Search

The relative contribution of phenotypic measures and CYP2C9-vitamin K epoxide reductase complex subunit 1 (VKORC1) polymorphisms to warfarin dose requirements at day 14 was determined in 132 hospitalized, heavily medicated patients. Phenotypic measures were (1) the urinary losartan metabolic ratio before the first dose of warfarin, (2) the S:R-warfarin ratio at day 1, and (3) a dose-adjusted international normalized ratio (INR) at day 4. CYP2C9 and VKORC1 genotypes were determined by gene chip analysis. In multivariate analyses, the dose-adjusted INR at day 4 explained 31% of variability observed in warfarin doses at day 14, whereas genotypic measures (CYP2C9-VKORC1) contributed 6.5%. When S:R-warfarin ratio was used, genotypes contributed more significantly (23.5%). Finally, urinary losartan metabolic ratio was of low predictive value. The best models obtained explained 51% of intersubject variability in warfarin dose requirements. Thus, combination of a phenotypic measure to CYP2C9-VKORC1 genotypes represents a useful strategy to predict warfarin doses in patients receiving multiple drugs (11+/-4 drugs/day).

Although transdermal nicotine patches have been studied extensively under recommended conditions, the present studies were designed to assess the nicotine plasma levels and the safety of transdermal nicotine patches in smokers undergoing situations suspected to result in increased nicotine plasma levels. The first study examined the effects of increasing nicotine intake through sequential administration of a nicotine patch (day 2), a patch followed by consumption of nicotine gum (day 3), and a patch followed by gum consumption and cigarette smoking (day 4). In this study, nicotine plasma levels increased transiently after the addition of each nicotine source. Mean areas under the concentration-time curves from 0 to 24 hours (AUC0-24) for nicotine were 453 +/- 120 ng.hr/mL (day 2), 489 +/- 143 ng.hr/mL (day 3), and 485 +/- 143 ng.hr/mL (day 4). The second study evaluated the effects of physical exercise on the kinetics and the safety of two different types of nicotine transdermal devices: Nicoderm and Habitrol. The mean delivered dose of nicotine was higher with Nicoderm compared with Habitrol, and the two products were not considered to be bioequivalent. During a 20-minute exercise period, nicotine plasma levels increased by 13 +/- 9% for Nicoderm and 30 +/- 20% for Habitrol. This increase in nicotine plasma levels was probably related to the exercise-induced increase in peripheral circulation at the patch site. Results from both studies indicate a clinically nonsignificant increase in blood pressure and heart rate after the administration of nicotine. After exercise, subjects taking Habitrol tended to have a higher incidence of adverse events compared with baseline values. Safety profiles remained acceptable in both studies despite the increases in nicotine plasma levels. It was concluded that both superimposed nicotine sources and physical exertion result in short-lived plasma nicotine elevations and temporarily increase nicotine pharmacodynamic parameters without increased risk to the volunteers.

Twenty-four healthy women received 2.4 mg kg-1 dolasetron mesylate (1.8 mg kg-1 dolasetron base) by a 10 min intravenous administration and by oral administration. Pharmacokinetics of dolasetron and of its active reduced metabolite MDL 74156 were monitored for 48 h in plasma. Urine was collected from 0 to 48 h, blood pressure and heart rate were measured at 0, 0.08, 1, 2, 12, 24, and 36 h, and ECGs were measured at 0, 0.08 (intravenous only), 1, 2, and 36 h after dosing. Dolasetron was widely distributed and rapidly reduced (mean t1/2 = 0.23 h) to MDL 74156 (mean t1/2 = 8.05 and 9.12 h after intravenous and oral administration respectively). MDL 74156 was extensively distributed; between 27 (oral route) and 33% (intravenous route) was eliminated unchanged in urine. Safety assessment showed mild to moderate headache, dizziness, and hot flushes after the intravenous administration and headache, abdominal cramps or pain, and constipation after oral administration. Small and clinically non-significant changes in PR, QRS, and QTc intervals were observed. We conclude that there is no obvious difference in dolasetron pharmacokinetics between healthy women and men and that dolasetron can be used as safely in women as in men.

Twenty-three young, healthy, male volunteers received, in a randomized crossover design, 240 mg of a once-a-day diltiazem formulation at 08:00 (AM) or 22:00 (HS) for 6 days. A 7 day washout period was observed between the two modes of administration. Diltiazem plasma concentrations were monitored every hour for 24 h and at 30, 36, and 48 h after the last dose. Differences were found between AM and HS dosing for Cmin (mean (SD) = 47 center dot 2 (25 center dot 8) against 39 center dot 6 (21 center dot 1) ng mL-1, p = 0 center dot 038), AUC0-24 (2008 (814) against 1754 (714) ng h mL-1, p = 0 center dot 024), and AUC0-48 (2662 (1244) against 2395 (238) ng h mL-1, p = 0 center dot 034). Overall the two modes of administration did not produce bioequivalent pharmacokinetic profiles. Also HS dosing gave significantly higher plasma concentrations of diltiazem in the early morning hours when the incidence of cardiovascular events is higher. If one assumes a strong correlation between plasma concentrations and myocardial protection then HS dosing should be recommended for QD formulation of diltiazem. Clinical studies should be performed to confirm this theoretical pharmacokinetic advantage.

Cardizem SR and Bi-Tildiem were both approved in their respective countries on the basis of clinical trials demonstrating efficacy and safety in the treatment of angina pectoris. In this cross-over randomized study, we assessed whether these two sustained-release formulations of diltiazem have equivalent pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles. Twenty-four young healthy male volunteers were hooked to Holters and ambulatory blood pressure monitors for 24 h to establish baseline systolic blood pressure (SBP), diastolic blood pressure (DBP), sinus rate and PR intervals. They then received a single dose of 120 mg of diltiazem from one formulation. The pharmacodynamic measurements were recorded for a further 24 h and blood samples were collected over 36 h for evaluation of diltiazem in plasma by a high-performance liquid chromatogrpahic (HPLC) method. The procedures were repeated with the alternate formulation after a 7 d wash-out. Pharmacokinetics showed statistically significant (p < 0.01) differences in AUC0-12 with means (+/- SD) of 519.2(+/- 172.8) and 429.6(+/- 147.2) ng h ml-1, AUC0-36 of 835.6(+/- 281.6) and 730.9 (+/- 271.5) ng h ml-1 and Cmax of 89.1(+/- 30.3) and 61.1(+/- 21.2) ng ml-1 for Cardizem SR and Bi-Tildiem, respectively. The only pharmacodynamic parameter showing a statistically significant difference in change from baseline between the two formulations was DBP with mean (+/- SD) change in AUC0-12 of -13.6(+/- 20.8) and +8.4(+/- 31.7) mm Hg h (p = 0.0135) and in AUC0-24 of -33.0(+/- 43.7) and -0.3(+/- 59.2) mm Hg h (p = 0.0463) for Cardizem SR and Bi-Tildiem, respectively. These findings suggest that assessment of efficacy of sustained-release formulations of diltiazem by bioequivalence could be misleading. They also confirm that a single dose of diltiazem does not elicit a significant pharmacodynamic response in healthy volunteers. Equivalence for such formulations should therefore be demonstrated by pharmacodynamic evaluation or clinical studies in a patient population.