Pharmacokinetic interaction between TMC114/r and efavirenz in healthy volunteers

BACKGROUND: This open-label, crossover study investigated the pharmacokinetic interaction between TMC114 (darunavir [Prezista]), administered with low-dose ritonavir (TMC114/r) and efavirenz (EFV) in HIV-negative, healthy volunteers. METHODS: Volunteers received TMC114/r 300/100 mg twice daily for 6 days, and once daily on day 7 (session 1). After a 7-day washout period volunteers received EFV 600 mg once daily for 18 days (session 2), with coadministration of TMC114/r 300/100 mg twice daily from day 11-day 16 and TMC114/r once daily on day 17. RESULTS: When coadministered with TMC114/r, plasma concentrations of EFV were slightly increased. In the presence of TMC114/r, EFV minimum (Cmin) and maximum (Cmax) plasma concentrations increased by 15-17%, and by 21% for EFV area under the curve (AUC24h). TMC114/r and EFV coadministration resulted in TMC114 Cmin, Cmax and AUC12h decreases of 31%, 15% and 13%, respectively. No serious adverse events (AEs) or AEs leading to withdrawal were reported in this trial. Overall, TMC114/r and EFV coadministration was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical significance of the changes in AUC and Cmin seen with TMC114/r and EFV coadministration has not been established; this combination should be used with caution. Similar findings are expected with the approved TMC114/r 600/100 mg twice daily dose.     

Pharmacokinetic interaction of telmisartan with s-amlodipine: an open-label, two-period crossover study in healthy Korean male volunteers

BackgroundTelmisartan belongs to a class of orally active angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs), and S-amlodipine is an enantiomer of amlodipine. Amlodipine is a racemic mixture and the calcium channel blocking (CCB) effect is confined to S-amlodipine, whereas R-amlodipine has a 1000-fold lower activity and no racemization occurs in vivo in human plasma. Combination therapy of ARBs with CCBs provides advantages for blood pressure control and vascular protection over monotherapy.ObjectiveTo investigate the effects of coadministration of telmisartan and S-amlodipine on the steady-state pharmacokinetic properties of each drug as a drug–drug interaction study required before developing the fixed-dose combination agent.MethodsThis study comprised 2 separate parts, A and B; each was a multiple-dose, open-label, 2-sequence, 2-period, crossover study in healthy male Korean volunteers. In part A, volunteers were administered 80 mg of telmisartan, either alone or with 5 mg of S-amlodipine. In part B, volunteers were administered 5 mg of S-amlodipine, either alone or with 80 mg of telmisartan. Blood samples were taken on days 9 and 37, following the final dose of each treatment, and at 0 (predose), 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 10, 12, and 24 hours after administration in part A, and were taken at 0 (predose), 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 12, 14, and 24 hours after administration in part B. Plasma concentrations were determined using LC-MS/MS. The pharmacokinetic properties of each drug after coadministration of telmisartan and S-amlodipine were compared with those of each drug administered alone. Tolerability was assessed using measurements of vital signs, clinical chemistry tests, and interviews.ResultsFifty-six volunteers were enrolled (32 in part A and 24 in part B), and all completed except 4 volunteers (3 withdrawn in part A and 1 withdrawn in part B). The geometric mean ratios (GMRs) (90% CI) for the C_max,ss and AUC_τ,ss of telmisartan (with or without S-amlodipine) were 1.039 (0.881–1.226) and 1.003 (0.926–1.087), respectively. The GMRs (90% CI) for C_max,ss and AUC_τ,ss of S-amlodipine (with or without telmisartan) were 0.973 (0.880–1.076) and 0.987 (0.897–1.085). Total 11 adverse events (AEs) were reported in 7 volunteers (21.9%) in part A. A total of 9 AEs were reported in 6 volunteers (25.0%) in part B. Statistical analysis confirmed that the 90% CIs for these pharmacokinetic parameters were within the commonly accepted bioequivalence range of 0.8 to 1.25, indicating that the extent of bioavailability of S-amlodipine was not affected by telmisartan. The intensity of all AEs was considered to be mild, and there were no significant differences in the prevalences of AEs between the 2 formulations.ConclusionsFollowing multiple-dose coadministration of high doses of telmisartan and S-amlodipine, the steady-state pharmacokinetic properties of telmisartan were not significantly affected, and telmisartan had no significant effect on the pharmacokinetic properties of S-amlodipine at steady state in these selected groups of healthy volunteers. Both formulations were generally well-tolerated. ClinicalTrials.gov identifiers: NCT01356017 and NCT01356043.     

Pharmacokinetic interaction between fluoxetine and omeprazole in healthy male volunteers: a prospective pilot study

Background: Fluoxetine is an inhibitor of the main metabolizing enzymes (cytochrome P450 [CYP] 2C19 and CYP3A4) of omeprazole and thus might influence that drug''s pharmacokinetics. The changes in omeprazole''s pharmacokinetics may have clinical significance concerning efficacy and tolerability of the treatment.Objective: The aim of this study was to assess the pharmacokinetic interaction of fluoxetine with omeprazole in healthy volunteers.Methods: The study enrolled healthy adult men and consisted of 2 periods. In the first period, all subjects received a single 40-mg dose of omeprazole. This was followed by an 8-day period during which fluoxetine monotherapy (60 mg/d) was administered as a single oral daily dose. At the end of those 8 days, the subjects were administered a 40-mg dose of omeprazole with a 60-mg dose of fluoxetine. Plasma concentrations of omeprazole were determined at 0.5, 1, 1.33, 1.66, 2, 2.5, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 12 hour(s) after study drug administration. Omeprazole plasma concentrations were determined by a validated HPLC method. Pharmacokinetic parameters of omep-razole were calculated using noncompartmental analysis. Adverse events were assessed throughout the study duration.Results: Eighteen healthy male volunteers (mean [SD] age, 22.11 [2.52] years [range, 18–26 years]; body mass index, 23.34 [2.31] kg/m² [range, 19.1–27.1 kg/m²]) were enrolled and completed the study. In the 2 periods of treatment, the mean Cmax of omeprazole was 730.8 ng/mL (omeprazole monotherapy) and 1725.5 ng/mL (combination treatment with fluoxetine). The observed AUC0−∞ was 1453.3 and 5072.5 ng/mL/h and AUC_0−t was 1465.0 and 5185.3 ng/mL/h, respectively. The T_max was 1.30 and 1.63 hours and the elimination rate constant was 0.753 and 0.482 hr⁻¹. The t½ was 0.96 and 1.47 hours, whereas the mean residence time was 2.33 and 3.35 hours, respectively. Statistically significant differences were observed for all parameters between periods 1 and 2 (all, P < 0.001).Conclusion: The data found in this prospective pilot study suggest a pharmacokinetic interaction between fluoxetine and omeprazole in these healthy volunteers, but its relevance has to be confirmed.Key words: omeprazole, fluoxetine, pharmacokinetics, drug interaction     

Pharmacokinetic interaction between ketoconazole and praziquantel in healthy volunteers

BACKGROUND: Praziquantel, a broad-spectrum anthelminthic, has been reported to undergo extensive first-pass metabolism by cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes in vivo. Ketoconazole, a potent CYP3A4 inhibitor, is known to markedly increase plasma concentrations of many co-administered drugs. However, no data are available on the potential pharmacokinetic drug interaction between ketoconazole and praziquantel in humans. OBJECTIVE: To investigate the potential pharmacokinetic interaction of ketoconazole with praziquantel in healthy adult Thai male volunteers. METHODS: In an open-label, randomized two-phase crossover study, separated by a 2-week period, 10 healthy adult Thai male volunteers ingested a single dose of 20 mg/kg praziquantel alone or with co-administration of 400-mg ketoconazole orally daily for 5 days. Venous blood samples were collected at specific times for a 24-h period. Plasma concentrations of praziquantel were determined using high-performance liquid chromatography. A non-compartmental model was applied for pharmacokinetic parameter analysis of praziquantel. RESULTS: Concurrent administration of ketoconazole with praziquantel significantly increased the mean area under the curve from time zero to infinity (AUC(0-alpha)) and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) of praziquantel by 93% (955.94 +/- 307.74 vs. 1843.10 +/- 336.39 ng h/mL; P < 0.01) and 102% (183.38 +/- 43.90 vs. 371.31 +/- 44.63 ng/mL; P < 0.01), respectively, whereas the mean total clearance (Cl/F) of praziquantel was significantly decreased by 58% (2.65 +/- 0.64 vs. 1.11 +/- 0.35 mL/h/kg; P < 0.01). CONCLUSION: Ketoconazole co-administration alters the pharmacokinetics of praziquantel in humans, possibly through inhibition of CYP3A, particularly CYP3A4, first-pass metabolism of praziquantel. Our data suggest that when praziquantel is co-administered with ketoconazole, the dose of praziquantel could be reduced to half the standard dose of praziquantel to reduce the cost of therapy.     

Pharmacokinetic interaction between verapamil and almotriptan in healthy volunteers

OBJECTIVE: To assess the interaction between almotriptan, a 5-HT1B/1D-receptor agonist used to treat migraine, and verapamil, an agent for migraine prophylaxis. METHODS: Twelve healthy volunteers received the following treatments in a crossover design: (1) 120-mg sustained-release verapamil tablet twice daily for 7 days and one 12.5-mg almotriptan tablet on day 7 and (2) one 12.5-mg almotriptan tablet alone on day 7. Serial plasma and urine samples were obtained on day 7. Almotriptan plasma concentrations were determined by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry; urine samples were analyzed by ultraviolet HPLC. Safety measures included blood pressure and pulse measurements, electrocardiography, and adverse event monitoring. Statistical comparisons of pharmacokinetic parameters and vital sign data were made by ANOVA. RESULTS: Mean almotriptan peak concentration and area under the plasma concentration-time curve were significantly higher and volume of distribution and oral clearance were significantly lower after coadministration of almotriptan and verapamil compared with administration of almotriptan alone. The magnitudes of these differences were approximately 20%. Renal clearance was unaffected by verapamil coadministration. No significant effects of treatment on blood pressure or pulse were detected, with the exception of sitting systolic blood pressure at 2 hours after administration. However, the difference in mean change from baseline at this time point was only 8 mm Hg. CONCLUSIONS: Verapamil modestly inhibited almotriptan clearance to a degree consistent with the modest contribution of CYP3A4 to almotriptan metabolism. This observation and the lack of effect of verapamil on the tolerability to almotriptan administration suggest that no reduction of the almotriptan dose is warranted.     

Pharmacokinetic interaction between ivabradine and carbamazepine in healthy volunteers

What is known and Objective: Ivabradine is a novel heart rate‐lowering agent that selectively and specifically inhibits the depolarizing cardiac pacemaker If current in the sinus node. Our objective was to evaluate a possible pharmacokinetic interaction between ivabradine and carbamazepine in healthy volunteers. Methods: The study consisted of two periods: Period 1 (Reference), when each volunteer received a single dose of 10 mg ivabradine and Period 2 (Test), when each volunteer received a single dose of 10 mg ivabradine and 400 mg carbamazepine. Between the two periods, the subjects were treated for 15 days with a single daily dose of 400 mg carbamazepine. Plasma concentrations of ivabradine were determined during a 12‐h period following drug administration, using a high‐throughput liquid chromatography with mass spectrometry analytical method. Pharmacokinetic parameters of ivabradine administered in each treatment period were calculated using non‐compartmental and compartmental analysis to determine if there were statistically significant differences. Results and Discussion: In the two periods of treatments, the mean peak plasma concentrations (C_max) were 16·25 ng/mL (ivabradine alone) and 3·69 ng/mL (ivabradine after pretreatment with carbamazepine). The time taken to reach C_max, t_max, were 0·97 and 1·14 h, respectively, and the total areas under the curve (AUC_0‐∞) were 52·49 and 10·33 ng h/mL, respectively. These differences were statistically significant for C_max and AUC_0‐∞ when ivabradine was administered with carbamazepine, whereas they were not for t_max, half‐life and mean residence time. What is new and Conclusion: TCarbamazepine interacts with ivabradine in healthy volunteers, and lowers its bioavailability by about 80%. This magnitude of effect is likley to be clinically significant.     

Drug interactions between the immunosuppressant tacrolimus and the cholesterol absorption inhibitor ezetimibe in healthy volunteers

Immunosuppressive therapy is frequently associated with hypercholesterolemia, calling for lipid-lowering treatment without adverse drug interactions. One option is treatment with the cholesterol absorption inhibitor ezetimibe. We have shown in vitro that ezetimibe and tacrolimus may interact in competition for intestinal UGT1A1 and ABCB1 at concentrations reached in gut lumen after oral administration. However, this clinical study in healthy volunteers showed that the expected pharmacokinetic interaction between ezetimibe and tacrolimus is not of clinical relevance.     

Haemodynamic effects of hyperbaric hyperoxia in healthy volunteers: an echocardiographic and Doppler study

In the present study, we observed the haemodynamic changes, using echocardiography and Doppler, in ten healthy volunteers during 6 h of compression in a hyperbaric chamber with a protocol designed to reproduce the conditions as near as possible to a real dive. Ambient pressure varied from 1.6 to 3 atm (1 atm=101.325 kPa) and partial pressure of inspired O2 from 1.2 to 2.8 atm. Subjects performed periods of exercise with breathing through a closed-circuit self-contained underwater breathing apparatus (SCUBA). Subjects did not eat or drink during the study. Examinations were performed after 15 min and 5 h. After 15 min, stroke volume (SV), left atrial (LA) diameter and left ventricular (LV) end-diastolic diameter (LVEDD) decreased. Heart rate (HR) and cardiac output (CO) did not vary, but indices of the LV systolic performance decreased by 10% and the LV meridional wall stress increased by 17%. After 5 h, although weight decreased, the serum protein concentration increased. Compared with values obtained after 15 min, SV and CO decreased, but LV systolic performance, LA diameter, LVEDD and LV meridional wall stress remained unchanged. Compared with the reference values obtained at sea level, total arterial compliance decreased, HR remained unchanged and CO decreased. In conclusion, hyperbaric hyperoxia results in significant haemodynamic changes. Initially, hyperoxia and the SCUBA system are responsible for reducing LV preload, increasing LV afterload and decreasing LV systolic performance, although CO did not change. Prolonged exposure resulted in a further decrease in LV preload, because of dehydration, and in a further increase in LV afterload, due to systemic vasoconstriction, with the consequence of decreasing CO.     

Modest but variable effect of rifampin on steady-state plasma pharmacokinetics of efavirenz in healthy African-American and Caucasian volunteers

Efavirenz-based antiretroviral regimen is preferred during rifampin-containing tuberculosis therapy. However, current pharmacokinetic data are insufficient to guide optimized concurrent dosing. This study aimed to better characterize the effects of rifampin on efavirenz pharmacokinetics. Subjects were randomized to receive 600 mg efavirenz/day or 600 mg efavirenz with 600 mg rifampin/day for 8 days, with plasma samples collected for pharmacokinetic analysis over 24 h on day 8. Treatments were then crossed over after at least a 2-week washout period, and procedures were repeated. Efavirenz concentrations were determined by high-performance liquid chromatography (HPLC), and pharmacokinetic parameters were estimated by noncompartmental analysis. Efavirenz pharmacokinetic differences between treatment periods were evaluated by paired t test. The coefficients of variation in efavirenz plasma AUC(0-24) (area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 24 h) were 50% and 56% in the absence and presence of rifampin, respectively. Of the 11 evaluable subjects (6 white, 5 black; 6 women, 5 men), the geometric mean AUC(0-24) ratio on/off rifampin (90% confidence interval) was 0.82 (0.72, 0.92), with individual AUC(0-24) ratios varying from 0.55 to 1.18. Five subjects had a 24-hour efavirenz concentration (C(24)) of <1,000 ng/ml on rifampin. They were more likely to have received a lower dose in milligrams/kilogram of body weight and to have lower efavirenz AUC(0-24) values in the basal state. Although rifampin resulted in a modest reduction in efavirenz plasma exposure in subjects as a whole, there was high variability in responses between subjects, suggesting that efavirenz dose adjustment with rifampin may need to be individualized. Body weight and genetic factors will be important covariates in dosing algorithms.     

Elevated gatifloxacin and reduced rifampicin concentrations in a single-dose interaction study amongst healthy volunteers

OBJECTIVES: Pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions were investigated between the fluoroquinolone gatifloxacin and a fixed dose combination (FDC) of rifampicin, isoniazid and pyrazinamide. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The single-dose pharmacokinetics of the four drugs was evaluated in an open-label three-way cross-over study amongst 22 healthy volunteers following administration of gatifloxacin, the FDC or the two products together. RESULTS: Modest but potentially important drug-drug interactions affecting gatifloxacin and rifampicin concentrations were detected. The elimination rate of gatifloxacin was reduced such that the AUC from 0 h to infinity was increased with a geometric mean ratio (GMR) [90% confidence interval (CI)] of 1.14 (1.10, 1.18). Conversely, the AUC from 0 h to infinity for rifampicin was reduced (GMR: 0.81, 90% CI: 0.81, 0.96) when rifampicin, isoniazid and pyrazinamide were given together with gatifloxacin. CONCLUSIONS: Studies in patients including pharmacokinetic evaluation at steady state, efficacy and toxicity are required to determine the importance of the interactions for use of the combination of gatifloxacin, rifampicin, isoniazid and pyrazinamide in the treatment of tuberculosis.     

Pharmacokinetic interaction between amprenavir and clarithromycin in healthy male volunteers

The P450 enzyme, CYP3A4, extensively metabolizes both amprenavir and clarithromycin. To determine if an interaction exists when these two drugs are coadministered, the pharmacokinetics of amprenavir and clarithromycin were investigated in healthy adult male volunteers. This was a Phase I, open-label, randomized, balanced, multiple-dose, three-period crossover study. Fourteen subjects received the following three regimens: amprenavir, 1,200 mg twice daily over 4 days (seven doses); clarithromycin, 500 mg twice daily over 4 days (seven doses); and the combination of the above regimens over 4 days (seven doses of each drug). Twelve subjects completed all treatments and the follow-up period. The erythromycin breath test (ERMBT) was administered at baseline, 2 h after the final dose of each of the three regimens and at the first follow-up visit. Coadministration of clarithromycin and amprenavir significantly increased the mean amprenavir AUC(ss), C(max,ss), and C(min,ss) by 18, 15, and 39%, respectively. Amprenavir had no significant effect on the AUC(ss) of clarithromycin, but the median T(max,ss)for clarithromycin increased by 2.0 h, renal clearance increased by 34%, and the AUC(ss) for 14-(R)-hydroxyclarithromycin decreased by 35% when it was given with amprenavir. Amprenavir and clarithromycin reduced the ERMBT result by 85 and 67%, respectively, and by 87% when the two drugs were coadministered. The baseline ERMBT value did not correlate with clearance of amprenavir or clarithromycin. A pharmacokinetic interaction occurs when amprenavir and clarithromycin are coadministered, but the effects are not likely to be clinically important, and coadministration does not require a dosage adjustment for either drug.     

Substantial pharmacokinetic interaction between digoxin and ritonavir in healthy volunteers

BACKGROUND: Ritonavir is a potent in vitro inhibitor of several cytochrome P450 isozymes and ABC transporters including the efflux pump P-glycoprotein (P-gp). This study assessed the effect of repetitive ritonavir administration on digoxin distribution and total and renal digoxin clearance as a marker for P-gp activity in vivo. METHODS: In a randomized, placebo-controlled crossover study, 12 healthy male participants received oral ritonavir (300 mg twice daily) for 11 days. With the assumption that ritonavir steady state had been reached, 0.5 mg digoxin was given intravenously on day 3. Digoxin concentrations were determined in plasma and urine by radioimmunoassay, and plasma ritonavir concentrations were determined by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Digoxin kinetics was estimated by compartmental and noncompartmental analyses, by use of the area under the plasma concentration-time curve, and the corresponding digoxin amount excreted into urine was used for digoxin clearance calculations. RESULTS: Ritonavir significantly (P <.01) increased digoxin area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to infinity by 86% and its volume of distribution by 77% and decreased nonrenal and renal digoxin clearance by 48% and 35%, respectively. Digoxin terminal half-life in plasma increased by 156% (P <.01). CONCLUSION: This inhibition of renal digoxin clearance is likely caused by ritonavir inhibition of P-gp. Its extent is considerable and similar to the effect of other potent P-gp inhibitors on digoxin disposition such as quinidine. These findings may, therefore, indicate that the pharmacokinetics of P-gp substrates sharing the renal tubular elimination pathway will be affected when combined with therapeutic doses of ritonavir in antiretroviral treatment regimens. In addition and contrarily to quinidine, these data indicate that ritonavir promotes digoxin distribution in the body.     

Pharmacokinetic interaction between intravenous phenytoin and amiodarone in healthy volunteers

To determine the mechanism of the amiodarone-phenytoin interaction, seven healthy male subjects were given intravenous phenytoin, 5 mg/kg, before (phase I) and after (phase II) 3 weeks of oral amiodarone, 200 mg/day. Serum AUC increased from 245 +/- 37.6 to 342 +/- 87.3 mg.hr/L (p = 0.007); area under the first moment curve increased from 5666 +/- 1003 to 11,632 +/- 4198 mg.hr2/L (p = 0.008); the time-averaged total body clearance decreased from 1.57 +/- 0.3 to 1.17 +/- 0.33 L/hr (p = 0.0004); and the apparent elimination half-life increased from 16.1 +/- 1.32 to 22.6 +/- 3.8 hours (p = 0.001) for phenytoin during phase II. The volume of distribution at steady state and the unbound fraction for phenytoin remained unchanged. However, the formation of p-hydroxyphenytoin as a function of serum phenytoin concentration decreased during phase II. These findings suggest that amiodarone inhibits phenytoin metabolism. These observations also suggest that phenytoin doses will need to be reduced when coadministered with amiodarone. The magnitude of this reduction is difficult to predict because of the saturable pharmacokinetics of phenytoin, and therapeutic monitoring is recommended if amiodarone is added to the phenytoin regimen.     

The influence of efavirenz on the pharmacokinetics of a twice-daily combination of indinavir and low-dose ritonavir in healthy volunteers

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the effect of multiple-dose efavirenz on the steady-state pharmacokinetics of the combination of indinavir (800 mg) and low-dose ritonavir (100 mg) twice a day, in which ritonavir is used to increase indinavir plasma concentrations. METHODS: Eighteen healthy male volunteers participated in this multiple-dose, 1-arm, 2-period interaction study. They took a combination of 800 mg indinavir and 100 mg ritonavir with food for 15 days. From days 15 to 29, a once-daily administration of 600 mg efavirenz was added to the combination. Pharmacokinetics of indinavir and ritonavir on days 15 and 29 were compared. RESULTS: Fourteen volunteers completed the study. The addition of efavirenz resulted in significant reductions (P <.01) in indinavir area under the curve (AUC, -25%), trough concentration (C(min), -50%), and maximum concentration (C(max), -17%). All indinavir C(min) levels on day 29 remained equivalent to or above the mean C(min) value described for the regimen of 800 mg indinavir three times a day, without ritonavir (0.15 mg/L). Changes in ritonavir AUC, C(min), and C(max) were -36%, -39%, and -34%, respectively. Pharmacokinetics of efavirenz on day 29 were comparable with published data. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of efavirenz to a combination of 800 mg indinavir and 100 mg ritonavir twice daily results in significant decreases in AUC, C(max), and especially C(min) of indinavir. The dose of indinavir or ritonavir should be increased to maintain similar indinavir drug levels after addition of efavirenz to the indinavir-ritonavir combination. Dose modifications may not be needed in antiretroviral-naive human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients if the reference C(min) of the regimen of 800 mg indinavir 3 times a day is considered to be adequate.     

The views of patients and healthy volunteers on participation in clinical trials: an exploratory survey study

Background and aimsThis study was conducted to investigate the views of patients and healthy volunteers on participation in clinical trials.MethodsA total of 291 clinical trial participants, including 140 patients and 151 healthy volunteers, were recruited from four university hospital-affiliated clinical trial centers among 15 Korean regional clinical trial centers in South Korea where the levels of information and care were sufficient to meet the global standard. Participants were recruited from phase I trials or bioequivalence tests, a short term hospitalization under close monitoring in the clinical trial centers, or from phase II, III or IV trials occurring in both wards and outpatient clinics. A structured questionnaire survey was performed to identify their perspectives on clinical trials.ResultsParticipants who were patients were significantly influenced by medical personnels regarding the decision making processes for participation in clinical trials when compared to healthy volunteers. However, no difference was found between the two groups in the level of willingness to participate in and satisfaction with clinical trials. More than 50% of patient subjects misunderstood and thought that their physicians could persuade them to participate in clinical trials or that all the participants would receive a new drug or treatment during trials.ConclusionsClinical researchers who are involved in clinical trials should make an extra effort to confirm the level of understanding of their patients regarding the clinical trial and to guarantee that each patient has sufficient time to make an informed decision before participating in a clinical trial.     

Lack of pharmacokinetic interaction between linezolid and antacid in healthy volunteers

Several antibiotics show significant pharmacokinetic interactions when they are given orally concomitantly with antacids. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of antacid (containing magnesium) on the pharmacokinetics of linezolid. A single dose of 600 mg linezolid was given orally alone and 10 min after administration of the antacid Maalox 70mVal, which contains 600 mg magnesium hydroxide and 900 mg aluminum hydroxide, to nine healthy males and nine healthy females in a crossover and randomized study. Linezolid plasma concentrations were determined by high-performance liquid chromatography, and pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated for both treatments. Coadministration with antacids did not change the pharmacokinetics of linezolid. The ratios (90% confidence intervals) of the individual values of the area under the concentration-time curve and the maximum concentration in plasma (C(max)) (linezolid plus antacid versus linezolid alone) were 1.01 (0.99 to 1.02) and 0.99 (0.96 to 1.02), respectively. Likewise, no significant difference in any of the other pharmacokinetic parameters was observed between the treatment groups (the time to C(max), lag time, volume of distribution [V/F], and clearance [CL/F]). However, a significant sex difference was observed for AUC, C(max), V/F, and CL/F; and these differences could be almost completely explained by the differences in body weight between males and females. No clinically relevant adverse effects were detected under either condition. The coadministration of antacids had no effect on the pharmacokinetics of linezolid. This demonstrates that the oral absorption of linezolid was not affected by the presence of antacids containing magnesium hydroxide and aluminum hydroxide. Antacids can be safely administered together with linezolid.     

In vivo interaction of ketoconazole and sucralfate in healthy volunteers.

Absorption of ketoconazole is impaired in subjects with an increased gastric pH due to administration of antacids, H2-receptor antagonists, proton pump inhibitors, or the presence of hypochlorhydria. Sucralfate could provide an attractive alternative in patients receiving ketoconazole who require therapy for acid-peptic disorders. Twelve healthy human volunteers were administered a single 400-mg oral dose of ketoconazole in each of three randomized treatment phases. In phase A, ketoconazole was administered orally with 240 ml of water. In phase B, ketoconazole and sucralfate (1.0 g) were administered simultaneously with 240 ml of water. In phase C, ketoconazole was administered with 240 ml of water 2 h after administration of sucralfate (1.0 g) orally with 240 ml of water. A 680-mg oral dose of glutamic acid hydrochloride was administered 10 min prior to and with each dose of ketoconazole, sucralfate, or ketoconazole plus sucralfate. Simultaneous administration of ketoconazole and sucralfate led to a significant reduction in the area under the concentration-time curve and maximal concentration of ketoconazole in serum (78.12 +/- 12.20 versus 59.32 +/- 13.61 micrograms.h/ml and 12.34 +/- 3.07 versus 8.92 +/- 2.57 micrograms/ml, respectively; P < 0.05). When ketoconazole was administered 2 h after sucralfate, the observed ketoconazole area under the concentration-time curve was not significantly decreased compared with that of ketoconazole alone. The time to maximal concentrations in serum and the ketoconazole elimination rate constant were not significantly different in any of the three treatment phases. In patients receiving concurrent administration of ketoconazole and sucralfate, doses should be separated by at least 2 h.