Evaluation of the pharmacokinetics of digoxin in healthy subjects receiving etoricoxib.

AIMS: Digoxin is a commonly prescribed cardiac glycoside with a narrow therapeutic index. The aim was to investigate whether the cyclooxygenase-2 selective nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug etoricoxib affects the steady-state pharmacokinetics of digoxin. METHODS: This was a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, two-period cross-over study. In each period, 14 healthy volunteers ranging in age from 21 to 35 years received oral digoxin 0.25 mg daily and were randomized to either etoricoxib 120 mg or matching placebo tablets once daily for 10 days. Trough digoxin plasma concentrations were analysed by linear regression to examine digoxin accumulation over time. RESULTS: The geometric mean ratios (etoricoxib/placebo) for AUC(0-24h), C(max) and urinary excretion were 1.06 (90% confidence interval 0.97, 1.17), 1.33 (1.21, 1.46) and 1.10 (1.00, 1.20), respectively. The median (range) for digoxin T(max) (h) values with etoricoxib and placebo were 0.5 (0.5, 1.5) and 1.0 (0.5, 1.5), respectively. Steady-state digoxin plasma concentrations were achieved by day 7 in each treatment period. No serious adverse experiences were reported. CONCLUSIONS: Although etoricoxib 120 mg did produce an approximately 33% increase in digoxin C(max), this increase does not appear to be clinically meaningful, as cardiotoxicity with digoxin has been associated with elevations in steady-state rather than peak concentrations. From these results, it appears that etoricoxib does not cause any changes in digoxin steady-state pharmacokinetics that would necessitate a dose adjustment.

Pharmacokinetics of aprepitant after single and multiple oral doses in healthy volunteers.

Aprepitant is the first NK1 receptor antagonist approved for use with corticosteroids and 5HT3 receptor antagonists to prevent chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting (CINV). The effective dose to prevent CINV is a 125-mg capsule on day 1 followed by an 80-mg capsule on days 2 and 3. Study 1 evaluated the bioavailability of the capsules and estimated the effect of food. The mean (95% confidence interval [CI]) bioavailabilities of 125-mg and 80-mg final market composition (FMC) capsules, as assessed by simultaneous administration of stable isotope-labeled intravenous (i.v.) aprepitant (2 mg) and FMC capsules, were 0.59 (0.53, 0.65) and 0.67 (0.62, 0.73), respectively. The geometric mean (90% CI) area under the plasma concentration time curve (AUC) ratios (fed/fasted) were 1.2 (1.10, 1.30) and 1.09 (1.00, 1.18) for the 125-mg and 80-mg capsule, respectively, demonstrating that aprepitant can be administered independently of food. Study 2 defined the pharmacokinetics of aprepitant administered following the 3-day regimen recommended to prevent CINV (125 mg/80 mg/80 mg). Consistent daily plasma exposures of aprepitant were obtained following this regimen, which was generally well tolerated.

The effects of modifying in vivo cytochrome P450 3A (CYP3A) activity on etoricoxib pharmacokinetics and of etoricoxib administration on CYP3A activity.

To investigate the influence of modifying in vivo cytochrome P450 3A (CYP3A) activity on the pharmacokinetics of etoricoxib, a selective inhibitor of cyclooxygenase-2, and of etoricoxib administration on CYP3A activity, a 3-part, randomized, crossover study was conducted in 3 panels of healthy volunteers. In part I, 8 subjects were administered a single dose of 60 mg etoricoxib alone and following daily doses of 400 mg ketoconazole, a known strong inhibitor of CYP3A. In part II, 8 different subjects were administered a single dose of 60 mg etoricoxib alone and following daily doses of 600 mg rifampin, a known strong inducer of CYP3A. In parts I and II, plasma samples were collected following each etoricoxib dose and analyzed for etoricoxib. In part III, 8 different subjects were administered 120 mg etoricoxib or placebo once daily for 11 days, and the erythromycin breath test was administered on day 11 of each period. Coadministration of etoricoxib with daily doses of ketoconazole resulted in an average 43% increase in etoricoxib AUC; based on previous studies, this increase would not be expected to have any clinically meaningful effect. In contrast, coadministration of etoricoxib with daily doses of rifampin had a potentially clinically important effect on etoricoxib pharmacokinetics (average 65% decrease in etoricoxib AUC). Etoricoxib had no effect on hepatic CYP3A activity, as assessed by the erythromycin breath test.

Lack of effect of aprepitant on digoxin pharmacokinetics in healthy subjects.

Aprepitant is a highly selective neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist that, in combination with a corticosteroid and a 5-hydroxytryptamine3 (5HT3) receptor antagonist, has been shown to be efficacious in the prevention of highly emetogenic chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. In vitro data suggest that aprepitant is a substrate and a weak inhibitor of P-glycoprotein. Thus, the effect of aprepitant on the pharmacokinetics of digoxin, a P-glycoprotein substrate, was examined in a double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, two-period crossover study in 12 healthy subjects. Each subject received daily oral doses of digoxin 0.25 mg on Days 1 through 13 during both treatment periods. Aprepitant 125 mg (or matching placebo) was coadministered orally with digoxin on Day 7, and aprepitant 80 mg (or matching placebo) was coadministered orally with digoxin on Days 8 to 11. Aprepitant did not affect the pharmacokinetics of digoxin. The geometric mean ratios (90% confidence interval [CI]) for plasma AUC0-24 h of digoxin (with/without aprepitant) were 0.99 (0.91, 1.09) and 0.93 (0.83, 1.05) on Days 7 and 11, respectively, and the geometric mean ratios (90% CI) for the 24-hour urinary excretion of immunoreactive digoxin (with/without aprepitant) were 0.91 (0.80, 1.04) and 1.00 (0.91, 1.09) on Days 7 and 11, respectively. Thus, aprepitant, when dosed as a 5-day regimen, did not interact with a known substrate of the P-glycoprotein transporter.

Prevention of cisplatin-induced acute and delayed emesis by the selective neurokinin-1 antagonists, L-758,298 and MK-869.

BACKGROUND: Recent studies have suggested that antiemetic therapy with a triple combination of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist MK-869, a serotonin (5-HT(3)) antagonist, and dexamethasone provides enhanced control of cisplatin-induced emesis compared with standard therapy regimens. The authors compared the antiemetic activity of a dual combination of MK-869 and dexamethasone with that of a standard dual combination of ondansetron and dexamethasone to characterize further the efficacy and tolerability profile of MK-869. METHODS: This was a multicenter, double-blind, randomized, active agent-controlled study of 177 cisplatin-naïve patients with malignant disease. On Day 1, MK-869 was given intravenously as its water-soluble prodrug, L-758,298. Patients were randomized to one of three groups as follows. Group I received L-758,298 100 mg intravenously (i.v.), then dexamethasone 20 mg i.v., and cisplatin >or= 70 mg/m(2) on Day 1 followed by 300 mg MK-869 (tablet) orally on Days 2-5; Group II received L-758,298 100 mg i.v., then dexamethasone 20 mg i.v., and cisplatin >or= 70 mg/m(2) on Day 1 followed by placebo on Days 2-5; and Group III received ondansetron 32 mg i.v., then dexamethasone 20 mg i.v., and cisplatin >or= 70 mg/m(2) on Day 1 followed by placebo on Days 2-5. Emesis was recorded over Days 1-5 in a diary. Nausea was assessed every 24 hours by visual analog scale. Additional medication was available for emesis or nausea at any time. The primary efficacy parameters of interest were the proportion of patients without emesis and the proportion without emesis or rescue therapy on Day 1 (acute phase) and on Days 2-5 (delayed phase). RESULTS: No serious adverse events were attributed to L-758,298 or MK-869. On Day 1, the proportions of patients with no emesis and no use of rescue medication were 44% of patients in Group I, 36% of patients in Group II, 40% of patients in Groups I and II combined, and 83% of patients in Group III (P < 0.001 for Group III vs. the combined Groups I and II). The proportions of patients with no emesis and no use of rescue medication on Days 2-5 were 59% of patients in Group I, 46% of patients in Group II, and 38% of patients in Group III (P < 0.05 for Group I vs. Group III). The proportions of patients who were without emesis on Day 1 were 49% of patients in Group I, 47% of patients in Group II, and 84% of patients in Group III (P < 0.01 for Group I or II vs. Group III). On Days 2-5, however, the proportions of patients who were without emesis on Days 2-5 were 65% of patients in Group I, 61% of patients in Group II, and 41% of patients in Group III (P < 0.05 for Group I or II vs. Group III). Nausea scores in the acute phase were lower for Group III than for Group I, Group II, or Groups I and II combined (P < 0.05), although there was no significant difference among groups either for the delayed phase or overall for Days 1-5. CONCLUSIONS: Although the L-758,298 and dexamethasone combination reduced acute (Day 1) emesis compared with historic rates, dual therapy with ondansetron and dexamethasone was superior in controlling acute emesis. Continued dosing with MK-869 may enhance control of other measures of delayed emesis, such as the use of rescue medication, although confirmation is required before a definitive conclusion may be drawn. MK-869 given as dual therapy with dexamethasone was superior to ondansetron with dexamethasone for the control of delayed emesis (Days 2-5) and control of the need for rescue medication on Days 2-5.