Pharmacokinetic Interaction Between Fingolimod and Carbamazepine in Healthy Subjects.

This open-label, single-sequence study in healthy subjects investigated the effects of steady-state carbamazepine on the pharmacokinetic (PK) profile of a single 2-mg dose of fingolimod. In period 1, a single oral dose of fingolimod 2 mg (day 1) was followed by PK and safety assessments up to 36 days. In period 2, carbamazepine was administered in flexible, up-titrated doses (600 mg twice daily maximum) for 49 days. Fingolimod was administered on day 35, followed by a study completion evaluation (day 71). The PK analysis included 23 of 26 of the enrolled subjects (88.5%). Coadministration of fingolimod at steady-state carbamazepine concentrations resulted in increased fingolimod CL/F by 67% through the induction of CYP3A4, a cytochrome with negligible involvement in fingolimod clearance in an uninduced state. Fingolimod Cmax was reduced by 18% and AUCinf by 40%, as was T1/2 (106 vs 163 hours). A similar trend was observed for fingolimod-P. Models linking fingolimod-P blood concentrations to lymphocyte count or annual relapse rate suggest that such a decrease would have a low impact on the treatment effect. However, in the absence of efficacy data of fingolimod at doses lower than the therapeutic dose, their coadministration should be used with caution.

Relative Bioavailability of an Emulsion Formulation for Omega-3-Acid Ethyl Esters Compared to the Commercially Available Formulation: A Randomized, Parallel-Group, Single-Dose Study Followed by Repeat Dosing in Healthy Volunteers.

LOVAZA (omega-3-acid ethyl esters; eicosapentaenoic acid [EPA]/docosahexaenoic acid [DHA]), with diet, lowers very high triglycerides (≥500 mg/dL) in adults. This study evaluated whether an emulsion formulation (LEM) increases the bioavailability of EPA/DHA compared to the reference formulation (RF) in healthy volunteers. Following relative bioavailability assessment, LEM, RF, and placebo were dosed for 2 weeks. Exposure measurements included plasma-free and total fatty acid (EPA/DHA) concentrations and phospholipid and red blood cell (RBC) incorporation. Following single doses, the dose-normalized EPA plasma-corrected AUCs were 14-fold (total) and 12-fold (free) higher and DHA plasma-corrected AUCs were 10-fold (total) and 13-fold (free) higher for LEM compared to RF. EPA and DHA incorporation into phospholipids increased for all active treatments; the increase was dose dependent for EPA. An 8-fold increase over baseline was observed in EPA incorporation for LEM (4-capsule dose) compared to a 4-fold increase for RF 4 g. DHA incorporation increased to a lesser degree, and RBC incorporation also increased. Pharmacodynamic evaluations revealed slight decreases (-8% to -25%) in the mean fasting triglyceride concentrations in all groups, including placebo, compared to baseline. Following a high-fat meal, no consistent treatment-related effect on the triglyceride profiles was observed. Study treatments were safe and tolerated. In conclusion, LEM improves the oral bioavailability of EPA and DHA.

Effect of casopitant, a novel NK-1 receptor antagonist, on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of steady-state warfarin.

Casopitant, a novel NK-1 receptor antagonist under investigation for the prevention of postoperative and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting, is a weak to moderate inhibitor of CYP3A and a moderate inducer of CYP2C9 in vitro. Furthermore, both CYP enzymes are involved in the metabolism of R- and S-warfarin, respectively. This clinical study was conducted to explore the potential drug-drug interaction between casopitant and warfarin. In total, 97 healthy participants were enrolled and 54 completed the study. Participants received individualized daily dosing of warfarin to an international normalized ratio (INR) of 1.3 to 2.3 over a 14-day period (period 1). Immediately following period 1, participants entered period 2 and were randomized to receive either regimen A (oral casopitant [150 mg day 1, 50 mg days 2 and 3] and warfarin [days 1-10]) or regimen B (oral casopitant 60 mg and warfarin [days 1-14]). INR assessments were performed daily. The steady-state C(max) and AUC of R- and S-warfarin were not altered by regimen A, but R-warfarin AUC was increased 1.31-fold (90% confidence interval [CI]: 1.22, 1.41), and S-warfarin AUC was increased 1.27-fold (90% CI: 1.18, 1.38) on day 14 in regimen B. Steady-state INR values were not affected by either casopitant regimen.

Dose equivalency evaluation of major corticosteroids: pharmacokinetics and cell trafficking and cortisol dynamics.

The integrity of current corticosteroid dose equivalency tables, as assessed by mechanistic models for cell trafficking and cortisol dynamics, was investigated in this study. Single, presumably equivalent, doses of intravenous hydrocortisone, methylprednisolone, dexamethasone, and oral prednisolone were given to 5 white men, according to total body weight, in a 5-way crossover, placebo-controlled study. Pharmacodynamic (PD) response-time profiles for T helper cells, T suppressor cells, neutrophils, and adrenal suppression were evaluated by extended indirect response models. For adrenal suppression, prednisolone appears to be less potent than methylprednisolone or dexamethasone. A good correlation was found between the estimated in vivo EC50 values and relative receptor affinity (equilibrium dissociation constants normalized to dexamethasone). Area under the effect curves of all PD responses was calculated using a linear-trapezoidal method. Although T helper cell trafficking and adrenal suppression achieved significant differences by repeated-measures ANOVA (p = 0.014 and 0.022), post hoc analysis using the Bonferroni method revealed no difference between treatments. Although limited by the use of single doses and a relatively small sample size, this study applies mechanistic models for several biomarkers showing that currently used dosing tables reflect reasonable dose equivalency relationships for four corticosteroids.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions between diltiazem and methylprednisolone in healthy volunteers.

OBJECTIVES: The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics after administration of methylprednisolone alone, diltiazem alone, and both drugs jointly were assessed in healthy volunteers. METHODS: An unblinded, controlled, fixed-sequence, 2-period study was carried out in 5 healthy white men who received a single dose of intravenous methylprednisolone, 0.3 mg/kg, on day 2, followed by diltiazem alone, 180 mg, on days 5, 6, and 7, with joint dosing of both drugs on day 8. Methylprednisolone and diltiazem disposition was assessed from plasma concentrations. Pharmacodynamic factors were assessed by plasma cortisol and T-helper and T-suppressor lymphocytes by means of extended indirect response models. RESULTS: The clearance of methylprednisolone was significantly reduced in the presence of diltiazem (25.2 L/h versus 16.8 L/h), resulting in a longer half-life (2.28 hours versus 3.12 hours) and increased area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) (871 ng x h/mL versus 1299 ng x h/mL). The AUC of diltiazem was unchanged in the presence of methylprednisolone. No significant intrinsic pharmacodynamic differences were observed for methylprednisolone versus methylprednisolone-diltiazem. The 50% inhibitory concentration values were 0.446 ng/mL versus 0.780 ng/mL for cortisol, 9.20 ng/mL versus 10.7 ng/mL for T-helper cells, and 18.5 ng/mL versus 20.9 ng/mL for T-suppressor cells (P >.05). Greater net suppression, as indicated by the area between the effect curve and suppression ratios, was observed for the methylprednisolone-diltiazem combination versus methylprednisolone alone, which was attributed to reduced elimination of methylprednisolone. CONCLUSIONS: Controlled-delivery diltiazem, 180 mg, significantly increased methylprednisolone AUC and half-life and reduced clearance, lending to greater systemic exposure to the steroid. However, significant differences between 50% inhibitory concentration values for methylprednisolone when given alone and for methylprednisolone in combination with diltiazem were not seen, which implies no change in cortisol or cell-trafficking sensitivity in the presence of diltiazem.

Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model for prednisolone inhibition of whole blood lymphocyte proliferation.

AIMS: Mitogen-induced ex vivo whole blood lymphocyte proliferation (WBLP) is a widely used method to assess lymphocyte responsiveness to immunosuppressive therapy. A three-component complex model was developed to characterize effects of prednisolone on cell trafficking, transduction, and lymphocyte suppression. METHODS: An oral dose (0.27 mg kg-1) of prednisone was given to 32 subjects. The study consisted of baseline and prednisone phases each with 32 h of sampling. Measurements included plasma prednisolone concentrations, in vitro and ex vivo WBLP, and lymphocyte cell counts during baseline and prednisone phases. RESULTS: The final model consists of a precursor-dependent indirect response model with a first-order periodic influx rate for lymphocyte trafficking. This accounts for the rebound phenomenon and the circadian rhythm seen in all individual ex vivo WBLP effect-time profiles. Prednisolone was modelled as inhibiting lymphocyte influx from the precursor to the blood pools. The direct suppressive effect of prednisolone on WBLP was modelled with the simple Imax model. A transduction step with rate constant kt was introduced to the simple Imax model to account for the delay ( approximately 4 h) in reaching the maximum inhibition. The IC50 values obtained ex vivo were circa 10 times lower than in vitro values (3.76 vs 38.8 ng ml-1), suggesting additional in vivo factors may have enhanced lymphocyte response to the inhibitory effect of prednisolone. CONCLUSIONS: This integrated PK/PD model enables evaluation of multicomponent direct and indirect inhibition of ex vivo WBLP by steroids and other immunosuppressants in relation to sex and race.