The effect of bosentan on the pharmacokinetics of digoxin in healthy male subjects

AIMS: To investigate the effect of multiple oral dose treatment with the endothelin receptor antagonist bosentan on the pharmacokinetics of digoxin in healthy subjects. METHODS: This was an open-label, randomized, two-way crossover study in 18 evaluable young male subjects. They received, on two occasions which were separated by at least 2 weeks washout period, 0.375 mg digoxin once daily for 13 days following a loading dose of 0.375 mg given twice on the day before the once daily dosing regimen started. On one occasion treatment with 500 mg bosentan twice daily was started on the eighth day of digoxin treatment and continued for 1 week. Serum concentrations of digoxin were determined up to 24 h postdose on day 8 (first day of bosentan treatment) and day 14 (last day of bosentan treatment) of the digoxin treatment period. Plasma concentrations of bosentan were measured at two time points after the first bosentan dose and up to 12 h after the last morning dose of bosentan. Safety was assessed by adverse events, clinical laboratory tests, blood pressure and pulse rate measurements and ECG recordings. RESULTS: Steady-state of digoxin was always achieved after 7 days of treatment. Serum concentrations of digoxin were within the usual therapeutic range. Average steady-state Cmax and Ctr were 2-2.1 microg l-1 and 0.65-0.69 microg l-1, respectively, when given alone. Bosentan did not lead to statistically significant changes in Cmax and Ctr of digoxin. AUC (0,24h) of digoxin, however, was slightly reduced after 1 week of treatment with bosentan. The reduction was 12% on average with a narrow 95% confidence interval of 0-23%. Bosentan pharmacokinetic parameters after 1 week of treatment were as expected with a mean Cmax of 3260 microg l-1 and a mean AUC (0, 12h) of 12 600 microg l-1 h. CONCLUSIONS: Treatment with bosentan 500 mg twice daily for 1 week did not show clinically relevant effects on the pharmacokinetics of digoxin in healthy human subjects     

Lack of a pharmacokinetic interaction between lansoprazole or pantoprazole and theophylline

AIM: To study the potential pharmacokinetic interaction between lansoprazole or pantoprazole and theophylline at steady state. METHODS: Theophylline 200 mg extended-release formulation was administered twice daily on days 1-11 to 30 healthy, non-smoking males. On days 5-11, 15 subjects received concomitant lansoprazole 30 mg once daily (o.d.) and 15 subjects received concomitant pantoprazole 40 mg o.d. RESULTS: No significant changes in the steady-state theophylline maximum plasma concentration (Cmax), time to Cmax (Tmax), minimum plasma concentration (Cmin), area under the plasma concentration-time curve over the 12-h dosing interval (AUC0-12), or apparent total oral clearance (CL/F) were observed within the two treatment groups when theophylline was administered alone or in combination with lansoprazole or pantoprazole. In addition, no significant differences in the changes of steady-state theophylline pharmacokinetics from day 4 to day 11 were noted between the two treatment groups. Treatment with theophylline in combination with either lansoprazole or pantoprazole was well tolerated. All adverse events were transient and rated mild to moderate in severity. CONCLUSION: Co-administration of either lansoprazole or pantoprazole in healthy subjects does not significantly affect the steady-state pharmacokinetics of theophylline at the therapeutic doses tested.     

Effect of oral cibenzoline on steady-state digoxin concentrations in healthy volunteers

The effect of oral cibenzoline on steady-state digoxin concentrations was studied in 12 healthy subjects ranging from 41 to 55 years of age. Each subject received an oral dose of 0.25 mg or 0.375 mg digoxin once daily for 27 days. On days 14 to 21, 160 mg of oral cibenzoline were administered concomitantly every 12 hours for a total of 15 doses. Plasma digoxin concentration-time profiles obtained before, during, and after cibenzoline coadministration were compared to determine the effect of oral cibenzoline on steady-state digoxin concentrations. The maximum plasma concentration, time of maximum concentration, area under the curve during a dosing interval and steady-state trough plasma concentration for digoxin, during and after concomitant doses of cibenzoline were similar to those before administration, indicating that cibenzoline did not affect the pharmacokinetics of digoxin. In addition, plasma cibenzoline concentration-time profiles after the first and last dose of cibenzoline were similar to those observed in previous studies in which multiple doses of cibenzoline alone were administered. The results of this study indicate that there is no pharmacokinetic interaction between digoxin and cibenzoline when the two drugs are coadministered to healthy subjects in multiple doses.     

Exenatide effects on statin pharmacokinetics and lipid response

OBJECTIVE: Exenatide is an adjunctive treatment for type 2 diabetes. Many patients with type 2 diabetes have dyslipidemia, which requires treatment with three hydroxy-3-methyl glutaryl coenzyme (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitors (statins), hence, concurrent use of exenatide and statins is likely. Exenatide slows gastric emptying, which may alter the absorption rate of co-administered oral medications. Thus, the potential interaction between exenatide and statins was evaluated in two study settings. METHODS: In an open-label, fixed-sequence, clinical pharmacology study, the plasma pharmacokinetics of lovastatin (40 mg after breakfast) in the presence and absence of exenatide (10 microg before breakfast and dinner) was evaluated in 21 healthy subjects. In a second clinical setting, changes in lipid profiles and statin dosage over 30 weeks in patients with type 2 diabetes were retrospectively compared (n = 180 exenatide 10 microg twice daily (BID), n = 168 placebo BID) in a combined analysis of three placebo-controlled, randomized exenatide Phase 3 trials. RESULTS: In healthy subjects, exenatide decreased mean lovastatin area under the plasma concentration time curve from zero to infinity (AUC0-infinity) and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) by 40 and 28%, respectively, and increased median time to maximum plasma concentration (tmax) by 4 hours. In the exenatide Phase 3 trials, 30-week changes from baseline for low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), total cholesterol, triglycerides and statin dosage were not significantly different between the exenatide and placebo groups treated with statins. CONCLUSIONS: Despite observed changes in lovastatin bioavailability in the pharmacokinetic drug interaction study, exenatide did not negatively affect long-term lipid profiles or statin dosage in patients with concurrent statin therapy. Thus, co-administration of exenatide does not require adjustment in statin dosage.     

Atorvastatin coadministration may increase digoxin concentrations by inhibition of intestinal P-glycoprotein-mediated secretion

The effect of atovarstatin on digoxin pharmacokinetics was assessed in 24 healthy volunteers in two studies. Subjects received 0.25 mg digoxin daily for 20 days, administered alone for the first 10 days and concomitantly with 10 mg or 80 mg atorvastatin for the last 10 days. Mean steady-state plasma digoxin concentrations were unchanged by administration of 10 mg atorvastatin. Mean steady-state plasma digoxin concentrations following administration of digoxin with 80 mg atorvastatin were slightly higher than concentrations following administration of digoxin alone, resulting in 20% and 15% higher Cmax and AUC(0-24) values, respectively. Since tmax and renal clearance were not significantly affected, the results are consistent with an increase in the extent of digoxin absorption in the presence of atorvastatin. Digoxin is known to undergo intestinal secretion mediated by P-glycoprotein. Since atorvastatin is a CYP3A4 substrate and many CYP3A4 substrates are also substrates for P-glycoprotein transport, the influence of atorvastatin and its metabolites on P-glycoprotein-mediated digoxin transport in monolayers of the human colon carcinoma (Caco-2) cell line was investigated. In this model system, atorvastatin exhibited efflux or secretion kinetics with a K(m) of 110 microM. Atorvastatin (100 microM) inhibited digoxin secretion (transport from the basolateral to apical aspect of the monolayer) by 58%, equivalent to the extent of inhibition observed with verapamil, a known inhibitor of P-glycoprotein transport. Thus, the increase in steady-state digoxin concentrations produced by 80 mg atorvastatin coadministration may result from inhibition of digoxin secretion into the intestinal lumen.     

Effect of multiple doses of fimasartan, an angiotensin II receptor antagonist, on the steady-state pharmacokinetics of digoxin in healthy volunteers

Fimasartan (BR-A-657) is an angiotensin II receptor antagonist, recently approved as an antihypertensive agent. Objective: This study aimed to investigate whether administration of fimasartan has an effect on the steady-state pharmacokinetics of digoxin. Methods: An open-label, two-period, two-treatment, single-sequence, crossover study was conducted in 14 healthy male volunteers. On the first day of each 7-day treatment period, subjects received a loading dose of digoxin 0.5 mg, either alone or together with fimasartan 240 mg in the morning, followed by an additional dose of digoxin 0.25 mg after 6 h. On the subsequent 6 days, digoxin 0.25 mg, either alone or with fimasartan 240 mg was administered once daily. Serial blood samples for pharmacokinetics were collected up to 24 h after the last administration in each period. Results: The geometric mean ratio and 90% confidence intervals (CI) for the Cmax,ss and AUCτ,ss of digoxin (with/without fimasartan) were 1.307 (1.123 - 1.520) and 1.087 (1.015 - 1.165), respectively. Study medications were well-tolerated without serious adverse events or clinically meaningful changes. Conclusions: Coadministration of fimasartan with digoxin does not result in clinically significant changes of digoxin pharmacokinetics at steady-state in healthy subjects.     

The effect of steady-state ropinirole on plasma concentrations of digoxin in patients with Parkinson's disease

AIMS: The aim of this single-blind study was to assess the effect of ropinirole, a novel treatment for Parkinson's disease, on the steady-state pharmacokinetics and safety of digoxin in 10 patients with Parkinson's disease. METHODS: There were three parts to the study: digoxin once daily plus placebo three times daily for 1 week; digoxin once daily plus ropinirole three times daily for 6 weeks; and digoxin once daily plus placebo three times daily for 1 week. Serial blood samples were collected over 24 h at the end of each part of the study for pharmacokinetic assessment. Pre-dose blood samples were collected on specific days throughout the study to assess the attainment of steady-state plasma levels of digoxin. The primary endpoints were AUC(0, tau) and Cmax for digoxin. RESULTS: There was a mean decrease of 10% in digoxin AUC (0, tau) (90% CI: 0.79, 1.01) and a 25% decrease in digoxin Cmax (90% CI: 0.58, 0.97) when ropinirole was co-administered, compared with digoxin alone Cmin plasma values for digoxin, however, were fairly constant throughout the study (point estimates 0.99, 95% CI: 0.85, 1.15). Changes in trough levels of digoxin are believed to be the most reliable way of assessing steady-state concentrations of digoxin, and therefore the clinical significance of an interaction. Changes in Cmax are too readily influenced by other factors. CONCLUSIONS: These results therefore indicate that on pharmacokinetic grounds no dose adjustment is necessary for digoxin co-administered with ropinirole.     

Ritonavir decreases the nonrenal clearance of digoxin in healthy volunteers with known MDR1 genotypes

Our objective was to examine the influence of ritonavir on P-glycoprotein (P-gp) activity in humans by characterizing the effect of ritonavir on the pharmacokinetics of the P-gp substrate digoxin in individuals with known MDR1 genotypes. Healthy volunteers received a single dose of digoxin 0.4 mg orally before and after 14 days of ritonavir 200 mg twice daily. After each digoxin dose blood and urine were collected over 72 hours and analyzed for digoxin. Digoxin pharmacokinetic parameter values were determined using noncompartmental methods. MDR1 genotypes at positions 3435 and 2677 in exons 26 and 21, respectively, were determined using PCR-RFLP analysis. Ritonavir increased the digoxin AUC(0-72) from 26.20 +/- 8.67 to 31.96 +/- 11.24 ng x h/mL (P = 0.03) and the AUC(0-8) from 6.25 +/- 1.8 to 8.04 +/- 2.22 ng x h/mL (P = 0.02) in 12 subjects. Digoxin oral clearance decreased from 149 +/- 101 mL/h x kg to 105 +/- 57 mL/h x kg (P = 0.04). Other digoxin pharmacokinetic parameter values, including renal clearance, were unaffected by ritonavir. Overall, 75% (9/12) of subjects had higher concentrations of digoxin after ritonavir administration. The majority of subjects were heterozygous at position 3435 (C/T) (6 subjects) and position 2677 (G/T,A) (7 subjects); although data are limited, the effect of ritonavir on digoxin pharmacokinetics appears to occur across all tested MDR1 genotypes. Concomitant low-dose ritonavir reduced the nonrenal clearance of digoxin, thereby increasing its systemic availability. The most likely mechanism for this interaction is ritonavir-associated inhibition of P-gp. Thus, ritonavir can alter the pharmacokinetics of coadministered medications that are P-gp substrates.     

No effect of imidafenacin, a novel antimuscarinic drug, on digoxin pharmacokinetics in healthy subjects

Plasma digoxin concentrations are increased by the coadministration of anticholinergic drugs, such as propantheline, which decrease gastrointestinal motility. The present study evaluated the effect of imidafenacin, a novel anticholinergic drug, on the pharmacokinetics of digoxin. The effect of imidafenacin on the pharmacokinetics of digoxin was examined in 14 healthy Japanese male subjects in a single-centre, open-label, randomized, two-way crossover study. Subjects received a daily oral dose of digoxin 0.25 mg on days 1 and 2 and digoxin 0.125 mg on days 3 to 8 (period 1). Following a 2-week washout period, digoxin was administered orally for 8 days in a similar manner (period 2). A twice daily dose of imidafenacin 0.1 mg was concomitantly administered with digoxin for 8 days either in period 1 or 2. The geometric mean ratios [GMR] (90% confidence intervals [CIs]) for digoxin C(max) and AUC(0-24) (with/without imidafenacin) at steady state were 0.88 (0.74, 1.04) and 1.00 (0.90, 1.10), respectively. The 90% CIs of GMR for digoxin trough concentration, urinary excretion amount and renal clearance at steady state fell within the range of 0.8 to 1.25. The steady-state pharmacokinetics of digoxin is not affected by concomitant administration of imidafenacin in healthy subjects.     

Influence of β-adrenoceptor antagonists on the pharmacokinetics of rizatriptan, a 5-HT1B/1D agonist: differential effects of propranolol, nadolol and metoprolol

AIMS: Patients with migraine may receive the 5-HT1B/1D agonist, rizatriptan (5 or 10 mg), to control acute attacks. Patients with frequent attacks may also receive propranolol or other beta-adrenoceptor antagonists for migraine prophylaxis. The present studies investigated the potential for pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic interaction between beta-adrenoceptor blockers and rizatriptan. METHODS: Four double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized crossover investigations were performed in a total of 51 healthy subjects. A single 10 mg dose of rizatriptan was administered after 7 days' administration of propranolol (60 and 120 mg twice daily), nadolol (80 mg twice daily), metoprolol (100 mg twice daily) or placebo. Rizatriptan pharmacokinetics were assessed. In vitro incubations of rizatriptan and sumatriptan with various beta-adrenoceptor blockers were performed in human S9 fraction. Production of the indole-acetic acid-MAO-A metabolite of each triptan was measured. RESULTS: Administration of rizatriptan during propranolol treatment (120 mg twice daily for 7.5 days) increased the AUC(0, infinity) for rizatriptan by approximately 67% and the Cmax by approximately 75%. A reduction in the dose of propranolol (60 mg twice daily) and/or the incorporation of a delay (1 or 2 h) between propranolol and rizatriptan administration did not produce a statistically significant change in the effect of propranolol on rizatriptan pharmacokinetics. Administration of rizatriptan together with nadolol (80 mg twice daily) or metoprolol (100 mg twice daily) for 7 days did not significantly alter the pharmacokinetics of rizatriptan. No untoward adverse experiences attributable to the pharmacokinetic interaction between propranolol and rizatriptan were observed, and no subjects developed serious clinical, laboratory, or other significant adverse experiences during coadministration of rizatriptan with any of the beta-adrenoceptor blockers. In vitro incubations showed that propranolol, but not other beta-adrenoceptor blockers significantly inhibited the production of the indole-acetic acid metabolite of rizatriptan and sumatriptan. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that propranolol increases plasma concentrations of rizatriptan by inhibiting monoamine oxidase-A. When prescribing rizatriptan to migraine patients receiving propranolol for prophylaxis, the 5 mg dose of rizatriptan is recommended. Administration with other beta-adrenoceptor blockers does not require consideration of a dose adjustment.     

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic drug interactions between digoxin and macrogol 4000, a laxative polymer, in healthy volunteers

AIMS: The aim of this study was to examine the bioequivalence between a single oral dose of digoxin administered alone and with a coadministration of macrogol 4000 (a laxative polymer) in 18 healthy volunteers. METHODS: This was an open, randomised, two-way cross-over study, with a single dose oral administration of 0.5 mg digoxin administered alone or in combination with macrogol 4000, 20 g day-1 during 8 days. Pharmacokinetics of digoxin, heart rate and PR ECG interval at rest were assessed. RESULTS: Macrogol 4000 coadministration was associated with a 30% decrease of digoxin AUC and a 40% decrease in its Cmax (P<0.05). Digoxin tmax and t1/2,z were not significantly altered. Heart rate and PR interval did not differ during the two therapeutic sequences, digoxin alone and digoxin in combination. CONCLUSIONS: Macrogol 4000 coadministration interacts with single-dose digoxin pharmacokinetics. This is most likely due to a reduction of the intestinal absorption of digoxin. However, there was no consequence of this interaction on heart rate and AV conduction.     

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic aspects of concomitant mibefradil-digoxin therapy at therapeutic doses.

This study investigated the effect of mibefradil on digoxin pharmacokinetics an pharmacodynamics. Following a loading dose of digoxin (0.375 mg, three times, day 1), 0.375 mg was administered once daily to 40 healthy subjects (days 2-15). Mibefradil was administered daily at 50 mg, 100 mg, or 150 mg (days 9-15). With co-administration of 50 mg or 100 mg mibefradil (the recommended doses), mean digoxin Cmax values increased 1.19- and 1.32-fold, respectively; Cmin values were 0.95- and 1.04-fold, respectively; mean AUC0-24 h increased 1.05- and 1.11-fold, respectively; and the total amount of digoxin excreted in urine remained unchanged. Digoxin monotherapy produced modest but transient prolongations of PQ interval, small decreases in heart rate, and no changes in blood pressure. With the addition of mibefradil, no effects on trough blood pressure or cardiac index were observed, but there was a further increase in PQ interval and decrease in heart rate. In a previous study, mibefradil had no significant effect on trough plasma digoxin concentration in patients with congestive heart failure and ischemia. Therefore, while the vast majority of patients should not need their digoxin dosages adjusted when given mibefradil, an occasional patient may require dose reductions based on clinical response and plasma digoxin.     

Absence of an interaction between tigecycline and digoxin in healthy men

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To evaluate a potential interaction between tigecycline and digoxin using pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic assessments. DESIGN: Open-label, three-period, one-sequence crossover study. SETTING: Hospital-affiliated, inpatient clinical pharmacology unit. SUBJECTS: Twenty healthy men. INTERVENTION: Tigecycline 100 mg was administered intravenously as a single dose on day 1 (period 1). Digoxin was administered as a 0.5-mg oral loading dose on day 7, followed by 0.25 mg/day on days 8-14 (period 2). Digoxin 0.25 mg/day was continued on days 15-19; in addition, on day 15, a loading dose of tigecycline 100 mg was administered intravenously, followed by 50 mg every 12 hours starting on the evening of day 15 through the morning of day 19 (period 3). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Pharmacokinetic assessments were performed on days 1 and 19 for tigecycline and on days 14 and 19 for digoxin. Electrocardiographic parameters were measured at baseline and on days 1, 14, and 19 to assess digoxin pharmacodynamics. Serum tigecycline concentrations were determined by liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry detection, and plasma and urine digoxin concentrations were determined by radioimmunoassay. Tigecycline area under the concentration-time curve (AUC), AUC from 0-12 hours (AUC(0-12)), weight-normalized clearance, and mean resistance time were not affected by concomitant multiple-dose digoxin administration, but tigecycline half-life was decreased during period 1, apparently due to fewer detectable terminal concentrations in some subjects. Digoxin steady-state AUC(0-24), weight-normalized oral dose clearance, cumulative amount of drug excreted in urine over 24 hours, renal clearance, and QTc (change from baseline) were not affected by multiple-dose tigecycline administration. CONCLUSION: No significant effects of tigecycline on digoxin pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics were noted, but a small effect of digoxin on tigecycline pharmacokinetics cannot be ruled out due to design issues with period 1 of the study.     

The effects of tegaserod (HTF 919) on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of digoxin in healthy subjects

Tegaserod (HTF 919) is a highly specific 5-HT4 receptor partial agonist that exhibits promotile activity throughout the gastrointestinal tract and is under development for the treatment of functional gastrointestinal motility disorders. The present study was designed to assess the effect of multiple doses of tegaserod on the single-dose pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of digoxin, a commonly prescribed agent for congestive heart failure. The study was an open-label, randomized, two-period crossover design of 12 healthy subjects. One treatment included digoxin treatment alone; the other treatment included a combined digoxin and tegaserod treatment. On day 1 of the digoxin treatment period, subjects received a single 1 mg oral dose of digoxin. In the combined tegaserod/digoxin treatment period, subjects received a single oral dose of 1 mg digoxin after 3 days of tegaserod (6 mg bid). After coadministration of tegaserod, systemic exposure to digoxin was decreased; mean AUC decreased by 11.9% (p < 0.05) relative to digoxin alone. Cmax was decreased by about 15% (p < 0.05). The 0.5-hour difference in the median tmax between the two treatments was not statistically significant. Because the steady-state trough concentration of digoxin (C(SS,min)) correlates with pharmacological effects, C(SS,min) for digoxin alone and in combination with tegaserod was simulated based on both parametric compartmental modeling and nonparametric superpositioning approaches. The predicted arithmetic mean C(SS,min) for combination therapy is 86% to 89% of that following digoxin alone. Likewise, the predicted arithmetic mean steady-state peak concentration (C(SS,min)) and AUC at steady state during a dosing interval (AUC(SS,tau)) have a similar decrease. This extent of decrease in systemic exposure of digoxin at steady state is unlikely to be clinically relevant. Administration of tegaserod (6 mg bid) was well tolerated, both alone and in combination with a single dose of digoxin. There were no pharmacodynamic changes in ventricular rate and QT interval following coadministration of tegaserod with digoxin. The 1.5-hour and 2-hour postdose plasma concentrations of tegaserod on days 3 and 4 confirmed adequate exposure. In conclusion, dose adjustment for digoxin is unlikely to be needed when tegaserod is coadministered.     

Interactions between simvastatin and troglitazone or pioglitazone in healthy subjects

Two randomized, two-period crossover studies were conducted to evaluate the effects of repeat oral dosing of troglitazone (Study I) and pioglitazone (Study II) on the pharmacokinetics of plasma HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors following multiple oral doses of simvastatin and of simvastatin on the plasma pharmacokinetics of troglitazone (Study I) in healthy subjects. In both studies, each subject received two treatments. Treatment A consisted of once-daily oral doses of troglitazone 400 mg (Study I) or pioglitazone 45 mg (Study II) for 24 days with coadministration of once-daily doses of simvastatin 40 mg (Study I) or 80 mg (Study II) on Days 15 through 24. Treatment B consisted of once-daily oral doses of simvastatin 40 mg (Study I) or 80 mg (Study II) for 10 days. In Study I, the area under the plasma concentration-time profiles (AUC) and maximum plasma concentrations (Cmax) of HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors in subjects who received both troglitazone and simvastatin were decreased modestly (by approximately 30% for Cmax and approximately 40% for AUC), but time to reach Cmax (tmax) did not change, as compared with those who received simvastatin alone. Simvastatin, administered orally as a 40 mg tablet daily for 10 days, did not affect the AUC or tmax (p > 0.5) but caused a small but clinically insignificant increase (approximately 25%) in Cmax for troglitazone. In Study II, pioglitazone, at the highest approved dose for clinical use, did not significantly alter any of the pharmacokinetic parameters (AUC, Cmax, and tmax) of simvastatin HMG-CoA reductase inhibitory activity. For all treatment regimens, side effects were mild and transient, suggesting that coadministration of simvastatin with either troglitazone or pioglitazone was well tolerated. The modest effect of troglitazone on simvastatin pharmacokinetics is in agreement with the suggestion that troglitazone is an inducer of CYP3A. The insignificant effect of simvastatin on troglitazone pharmacokinetics is consistent with the conclusion that simvastatin is not a significant inhibitor for drug-metabolizing enzymes. The lack of pharmacokinetic effect of pioglitazone on simvastatin supports the expectation that this combination may be used safely.     

Effect of rofecoxib on the pharmacokinetics of digoxin in healthy volunteers

The authors examined the effect of the cyclooxygenase-2 (COX-2) inhibitor, rofecoxib, at steady state on the pharmacokinetics of digoxin following a single dose in healthy subjects. Each healthy subject (N = 10) received rofecoxib (75 mg once daily) or placebo for 11 days in a double-blind, randomized, balanced, two-period crossover study. A single 0.5 mg oral dose of digoxin elixir was administered on the 7th day of each 11-day period. Each treatment period was separated by 14 to 21 days. Samples for plasma and urine immunoreactive digoxin concentrations were collected through 120 hours following the digoxin dose. No statistically significant differences between treatment groups were observed for any of the calculated digoxin pharmacokinetic parameters. For digoxin AUC(0-infinity), AUC(0-24), and Cmax, the geometric mean ratios (90% confidence interval) for (rofecoxib + digoxin/placebo + digoxin) were 1.04 (0.94, 1.14), 1.02 (0.94, 1.09), and 1.00 (0.91, 1.10), respectively. The digoxin median tmax was 0.5 hours for both treatments. The harmonic mean elimination half-life was 45.7 and 43.4 hours for rofecoxib + digoxin and placebo + digoxin treatments, respectively. Digoxin is eliminated renally. The mean (SD) cumulative urinary excretion of immunoreactive digoxin after concurrent treatment with rofecoxib or placebo was 228.2 (+/- 30.8) and 235.1 (+/- 39.1) micrograms/120 hours, respectively. Transient and minor adverse events occurred with similar frequency on placebo and rofecoxib treatments, and no treatment-related pattern was apparent. Rofecoxib did not influence the plasma pharmacokinetics or renal elimination of a single oral dose of digoxin.     

Lack of pharmacokinetic interactions between moxonidine and digoxin.

The potential for pharmacokinetic interactions between moxonidine and digoxin at steady-state was investigated in 15 healthy male volunteers. Multiple oral doses of 0.2mg moxonidine twice daily and 0.2mg digoxin once daily were administered alone and in combination in a randomised 3-period crossover design. The drugs were administered for at least 5 days. The results indicate that neither moxonidine nor digoxin influences the pharmacokinetics of the other drug under steady-state conditions.     

Influence of coadministration on the pharmacokinetics of azimilide dihydrochloride and digoxin

The influence of coadministration on digoxin and azimilide pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics was assessed in a randomized, 3-way crossover study in 18 healthy men. Serial blood and urine samples were obtained for azimilide and digoxin quantitation. Treatment effects on pharmacokinetics were assessed using analysis of variance. The relationship between azimilide blood concentrations and QT(c) prolongation was characterized by an E(max) model. Effects of coadministration on pharmacodynamics were assessed using a mechanistic-based inhibition model. Azimilide pharmacokinetics was unaffected by digoxin, except for a 36% increase in CL(r) (P = .0325), with no change in CL(o). Digoxin pharmacokinetics was unaffected by azimilide, except for a 21% increase in C(max) (P = .0176) and a 10% increase in AUC(tau) (P = .0121). Digoxin coadministration increased the apparent EC(50) with no effect on E(max), consistent with competitive inhibition (K(i) = 0.899 ng/mL). The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic changes observed upon coadministration were small and are not expected to be clinically important.     

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the direct oral thrombin inhibitor dabigatran in healthy elderly subjects

OBJECTIVES: To investigate the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile of dabigatran in healthy elderly subjects; to assess the intra- and interindividual variability of dabigatran pharmacokinetics in order to assess possible gender differences; and to assess the effect of pantoprazole coadministration on the bioavailability of dabigatran. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Open-label, parallel-group, single-centre study, consisting of a baseline screening visit, 7-day treatment period and post-study examination visit. SUBJECTS AND INTERVENTION: 36 healthy elderly subjects (aged > or =65 years) with a body mass index of 18.5-29.9 kg/m(2). Subjects were randomized to receive dabigatran etexilate either with or without coadministration of pantoprazole. Dabigatran etexilate was administered as capsules at 150 mg twice daily over 6 days and once on the morning of day 7. Pantoprazole was administered at 40 mg twice daily, starting 2 days prior to dabigatran etexilate administration and ending on the morning of day 7. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary pharmacokinetic measurements included the area under the plasma concentration-time curve at steady state (AUC(ss)), maximum (C(max,ss)) and minimum (C(min,ss)) plasma concentrations at steady state, terminal half-life (t((1/2))), time to reach C(max,ss) and renal clearance of dabigatran. The secondary pharmacokinetic parameters included the mean residence time, total oral clearance and volume of distribution. The pharmacodynamic parameters measured were the blood coagulation parameters ecarin clotting time (ECT) and activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT). RESULTS: With twice-daily administration of dabigatran etexilate, plasma concentrations of dabigatran reached steady state within 2-3 days, which is consistent with a t((1/2)) of 12-14 hours. The mean (SD) peak plasma concentrations on day 4 of treatment in male and female elderly subjects were 256 ng/mL (21.8) and 255 ng/mL (84.0), respectively. The peak plasma concentrations were reached after a median of 3 hours (range 2.0-4.0 hours). Coadministration with pantoprazole decreased the average bioavailability of dabigatran (the AUC(ss)) by 24% (day 4; 90% CI 7.4, 37.8) and 20% (day 7; 90% CI 5.2, 33.3). Intra- and interindividual pharmacokinetic variability in the overall population was low (<30% coefficient of variation), indicating that dabigatran has a predictable pharmacokinetic profile. Prolongation of the ECT and aPTT correlated with, and paralleled, the plasma concentration-time profile of dabigatran, which demonstrates a rapid onset of action without a time delay, and also illustrates the direct mode of action of the drug on thrombin in plasma. The ECT increased in direct proportion to the plasma concentration, and the aPTT displayed a linear relationship with the square root of the plasma concentration. The mean AUC(ss) was 3-19% higher in female subjects than in male subjects, which was likely due to gender differences in creatinine clearance. The safety profile of dabigatran was good, with and without pantoprazole coadministration. CONCLUSIONS: Dabigatran demonstrated reproducible and predictable pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics, together with a good safety profile, when administered to healthy elderly subjects. Minor gender differences were not considered clinically relevant. The effects of pantoprazole coadministration on the bioavailability of dabigatran were considered acceptable, and dose adjustment is not considered necessary.     

Pharmacokinetic interaction between mefloquine and ritonavir in healthy volunteers

AIMS: To evaluate the pharmacokinetic interaction between ritonavir and mefloquine. METHODS: Healthy volunteers participated in two separate, nonfasted, three-treatment, three-period, longitudinal pharmacokinetic studies. Study 1 (12 completed): ritonavir 200 mg twice daily for 7 days, 7 day washout, mefloquine 250 mg once daily for 3 days then once weekly for 4 weeks, ritonavir restarted for 7 days simultaneously with the last mefloquine dose. Study 2 (11 completed): ritonavir 200 mg single dose, mefloquine 250 mg once daily for 3 days then once weekly for 2 weeks, ritonavir single dose repeated 2 days after the last mefloquine dose. Erythromycin breath test (ERMBT) was administered with and without drug treatments in study 2. RESULTS: Study 1: Ritonavir caused less than 7% changes with high precision (90% CIs: -12% to 11%) in overall plasma exposure (AUC(0,168 h)) and peak concentration (Cmax) of mefloquine, its two enantiomers, and carboxylic acid metabolite, and in the metabolite/mefloquine and enantiomeric AUC ratios. Mefloquine significantly decreased steady-state ritonavir plasma AUC(0,12 h) by 31%, Cmax by 36%, and predose levels by 43%, and did not affect ritonavir binding to plasma proteins. Study 2: Mefloquine did not alter single-dose ritonavir pharmacokinetics. Less than 8% changes in AUC and Cmax were observed with high variability (90%CIs: -26% to 45%). Mefloquine had no effect on the ERMBT whereas ritonavir decreased activity by 98%. CONCLUSIONS: Ritonavir minimally affected mefloquine pharmacokinetics despite strong inhibition of CYP3A4 activity from a single 200 mg dose. Mefloquine had variable effects on ritonavir pharmacokinetics that were not explained by hepatic CYP3A4 activity or ritonavir protein binding.