Lack of correlation between the steady-state plasma concentrations of haloperidol and risperidone

Both haloperidol and risperidone have been widely used in the treatment of schizophrenia. Because of wider therapeutic spectrum of risperidone, switching from haloperidol to risperidone is recommended in patients who do not sufficiently respond to haloperidol. The present study investigated the correlation between the steady-state plasma concentrations of haloperidol and risperidone together with the effects of CYP2D6 status on the steady-state kinetics of both drugs. Subjects were 22 schizophrenic inpatients. Eleven patients first received risperidone 6 mg/day and then haloperidol 12 mg/day, while the remaining 11 patients received these two treatments in the opposite sequence. The steady-state plasma concentrations of risperidone, 9-hydroxyrisperidone, haloperidol, and reduced haloperidol were measured after the subjects had been on the treatment for at least 2 weeks, and CYP2D6 genotypes were identified in all subjects. Neither the correlation between the steady-state plasma concentrations of haloperidol and those of risperidone (r = 0.061, ns) nor the active moiety (sum of concentration of risperidone and 9-hydroxyrisperidone) of risperidone (r = 0.141, ns) was significant. The mean (+/- SD) plasma concentration of risperidone in patients with mutated allele(s)for CYP2D6 was significantly higher than those without mutated allele (1.5 +/- 0.7 vs. 8.5 +/- 11.0, p < 0.05), while such a tendency for haloperidol was not observed. The present study suggests that the steady-state plasma concentration of risperidone is not predicted from that of haloperidol in the same individual, probably because of the much greater involvement of CYP2D6 in the metabolism of risperidone than in that of haloperidol.     

Lack of pharmacokinetic interaction between anidulafungin and tacrolimus

The safety and pharmacokinetics of anidulafungin coadministered with tacrolimus were investigated using a single-sequence, open-label design. Healthy volunteers received 5 mg tacrolimus orally on days 1 and 13 of the study. Anidulafungin (200 mg) was administered intravenously on day 4, followed by 100-mg doses on days 5 through 13. Key pharmacokinetic parameters, including C(max), AUC, t((1/2)), CL, and V(ss), were derived from concentration-time data. The 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the ratios of mean pharmacokinetic parameters of anidulafungin plus tacrolimus to each drug alone were well within the 80% to 125% bioequivalence range, indicating no pharmacokinetic interaction. This ratio was 101.6 (90% CI: 92.77-111.22) for tacrolimus AUC(0-infinity) and 107.2 (90% CI: 105.1-109.4) for anidulafungin AUC(ss). The 2 drugs were well tolerated, and no drug-related serious adverse events were reported. Because of its lack of pharmacokinetic interaction with key immunosuppressive agents, anidulafungin is an important option for the prevention and treatment of invasive fungal infections in transplant recipients.     

Lack of pharmacokinetic interaction between sumatriptan and naproxen

Sumatriptan is a 5HT1D agonist used in the treatment of migraine. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, beta-blockers, and calcium channel-blocking antagonists are used in the prophylaxis of migraine. Hence, there is a need to investigate the interaction of these prophylactic drugs with sumatriptan. The interaction of sumatriptan with propranolol, flunarizine, pizotifen, and butorphanol were reported earlier. Naproxen is shown to be effective in prophylactic treatment of migraine. In this study, the authors have investigated the circadian rhythm effect of naproxen on the pharmacokinetics of sumatriptan at 1000 and 2200 hours. Twelve healthy volunteers were treated with 100 mg sumatriptan succinate either alone or along with 500 mg naproxen orally at either 1000 or 2200 hours in a randomized Latin square design with a washout period of 10 days. Serum samples were collected at predetermined time intervals and analyzed for unchanged sumatriptan by high-performance liquid chromatography. The pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated by using model-independent methods. Naproxen had no statistically significant (p > 0.05) effect on any pharmacokinetic parameters of sumatriptan both at 1000 and 2200 hours treatment. The results of this study suggest that no alteration in the sumatriptan dosage will be necessary for migraine patients taking naproxen prophylactic therapy.     

Lack of a pharmacokinetic interaction between atovaquone and proguanil

Objective: To assess the magnitude of the putative effect of atovaquone on the pharmacokinetics of proguanil and to determine whether the pharmacokinetics of atovaquone are affected by concomitant administration of proguanil, with both drugs administered for 3 days to healthy adult volunteers. Methods: This was an open-label, randomized, three-way cross-over study, in which 18 healthy volunteers received 400 mg proguanil, 1000 mg atovaquone and 1000 mg atovaquone + 400 mg proguanil. Each treatment was given once daily for 3 days with a 3-week wash-out period between each occasion. For the assay of proguanil, cycloguanil and atovaquone, blood was sampled before dosing and at regular intervals over 8 days when proguanil was given, and over 17 days when atovaquone was given. Results: The geometric mean of the area under the atovaquone plasma concentration-time curve calculated from 0 to 24 h after the last dose (AUC_0→24h) was 180 μg · ml⁻¹ · h following administration of atovaquone alone and 193 μg · ml⁻¹ · h following atovaquone with proguanil. The geometric mean AUC_0→24h for proguanil was 6296 ng · ml⁻¹ · h after proguanil alone and 5819 ng · ml⁻¹ · h following proguanil with atovaquone. The corresponding values for the metabolite cycloguanil were 1297 ng · ml⁻¹ · h and 1187 ng · ml⁻¹ · h, respectively. The geometric mean elimination half-life (t_1/2) of atovaquone was 57.1 h when given alone and 59.0 h when administered together with proguanil. The corresponding geometric mean values of t_1/2 for proguanil were 13.7 h and 14.5 h. Exploratory statistical analysis showed no important gender effects on the pharmacokinetics of atovaquone, proguanil, or cycloguanil. Conclusion: The pharmacokinetics of atovaquone and proguanil and its metabolite, cycloguanil, were not different when atovaquone and proguanil were given alone or in combination. Received: 14 October 1998 / Accepted in revised form: 8 February 1999     

Lack of pharmacokinetic interaction between vinpocetine and oxazepam.

The influence of multiple doses of vinpocetine (10 mg three times daily) on the steady state plasma concentrations of oxazepam (10 mg three times daily) was studied in 16 healthy subjects. The mean (+/- s.d.) AUC (ng ml-1h-1) of oxazepam over 24 h during combined treatment was 4716 +/- 2296 and for oxazepam treatment alone it was 4737 +/- 2448 (95% confidence intervals for ratio of means = 95.4-103.7%). The degree of plasma protein binding of oxazepam was 98.11 +/- 0.32% and was not affected by vinpocetine. Independent of vinpocentine treatment a significant diurnal change in the plasma binding of oxazepam was observed; the free drug fraction was 20% higher during the night than during the day. Cmax and AUC values based on total oxazepam in plasma were 10% lower during the night. The results indicate a lack of influence of vinpocetine on oxazepam kinetics. Diurnal changes in the plasma binding of oxazepam probably have no clinical consequences.     

Lack of a pharmacokinetic interaction between moexipril and hydrochlorothiazide

Objective: To investigate the potential for pharmacokinetic interactions between moexipril, a new converting enzyme inhibitor, and hydrochlorothiazide after single dose administration. Methods: 12 healthy male volunteers were studied by an open, randomised, three-way cross-over design, in which single doses of moexipril, hydrochlorothiazide and the two drugs together were administered. Blood and urine were collected up to 48 hours for measurement of the concentrations of moexipril and its metabolite moexiprilat. In addition, the urine samples were analysed for hydrochlorothiazide. Results: For the area under the plasma concentration-time curve calculated from time 0 to a concentration greater than zero, AUC(0–t), the study showed a mean value of moexipril 437 ng ⋅ ml⁻¹⋅ h⁻¹ following administration of moexipril alone and 416 ng ⋅ ml⁻¹⋅ h⁻¹ following moexipril concomitantly with hydrochloro- thiazide. The corresponding values for the metabolite moexiprilat were 203 and 215 ng ⋅ ml⁻¹⋅ h⁻¹, respectively. The c_max of moexipril and the metabolite (data of the metabolite in parenthesis) were 245.4 (70.8) ng ⋅ ml⁻¹ after administration of moexipril alone and 241.0 (69.2) ng ⋅ ml⁻¹ after coadministration of hydrochlorothiazide. The mean total renal excretion (TUE) of hydrochlorothiazide was 15.2 mg when administered alone and 15.1 mg when given together with moexipril. The corresponding mean TUE-values for moexiprilat were 334 (1200) and 453 (1460) μg. Conclusion: The coadministration of moexipril with hydrochlorothiazide had no demonstrable effect on the measured pharmacokinetic parameters of moexipril, its active metabolite moexiprilat or hydrochlorothiazide. Received: 10 July 1995/Accepted in revised form: 3 March 1996     

Lack of pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction between ciclesonide and erythromycin

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether systemic exposure to desisobutyrylciclesonide (des-CIC) (the pharmacologically active metabolite of ciclesonide) and erythromycin are affected by combined administration of ciclesonide and erythromycin. METHODS: 18 healthy subjects were enrolled in a Phase 1, open-label, randomized, three-period crossover study. Each subject received ciclesonide (640 microg ex-actuator, equivalent to 800 microg ex-valve, via hydrofluoroalkane metered-dose inhaler) and erythromycin (500 mg PO), separately and in combination, in random order. Blood samples were collected at timed intervals to determine serum concentrations of erythromycin, des-CIC, and ciclesonide using HPLC-MS detection. Adverse events were recorded throughout the study. RESULTS: Combined administration of ciclesonide and erythromycin did not alter the pharmacokinetics (PK) of either drug. The serum concentration vs. time profiles of erythromycin, des-CIC, and ciclesonide were similar when ciclesonide and erythromycin were administered separately or together. In addition, the PK characteristics of erythromycin and des-CIC were equivalent following single or co-administration. Point estimates (90% confidence intervals (CI)) for erythromycin were as follows: AUC0-inf, 0.96 (0.79, 1.18); Cmax, 1.00 (0.84, 1.20); and t1/2, 0.96 (0.83, 1.12). The following point estimates (90% CI) were obtained for des-CIC: AUC0-inf, 1.16 (1.03, 1.30); Cmax, 1.06 (0.98, 1.15); and t1/2, 1.04 (0.96, 1.13). Lack of ciclesonide/erythromycin interaction was demonstrated as the 90% CI of AUC0-inf, Cmax, and t1/2 of both compounds were entirely within the stipulated equivalence range of 0.67 - 1.50. No study drug-related adverse events occurred during this study. CONCLUSIONS: Combined administration of ciclesonide and erythromycin did not alter the PK properties of either drug. Both drugs were safe and well-tolerated. Therefore, systemic exposure to ciclesonide or erythromycin is not increased in patients receiving concomitant therapy.     

Lack of pharmacokinetic interactions between argatroban and warfarin.

The potential for pharmacokinetic interactions between argatroban and warfarin was studied. In a randomized, crossover study, healthy volunteers participated in three treatment periods, each separated by a nine-day washout interval. Drug regimens consisted of a single oral 7.5-mg dose of warfarin, intravenous argatroban infused at a rate of 1.25 micrograms/kg/min for 100 hours, or both. Blood samples were collected at intervals up to 104 hours to determine clearance (CL) and the apparent first-order elimination rate constant (kel) for argatroban and the area under the concentration-versus-time curve (AUC) and maximum concentration (Cmax) for R- and S-warfarin. An interaction was defined as a > 25% difference in the magnitude of the pharmacokinetic values between administration of one drug alone and coadministration with the other agent. Twelve adult subjects were enrolled. The mean CL and lel for argatroban administered alone differed by < 7% from the mean values when the two drugs were coadministered. When warfarin was administered alone, the mean Cmax and AUC of R- and S-warfarin differed from the mean values when the two drugs were coadministered by < 10%. Prothrombin time was prolonged comparably when argatroban was administered alone and with warfarin. No deaths or serious adverse events were reported. No significant pharmacokinetic interactions were detected between i.v. argatroban 1.25 micrograms/kg/min and a single 7.5-mg oral dose of warfarin. Argatroban was well tolerated when administered alone or with warfarin.     

Lack of pharmacokinetic interaction between oxcarbazepine and lamotrigine.

Epilepsy and bipolar disorder are commonly treated by combination drug therapy, such as lamotrigine and oxcarbazepine. To ensure the safety of this combination, information on pharmacokinetics and tolerability must be available. The objective of study was to evaluate the pharmacokinetics and tolerability of coadministered lamotrigine and oxcarbazepine in healthy subjects. This randomized, single-blind, parallel-group study comprised three cohorts: lamotrigine (200 mg daily) plus oxcarbazepine (600 mg twice daily), lamotrigine (200 mg daily) plus placebo, and oxcarbazepine (600 mg twice daily) plus placebo. Serial blood samples were collected at steady state to determine serum concentrations of lamotrigine and plasma concentrations of oxcarbazepine and its active metabolite 10-monohydroxy metabolite (MHD). Pharmacokinetic parameters were determined by noncompartmental methods. Tolerability was monitored through adverse event reports, clinical laboratory results, vital signs, and electrocardiograms. A total of 47 male volunteers received study drugs. At steady state, lamotrigine AUC((0-24)) and C(max) were not significantly affected by oxcarbazepine co-therapy, nor were MHD AUC((0-12)) and C(max) significantly affected by lamotrigine co-therapy. The most common adverse events, headache, dizziness, nausea, and somnolence, occurred more frequently during lamotrigine and oxcarbazepine combination therapy than during the monotherapy. No significant changes in clinical laboratory parameters, vital signs, or electrocardiograms were reported. In conclusion, the combination of lamotrigine and oxcarbazepine does not require dose adjustments based on pharmacokinetic data. However, it is important to recognize that the combination therapy was associated with more frequent adverse events.     

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.     

APriori lithium dosage regimen using population characteristics of pharmacokinetic parameters

The important problem of initiation of long-term lithium treatments tackled by means of the selection of an a prioridosage regimen based on the presumed efficacy of lithium and absence of toxicity. The pharmacokinetics of Li ⁺ ion is represented by a four-compartment open model including the supposed first-order processes for the release of the active compound from the dosage form and its absorption. Experimental protocols for measurements of serum concentrations and of urinary amounts after single and multiple dosing to healthy volunteers were derived with several oral dosage forms. Estimation of the pharmacokinetic parameters for each subject made it possible to validate the model for the various dosage forms. The interindividual variability of these parameters is taken into account by estimating the characteristics of the statistical distribution for the whole population. A dosage regimen is considered optimum when serum concentration profiles at steady state range from the threshold of efficacy (0.8 mmol/liter) to the threshold of toxicity (2.0 mmol/liter). When the number of daily intakes is fixed, the search for the optimum dose for the whole population is effected by minimizing the expected value of the random variable which characterizes the risks of excursion out of the therapeutic range. By this means universal dosages are shown to be unsatisfactory. However, certain dosage regimens individualized with respect to the renal clearance value of lithium and based on two or three daily intakes can give excellent results even when conventional dosage forms are used.This work was partly supported by grants D.G.R.S.T. No. 75.7.1267 (Adersa-Gerbios) and No. 75.7.1268 (Theraplix Laboratory).     

Lack of correlation between methotrexate concentrations in serum, saliva and sweat after 24 h methotrexate infusions.

1 Methotrexate (MTX) concentrations were studied in serum, mixed saliva and sweat during and after 24 h continuous MTX infusions (0.5-6 g m-2) in 14 patients with various malignant diseases. 2 The serum-MTX concentrations declined in a biphasic manner, but the MTX elimination in saliva and sweat varied to a much greater extent. 3 Saliva/serum and sweat/serum ratios during the MTX infusion were 2.3% and 0.55% respectively. The ratios had increased significantly 20 and 44 h postinfusion. 4 No correlations were demonstrated between salivary- and serum-MTX concentrations during the MTX infusion or 20 and 44 h later. 5 Markedly delayed renal MTX excretions were demonstrated in two patients. In one of them the salivary MTX elimination was also retarded, whereas this was not seen in the other one. 6 We conclude that measurements of MTX concentrations in mixed saliva cannot substitute for serum-MTX determinations in the monitoring of patients after 24 h MTX infusions.     

Lack of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interaction between rizatriptan and paroxetine

Rizatriptan is a potent, oral 5-HT(1B/1D) agonist with a rapid onset of action being investigated for the acute treatment of migraine. This study examined the clinical and pharmacolinetic interaction between rizatriptan and the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor, paroxetine. In this two-period crossover study, 12 healthy young subjects (6 males and 6 females) received 1 mg rizatriptan following 14 days of treatment with placebo or paroxetine (20 mg once daily). Plasma was sampled for rizatriptan and N-monodesmethyl rizatriptan, a minor but active metabolite of rizatriptan. Safety evaluations included monitoring for adverse events, vital signs, and visual analog scale assessment of mood. Plasma levels of rizatriptan and N-monodesmethyl rizatriptan were not altered when rizatriptan was administered with paroxetine compared to the placebo. Clinically, coadministration of rizatriptan with paroxetine was well tolerated. Blood pressure, heart rate, and temperature changes during the observation period did not differ to a clinically significant degree when rizatriptan was administered with paroxetine compared to the placebo. No effects on mood occurred following treatment with the combination compared to rizatriptan alone. Adverse events following rizatriptan administration with paroxetine were similar to those reported when rizatriptan was given with the placebo.     

Lack of a pharmacokinetic interaction between phenobarbitone and gabapentin.

Twelve subjects received a single oral dose (300 mg) of gabapentin and serial blood and urine samples were collected for drug measurements. Oral phenobarbitone (30-90 mg/day) was then administered to steady-state, and the gabapentin single dose study was repeated on day 42. Gabapentin was administered from days 49 to 52 to achieved steady-state, and further blood and urine samples were collected for drug measurements. Trough plasma phenobarbitone concentrations were monitored at frequent intervals. No statistically significant differences were observed in gabapentin Cmax, tmax, AUC, t1/2 or urinary drug recovery following single doses of gabapentin alone or combined with phenobarbitone. Phenobarbitone did not alter the disposition of gabapentin at steady state. Mean trough steady-state phenobarbitone concentrations were not significantly affected by concomitant gabapentin administration.     

Lack of pharmacokinetic interaction between butorphanol nasal spray and cimetidine

The potential for a pharmacokinetic interaction between butorphanol nasal spray and cimetidine, under steady state conditions, was evaluated in 16 healthy male volunteers. Subjects received either a 1 mg butorphanol nasal spray every 6 h or a 300 mg cimetidine tablet every 6 h on days 1–4, the combination of two compounds every 6 h on days 5–8 and the original treatment as described in the first segment (days 1–4) on days 9–12. Serial blood and urine samples were collected on days 4, 8 and 12, and additional blood samples were taken immediately, prior to the morning dose on days 3, 7 and 11. Based on the analysis of the C_min samples, the plasma concentrations of cimetidine and butorphanol achieved steady state by the third day of dosing. No statistically significant differences were found in the plasma concentrations of butorphanol or cimetidine (except for t_½ and MRT) between any of the treatment phases. Butorphanol nasal spray and cimetidine can be co-administered without any adjustment of dosage for either drug.     

Lack of pharmacokinetic interaction between lansoprazole and intravenously administered phenytoin

The objective of this randomized, double-blind, two-period crossover study was to investigate whether concomitant steady-state lansoprazole influences the pharmacokinetics of CYP2C9 substrates using single intravenously dosed phenytoin as a model substrate. In addition, the safety of concomitant administration of these two drugs was evaluated. Twelve healthy, nonsmoking, adult male subjects received 60 mg lansoprazole or placebo once daily for 9 days during each study period. On the morning of day 7, each subject received a single 250 mg intravenous phenytoin dose. There were no statistically significant differences between the two regimens for mean phenytoin Cmax or tmax. There was a minor (< 3%) but statistically significant difference between the two regimens for phenytoin AUC resulting from a very low intrasubject coefficient of variation (2.3%). The treatment and control mean plasma concentration phenytoin profiles were virtually super-imposable. In conclusion, concomitant multidose lansoprazole administration is unlikely to have any clinically significant effect on the pharmacokinetics of CYP2C9 substrates in general or intravenous phenytoin specifically.     

Lack of significant pharmacokinetic interaction between haloperidol and grapefruit juice

The effects of repeated ingestion of grapefruit juice, an inhibitor of cytochrome P4503A4 (CYP3A4), on the steady-state plasma concentrations of haloperidol and reduced haloperidol were examined. Twelve schizophrenic inpatients receiving haloperidol 12 mg/day, ingested grapefruit juice 600 ml/day for 7 days. Blood samples were collected before and during grapefruit juice coadministration and 1 week after its discontinuation together with an assessment of clinical status. Plasma drug concentrations were measured using high-performance liquid chromatography. Clinical status for each patient was assessed by the Brief Psychiatric Rating Scale (BPRS) and the UKU side-effect rating scale (UKU). Plasma concentrations of haloperidol and reduced haloperidol during grapefruit juice coadministration (9.0 +/- 3.0 and 2.6 +/- 1.4 ng/ml, respectively) were not significantly different from those before grapefruit juice coadministration (9.1 +/- 2.8 and 2.6 +/- 1.5 ng/ml) or those 1 week after its discontinuation (8.8 +/- 2.7 and 2.6 +/- 1.3 ng/ml). There was no change in the scores of BPRS or UKU during the study period. The present results shows that grapefruit juice does not affect the plasma concentrations of haloperidol and reduced haloperidol or clinical status in patients receiving haloperidol.     

A priori lithium dosage regimen using population characteristics of pharmacokinetic parameters

The important problem of initiation of long-term lithium treatment is tackled by means of the selection of an a priori dosage regimen based on the presumed efficacy of lithium and absence of toxicity. The pharmacokinetics of Li+ ion is represented by a four-compartment open model including the supposed first-order processes for the release of the active compound from the dosage form and its absorption. Experimental protocols for measurements of serum concentrations and of urinary amounts after single and multiple dosing to healthy volunteers were derived with several oral dosage forms. Estimation of the pharmacokinetic parameters for each subject made it possible to validate the model for the various dosage forms. The interindividual variability of these parameters is taken into account by estimating the characteristics of the statistical distribution for the whole population. A dosage regimen is considered optimum when serum concentration profiles at steady state range from the threshold of efficacy (0.8 mmol/liter) to the threshold of toxicity (2.0 mmol/liter). When the number of daily intakes is fixed, the search for the optimum dose for the whole population is effected by minimizing the expected value of the random variable which characterizes the risks of excursion out of the therapeutic range. By this means universal dosages are shown to be unsatisfactory. However, certain dosage regimens individualized with respect to the renal clearance value of lithium and based on two or three daily intakes can give excellent results even when conventional dosage forms are used.