Pharmacometrics: Focus on the Patient.

Pharmacometrics, whether using simple or complex models, has contributed to rational and efficient drug development,(1-3) with the main focus on early drug development.(4) This article describes why opportunities more directly focused on the patient abound in late stage development, illustrating the concept with three innovative examples which focus on benefits to patients, enabling drugs that are truly efficacious to reach the market faster in diseases with high unmet medical needs, while maintaining adequate safety.

Linking the population pharmacokinetics of tenofovir and its metabolites with its cellular uptake and metabolism.

Empirical pharmacokinetic models are used to explain the pharmacokinetics of the antiviral drug tenofovir (TFV) and its metabolite TFV diphosphate (TFV-DP) in peripheral blood mononuclear cells. These empirical models lack the ability to explain differences between the disposition of TFV-DP in HIV-infected patients vs. healthy individuals. Such differences may lie in the mechanisms of TFV transport and phosphorylation. Therefore, we developed an exploratory model based on mechanistic mass transport principles and enzyme kinetics to examine the uptake and phosphorylation kinetics of TFV. TFV-DP median Cmax from the model was 38.5 fmol/10(6) cells, which is bracketed by two reported healthy volunteer studies (38 and 51 fmol/10(6) cells). The model presented provides a foundation for exploration of TFV uptake and phosphorylation kinetics for various routes of TFV administration and can be updated as more is known on actual mechanisms of cellular transport of TFV.

Pharmacodynamics of intravenous and subcutaneous tinzaparin and heparin in healthy volunteers.

The pharmacodynamics of i.v. and subcutaneous (s.c.) tinzaparin sodium compared with heparin in healthy volunteers were studied. A randomized, open-label, five-treatment, five-period-crossover study with a Latin square design was performed in 30 healthy men to estimate tinzaparin pharmacodynamics (anti-Xa and anti-IIa activities) after single-dose i.v. and s.c. administration, to evaluate absolute bioavailability, to determine the effect of a preservative (benzyl alcohol), to evaluate the dose-activity relationship, and to compare tinzaparin with unfractionated heparin. Treatments were (1) heparin 5,000 units s.c., (2) tinzaparin 4,500 anti-Xa IU without preservative s.c., (3) tinzaparin 4,500 anti-Xa IU without preservative i.v., (4) tinzaparin 12,250 anti-Xa IU with preservative s.c., and (5) tinzaparin 4,500 anti-Xa IU with preservative s.c. Blood samples for the measurement of anti-Xa and anti-IIa activities were drawn over 24 hours. Anti-Xa and anti-IIa activities were determined by chromogenic methods; data were analyzed by using a noncompartmental approach. The clearance of tinzaparin based on anti-Xa activity ranged from 1.14 to 2.04 L/hr. The volume of distribution was 3.1-5.0 L, suggesting that the molecular entities responsible for anti-Xa and anti-IIa activities are confined to the intravascular space. Mean peak anti-Xa activity occurred three to four hours after s.c. injection, independent of the dose. The mean half-life of anti-Xa activity after s.c. injection ranged from 3.41 to 4.13 hours and was independent of the dose. The mean absolute bioavailability of s.c. tinzaparin was 86.7%. Intersubject pharmacodynamic variability was low for tinzaparin compared with heparin. Benzyl alcohol did not affect tinzaparin pharmacodynamics. A clear dose-activity relationship was seen for the two fixed doses of tinzaparin (12,250 and 4,500 IU). Single doses of tinzaparin were safe and well tolerated after administration by either route. The anti-Xa profile of tinzaparin supports the pharmacodynamic superiority of low-molecular-weight heparins over standard i.v. heparin administration. This pharmacodynamic study in healthy volunteers indicates that s.c. tinzaparin sodium was well absorbed; the presence of a preservative, benzyl alcohol, did not affect the activity of tinzaparin; and tinzaparin activity is dose-related.

Identification of formulation and manufacturing variables that influence in vitro dissolution and in vivo bioavailability of propranolol hydrochloride tablets.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effect of formulation and processing changes on the dissolution and bioavailability of propranolol hydrochloride tablets. Directly compressed blends of 6 kg (20,000 units) were prepared by mixing in a 16-qt V blender and tablets were compressed on an instrumented Manesty D3B tablet press. A half-factorial (2(5-1), Resolution V) design was used to study the following variables: filler ratio (lactose/dicalcium phosphate), sodium starch glycolate level, magnesium stearate level, lubricant blend time, and compression force. The levels and ranges of the excipients and processing changes studied represented level 2 or greater changes as indicated by the Scale-up and Post Approval Changes (SUPAC-IR) Guidance. Changes in filler ratio, disintegrant level, and compression force were significant in affecting percent drug released (Q) in 5 min (Q5) and Q10. However, changes in magnesium stearate level and lubricant blend time did not influence Q5 and Q10. Hardness was found to be affected by changes in all of the variables studied. Some interaction effects between the variables studied were also found to be significant. To examine the impact of formulation and processing variables on in vivo absorption, three batches were selected for a bioavailability study based on their dissolution profiles. Thirteen subjects received four propranolol treatments (slow-, medium-, and fast-dissolving formulations and Inderal 80 mg) separated by 1 week washout according to a randomized crossover design. The formulations were found to be bioequivalent with respect to the log Cmax and log AUC0-infinity. The results of this study suggest that (i) bioavailability/bioequivalency studies may not be necessary for propranolol and perhaps other class 1 drugs after level 2 type changes, and (ii) in vitro dissolution tests may be used to show bioequivalence of propranolol formulations with processing or formulation changes within the specified level 2 ranges examined.

Evaluation of in vitro release rate and in vivo absorption characteristics of four metoprolol tartrate immediate-release tablet formulations.

The purpose of this investigation was to examine the impact of formulation and process changes on dissolution and bioavailability/bioequivalency of metoprolol tartrate tablets manufactured using a high-shear granulation process. A half-factorial (2(4-1), Res IV) design was undertaken to study the selected formulation and processing variables during scale-up. Levels and ranges for excipients and processing changes studied represented level 2 or greater changes as indicated by the SUPAC-IR Guidance. Blend and tableting properties were evaluated. Changes in sodium starch glycolate and magnesium stearate levels, and the order of addition microcrystalline cellulose (intra- vs. extragranular) were significant only in affecting percent drug released (Q) in 5, 10, and 15 min. Statistical analysis of data showed no significant curvature. No interaction effects were found to be statistically significant. To examine the impact of formulation and processing variables on in vivo absorption, three batches were selected for a bioavailability study based on their dissolution profiles. Subjects received four metoprolol treatments (Lopressor, slow-, medium-, and fast-dissolving formulations) separated by 1 week according to a randomized crossover design. After an overnight fast, subjects were administered one tablet (100 mg), blood samples were collected over 24 hr and plasma samples were analyzed. The formulations were found to be bioequivalent with respect to the log Cmax and log AUC0-infinity. The results of this study suggest that: (i) bioavailability/bioequivalency studies may not be necessary for metoprolol tartrate and perhaps other class 1 drugs after level 2 type changes and (ii) in vitro dissolution tests may be used to show bioequivalence of metoprolol formulations with processing or formulation changes within the specified level 2 ranges for the equipment examined.

Effect of quinidine on the interconversion kinetics between haloperidol and reduced haloperidol in humans: implications for the involvement of cytochrome P450IID6.

Haloperidol (HAL) is a potent butyrophenone antipsychotic agent which is reversibly metabolized to reduced haloperidol (RHAL). In order to determine if this reversible metabolic pathway is linked to the debrisoquine 4-hydroxylase isozyme of cytochrome P-450 (P450IID6). HAL (5 mg) or RHAL (5 mg) was orally administered to healthy male volunteers in a randomized crossover design both with and without a prior (1 h) oral dose of quinidine (250 mg bisulfate), a potent inhibitor of this isozyme. Thirteen volunteers, 11 extensive metabolizers, 2 poor metabolizers, completed all four phases of the study. Plasma samples harvested over seven days were analysed for HAL and RHAL. An expression for the apparent fractional availability of metabolite from the parent compound given (Fapppm) was derived and was used to determine whether HAL or RHAL is the preferred metabolite, and whether quinidine co-administration alters Fapp for either compound. The AUC (0-t) for both HAL and RHAL were significantly greater following the administration of either compound with quinidine compared with AUC (0-t) values obtained in the absence of quinidine. The maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) of the administered compound was also greater following the administration of quinidine. Quinidine had no effect on the half-lives of the administered compounds. The Fapp for HAL and RHAL were not significantly affected by the administration of quinidine, indicating that the interconversion of HAL and RHAl is not linked to P450IID6. The Fapp of RHAL after administration of HAL was significantly greater than the Fapp of HAL after RHAL administration, indicating that RHAL is the preferred metabolic form. This difference was not affected by quinidine.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)