. The administration of candesartan 32 mg alone, amlodipine 10 mg alone, and co-administration of candesartan and amlodipine were well tolerated during the study.

Comparison of the pharmacokinetics and tolerability of montelukast/levocetirizine administered as a fixed-dose combination and as separate tablets.

OBJECTIVE: A novel fixed-dose combination (FDC) capsule of 10/5 mg of montelukast/levocetirizine may lead to better compliance than two separate tablets taken together. The aim of this study was to evaluate the pharmacokinetics (PK) and tolerability of an FDC of montelukast and levocetirizine compared to separate tablets. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A randomized, open-label, single-dose, two-sequence, two-period, crossover study was conducted with healthy male subjects. In each period, either an FDC or separate tablets were administered orally, and serial blood samples were collected for PK analysis for up to 34 hours after dosing. PK parameters were calculated using noncompartmental methods. The 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the geometric mean ratios (GMRs) of the maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) and the area under the curve to the last measurable concentration (AUClast) for the two interventions were estimated. Tolerability assessments were performed for all the subjects who received the drug at least once. RESULTS: The PK profiles of the two interventions were comparable. For montelukast, the GMRs and 90% CIs for the Cmax and AUClast were 0.9800 (0.8903 - 1.0787) and 1.0706 (0.9968 - 1.1498), respectively. The corresponding values for levocetirizine were 0.9195 (0.8660 - 0.9763) and 1.0375 (1.0123 - 1.0634), respectively. Both interventions were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: The PK and tolerability profiles of montelukast and levocetirizine after a single oral administration were comparable between the FDC and separate tablets. For patients with allergic rhinitis who require a combination treatment, the FDC of montelukast and levocetirizine will be a convenient therapeutic option.
.

Association of genetic variations with pharmacokinetics and lipid-lowering response to atorvastatin in healthy Korean subjects.

BACKGROUND: Statins are effective agents in the primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease, but treatment response to statins varies among individuals. We analyzed multiple genetic polymorphisms and assessed pharmacokinetic and lipid-lowering responses after atorvastatin 80 mg treatment in healthy Korean individuals. METHODS: Atorvastatin 80 mg was given to 50 healthy Korean male volunteers. Blood samples were collected to measure plasma atorvastatin and lipid concentrations up to 48 hours after atorvastatin administration. Subjects were genotyped for 1,936 drug metabolism and transporter genetic polymorphisms using the Affymetrix DMET plus array. RESULTS: The pharmacokinetics and lipid-lowering effect of atorvastatin showed remarkable interindividual variation. Three polymorphisms in the SLCO1B1, SLCO1B3, and ABCC2 genes were associated with either the maximum concentration (Cmax) of atorvastatin or changes in total cholesterol or low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C). Minor homozygotes (76.5 ng/mL) of SLCO1B1 c.-910G>A showed higher Cmax than heterozygotes (34.0 ng/mL) and major homozygotes (33.5 ng/mL, false discovery rate P=0.040). Cmax and the area under the plasma concentration curve from hour 0 to infinity (AUC∞) were higher in carriers of the SLCO1B1*17 haplotype that included c.-910G>A than in noncarriers (46.1 vs 32.8 ng/mL for Cmax; 221.5 vs 154.2 ng/mL for AUC∞). SLCO1B3 c.334G>T homozygotes (63.0 ng/mL) also showed higher Cmax than heterozygotes (34.7 ng/mL) and major homozygotes (31.4 ng/mL, FDR P=0.037). A nonsynonymous ABCC2 c.1249G>A was associated with small total cholesterol and LDL-C responses (0.23% and -0.70% for G/A vs -11.9% and -17.4% for G/G). The Cmax tended to increase according to the increase in the number of minor allele of SLCO1B1 c. -910G>A and SLCO1B3 c.334G>T. CONCLUSION: Genetic polymorphisms in transporter genes, including SLCO1B1, SLCO1B3, and ABCC2, may influence the pharmacokinetics and lipid-lowering response to atorvastatin administration.

A proposal for an individualized pharmacogenetic-guided isoniazid dosage regimen for patients with tuberculosis.

BACKGROUND/AIM: Isoniazid (INH) is an essential component of first-line anti-tuberculosis (TB) treatment. However, treatment with INH is complicated by polymorphisms in the expression of the enzyme system primarily responsible for its elimination, N-acetyltransferase 2 (NAT2), and its associated hepatotoxicity. The objective of this study was to develop an individualized INH dosing regimen using a pharmacogenetic-driven model and to apply this regimen in a pilot study. METHODS: A total of 206 patients with TB who received anti-TB treatment were included in this prospective study. The 2-hour post-dose concentrations of INH were obtained, and their NAT2 genotype was determined using polymerase chain reaction and sequencing. A multivariate regression analysis that included the variables of age, sex, body weight, and NAT2 genotype was performed to determine the best model for estimating the INH dose that achieves a concentration of 3.0-6.0 mg/L. This dosing algorithm was then used for newly enrolled 53 patients. RESULTS: Serum concentrations of INH were significantly lower in the rapid-acetylators than in the slow-acetylators (2.55 mg/L vs 6.78 mg/L, median, P<0.001). A multivariate stepwise linear regression analysis revealed that NAT2 and body weight independently affected INH concentrations: INH concentration (mg/L) = 13.821-0.1× (body weight, kg) -2.273× (number of high activity alleles of NAT2; 0, 1, 2). In 53 newly enrolled patients, the frequency at which they were within the therapeutic range of 3.0-6.0 mg/L was higher in the model-based treatment group compared to the standard treatment group (80.8% vs 59.3%). CONCLUSION: The use of individualized pharmacogenetic-guided INH dosage regimens that incorporate NAT2 genotype and body weight may help to ensure achievement of therapeutic concentrations of INH in the TB patients.

Effects of amoxicillin/clavulanic acid on the pharmacokinetics of valproic acid.

Valproic acid (VPA) is mainly metabolized via glucuronide, which is hydrolyzed by ß-glucuronidase and undergoes enterohepatic circulation. Amoxicillin/clavulanic acid (AMC) administration leads to decreased levels of ß-glucuronidase-producing bacteria, suggesting that these antibiotics could interrupt enterohepatic circulation and thereby alter the pharmacokinetics of VPA. This study aimed to evaluate the effects of AMC on the pharmacokinetics of VPA. This was an open-label, two-treatment, one-sequence study in 16 healthy volunteers. Two treatments were evaluated; treatment VPA, in which a single dose of VPA 500 mg was administered, and treatment AMC + VPA, in which multiple doses of AMC 500/125 mg were administered three times daily for 7 days and then a single dose of VPA was administered. Blood samples were collected up to 48 hours. Pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated using noncompartmental methods. Fifteen subjects completed the study. Systemic exposures and peak concentrations of VPA were slightly lower with treatment AMC + VPA than with treatment VPA (AUClast, 851.0 h·mg/L vs 889.6 h·mg/L; C max, 52.1 mg/L vs 53.0 mg/L). There were no significant between-treatment effects on pharmacokinetics (95% confidence interval [CI]) of AUClast and C max (95.7 [85.9-106.5] and 98.3 [91.6-105.6], respectively). Multiple doses of AMC had no significant effects on the pharmacokinetics of VPA; thus, no dose adjustment is necessary.

A Novel Simultaneous Determination of Sarpogrelate and its Active Metabolite (M-1) in Human Plasma, Using Liquid Chromatography-Tandem Mass Spectrometry: Clinical Application.

BACKGROUND: This study describes a novel analytical method for simultaneously determining sarpogrelate and its metabolite (M-1) in human plasma, using liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry, with electrospray ionization in the positive ion mode. METHODS: Sarpogrelate, M-1, and labeled internal standard (d3-sarpogrelate) were extracted from 50 µL of human plasma by simple protein precipitation. Chromatographic separation was performed by using a linear gradient elution of a mobile phase involving water-formic acid (99.9:0.1, v/v) and acetonitrile-formic acid (99.9:0.1, v/v) over 4 min of run time on a column, with a core-shell-type stationary phase (Kinetex C18, 50 mm×2.1 mm i.d., 2.6-µm particle size, Phenomenex, USA). Detection of the column effluent was performed by using a triple-quadruple mass spectrometer in the multiple-reaction monitoring mode. RESULTS: The developed method was validated in human plasma, with lower limits of quantification of 10 ng/mL for sarpogrelate and 2 ng/mL for M-1. The calibration curves of sarpogrelate and M-1 were linear over the concentration ranges of 10-2,000 and 2-400 ng/mL, respectively (R(2)>0.99). The carry-over effect, precision, accuracy, and stability of the method met the criteria for acceptance. CONCLUSIONS: A simple, fast, robust, and reliable analytical method was successfully developed and applied to the high-throughput determination of sarpogrelate and its metabolite in real plasma samples in a pharmacokinetic study of healthy subjects.

Bioequivalence evaluation of two amlodipine salts, besylate and orotate, each in a fixed-dose combination with olmesartan in healthy subjects.

A fixed-dose combination of amlodipine and olmesartan is used to treat high blood pressure in patients whose hypertension is not sufficiently controlled with either drug alone. The objective of this study was to evaluate the bioequivalence of two fixed-dose combinations, ie, amlodipine orotate/olmesartan medoxomil 10/40 mg and amlodipine besylate/olmesartan medoxomil 10/40 mg, in healthy subjects. A randomized, open-label, single-dose, two-sequence, two-period, crossover study was conducted in 30 healthy adult volunteers. Blood samples were collected for up to 72 hours post-dose in each period. Safety data included the results of physical examinations, clinical laboratory tests, vital signs, an electrocardiogram, and adverse events. For both amlodipine and olmesartan, the 90% confidence intervals for the geometric mean ratios of AUClast and time to peak plasma concentration fell within the bioequivalence acceptance criteria. The two fixed-dose combinations showed similar safety profiles. Amlodipine orotate/olmesartan medoxomil 10/40 mg was bioequivalent to amlodipine besylate/olmesartan medoxomil 10/40 mg.

Multiple-Dose Study to Evaluate Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics, and Safety in Healthy Subjects: A Comparison of Controlled-Release Sarpogrelate and Immediate-Release Sarpogrelate.

AIMS: To compare the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and safety of sarpogrelate between controlled-release (CR) and immediate-release (IR) formulations after multiple-dose administration. METHODS: This study was a randomized, open-label, 2-period, 2-treatment, crossover study in healthy subjects. All subjects received CR sarpogrelate 300 mg once daily and IR sarpogrelate 100 mg three times daily by random order each for 3 days with a 7-day washout period. Serial blood sampling was performed over 24 h. Pharmacokinetic parameters were determined by noncompartmental methods. Platelet aggregation to collagen, measured by light transmission aggregometry, was reported as maximal platelet aggregation. RESULTS: Thirty-two subjects completed the study. CR sarpogrelate increased rapidly, reaching Cmax in 1.25 h (vs. 1.00 h in IR sarpogrelate) and declined with a t1/2 of 3.59 h (vs. 1.12 h in IR sarpogrelate). The 90% CIs for the geometric mean ratio of AUCτ and Cmax,ss between IR and CR formulations were 1.18 to 1.40 and 0.99 to 1.29, respectively. The degree of inhibition of platelet aggregation was similar between two formulations. CONCLUSIONS: CR sarpogrelate showed slightly higher systemic exposure and similar peak concentration compared with IR sarpogrelate. The profiles of pharmacodynamics and safety were comparable between two formulations.

Efficacy of mitiglinide and sitagliptin, alone or in combination, on postprandial excursion and glycemic variability assessed by continuous glucose monitoring: a post hoc analysis with single-day treatment.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the efficacy of mitiglinide and sitagliptin, alone or in combination, on postprandial excursion and glycemic variability assessed by continuous glucose monitoring (CGM) in a single-day treatment setting. METHODS: This was a post hoc analysis of a randomized crossover study comparing the efficacy of sitagliptin, mitiglinide and the combination of these two drugs. Twenty-four hour CGM was performed before and after a single-day treatment with each drug alone or in combination. RESULTS: Mean glucose levels were decreased in all groups. The average of three postprandial glucose excursions AUC (average of all three 4-h postprandial periods throughout the day) (AUCpp-average) decreased in the mitiglinide and combination treatment groups, but not in the sitagliptin group. The lowering effect on AUCpp-average was greater in patients given mitiglinide (-47 mg/dl, p < 0.001) or combination treatment (-66 mg/dl, p < 0.001) compared with sitagliptin alone (-18 mg/dl). The reduction in mean amplitude of glycemic excursion was greater with mitiglinide (-29.3 mg/dl, p < 0.001) and combination treatment (-28.3 mg/dl, p < 0.01) than with sitagliptin alone (-8.9 mg/dl). CONCLUSIONS: Mitiglinide or combination treatment resulted in lower glycemic variability and postprandial glucose excursion than sitagliptin alone; however, the results of this single-day pharmacodynamics study cannot be generalized to a clinical setting.

Lack of the effect of lobeglitazone, a peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-γ agonist, on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of warfarin.

AIMS: Lobeglitazone has been developed for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. This study was conducted to evaluate potential drug-drug interactions between lobeglitazone and warfarin, an anticoagulant with a narrow therapeutic index. METHODS: In this open-label, three-treatment, crossover study, 24 healthy male subjects were administered lobeglitazone (0.5 mg) for 1-12 days with warfarin (25 mg) on day 5 in one period. After a washout interval, subjects were administered warfarin (25 mg) alone in the other period. Pharmacokinetics of R- and S-warfarin and lobeglitazone, as well as pharmacodynamics of warfarin, as measured by international normalized ratio (INR) and factor VII activity, were assessed. RESULTS: The geometric mean ratios (GMRs) and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for area under the curve from time zero to the time of the last quantifiable concentration (AUClast) for warfarin + lobeglitazone: warfarin alone were 1.0076 (90% CI: 0.9771, 1.0391) for R-warfarin and 0.9880 (90% CI: 0.9537, 1.0235) for S-warfarin. The maximum observed plasma concentration (C max) values were 1.0167 (90% CI: 0.9507, 1.0872) for R-warfarin and 1.0028 (90% CI: 0.9518, 1.0992) for S-warfarin, both of which were contained in the interval 0.80-1.25. Lobeglitazone had no effect on the area under the effect-time curve from time 0 to 168 hours (AUEC) of INR and factor VII activity, as demonstrated by the GMRs of 1.0091 (90% CI: 0.9872, 1.0314) and 0.9355 (90% CI: 0.9028, 0.9695), respectively. In addition, the pharmacokinetics of lobeglitazone was also unaffected by warfarin. CONCLUSION: Concomitant administration of lobeglitazone and warfarin was well tolerated. Lobeglitazone had no meaningful effect on the pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics of warfarin. These findings indicate that lobeglitazone and warfarin can be coadministered without dosage adjustments for either drug.

A pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic drug interaction between rosuvastatin and valsartan in healthy subjects.

PURPOSE: Valsartan, an angiotensin-receptor blocker, and rosuvastatin, a competitive inhibitor of the 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase, are frequently coadministered to treat patients with hypertension and dyslipidemia. The study reported here sought to evaluate the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions between rosuvastatin and valsartan in healthy Korean subjects. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: Thirty healthy male Korean subjects were administered with rosuvastatin (20 mg/day), valsartan (160 mg/day), and both drugs concomitantly for 4 days in a randomized, open-label, multiple-dose, three-treatment, three-period crossover study. Plasma concentrations of rosuvastatin, N-desmethyl rosuvastatin, and valsartan were determined using validated high-performance liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry. Lipid profiles and vital signs (systolic and diastolic blood pressure and pulse rate) were measured for the pharmacodynamic assessment. RESULTS: For rosuvastatin, the geometric mean ratios (90% confidence intervals [CIs]) of coadministration to mono-administration were 0.8809 (0.7873-0.9857) for maximum plasma concentration at steady state and 0.9151 (0.8632-0.9701) for area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) over a dosing interval at steady state. For valsartan, the geometric mean ratios (90% CIs) of those were 0.9300 (0.7946-1.0884) and 1.0072 (0.8893-1.1406), respectively. There were no significant differences in the metabolic ratio of N-desmethyl rosuvastatin AUC to rosuvastatin AUC between coadministration and rosuvastatin alone. No interaction was found in terms of systolic or diastolic blood pressure or lipid profiles. Combined treatment with valsartan and rosuvastatin was generally well tolerated without serious adverse events. CONCLUSION: The pharmacokinetic profiles of rosuvastatin and valsartan in combination were comparable with those of rosuvastatin and valsartan administered individually, suggesting that their individual pharmacokinetics were not affected by their coadministration. No dose adjustment was required and the results are supportive of a study in a larger patient population.