Pharmacokinetic and Safety Comparison of Fixed-Dose Combination of Cilostazol/Rosuvastatin (200 + 20 mg) Versus Concurrent Administration of the Separate Components in Healthy Adults.

The combined cilostazol and rosuvastatin therapy is frequently used for coronary artery disease treatment. This open-label, 3 × 3 crossover clinical trial evaluated the pharmacokinetics and safety of a fixed-dose combination (FDC) of cilostazol/rosuvastatin (200 + 20 mg) versus a concurrent administration of the separate components (SCs) under both fasted and fed conditions. Among 48 enrolled healthy adults, 38 completed the study. Participants were administered a single oral dose of cilostazol/rosuvastatin (200 + 20 mg), either as an FDC or SCs in a fasted state, or FDC in a fed state, in each period of the trial. Blood samples were taken up to 48 hours after dosing, and plasma concentrations were analyzed using validated liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. The geometric mean ratios of FDC to SCs for area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to the last quantifiable concentration (AUClast ) and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax ) were 0.94/1.05 and 1.06/1.15 for cilostazol and rosuvastatin, respectively (AUClast /Cmax ). Compared with that during fasting, fed-state administration increased the AUClast and Cmax for cilostazol by approximately 72% and 160% and decreased these parameters for rosuvastatin by approximately 39% and 43%, respectively. To conclude, the FDC is bioequivalent to the SCs, with notable differences in pharmacokinetics when administered in a fed state. No significant safety differences were observed between the treatments.

Pharmacokinetic Comparison Between a Fixed-Dose Combination of Atorvastatin/Omega-3-Acid Ethyl Esters and the Corresponding Loose Combination in Healthy Korean Male Subjects.

Purpose: Statins are widely used in combination with omega-3 fatty acids for the treatment of patients with dyslipidemia. The aim of this study was to compare the pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles of atorvastatin and omega-3-acid ethyl esters between fixed-dose combination (FDC) and loose combination in healthy subjects. Methods: A randomized, open-label, single-dose, 2-sequence, 2-treatment, 4-period replicated crossover study was performed. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of the 2 sequences and alternately received four FDC soft capsules of atorvastatin/omega-3-acid ethyl esters (10/1000 mg) or a loose combination of atorvastatin tablets (10 mg × 4) and omega-3-acid ethyl ester soft capsules (1000 mg× 4) for four periods, each period accompanied by a high-fat meal. Serial blood samples were collected for PK analysis of atorvastatin, eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA), and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA). PK parameters were calculated by a non-compartmental analysis. The geometric mean ratio (GMR) and its 90% confidence interval (CI) of the FDC to the loose combination were calculated to compare PK parameters. Results: A total of 43 subjects completed the study as planned. The GMR (90% CI) of FDC to loose combination for maximum concentration (Cmax) and area under the time-concentration curve from zero to the last measurable point (AUClast) were 1.0931 (1.0054-1.1883) and 0.9885 (0.9588-1.0192) for atorvastatin, 0.9607 (0.9068-1.0178) and 0.9770 (0.9239-1.0331) for EPA, and 0.9961 (0.9127-1.0871) and 0.9634 (0.8830-1.0512) for DHA, respectively. The intra-subject variability for Cmax and AUClast of DHA was 30.8% and 37.5%, respectively, showing high variability. Both the FDC and the loose combination were safe and well tolerated. Conclusion: The FDC of atorvastatin and omega-3-acid ethyl esters showed comparable PK characteristics to the corresponding loose combination, offering a convenient therapeutic option for the treatment of dyslipidemia.

Safety and pharmacokinetic comparison between fenofibric acid 135 mg capsule and 110 mg enteric-coated tablet in healthy volunteers.

This study aimed to compare the pharmacokinetic (PK) and safety profiles of 2 fenofibric acid formulations under fasting and fed conditions. The reference was a 135 mg capsule, while the test was a 110 mg enteric-coated tablet. This randomized, open-label, two-sequence, two-period crossover phase 1 clinical trial was conducted in healthy Korean men. Sixty participants were enrolled in each of the fasting and feeding groups. Blood samples were collected 72 hours after drug administration. PK parameters were calculated using a non-compartmental method with Phoenix WinNonlin®. A total of 53 and 51 participants from the fasting and feeding groups, respectively, completed the study. The geometric mean ratio and 90% confidence intervals of the maximum concentration (Cmax) and area under the concentration-time curve to the last measurable plasma concentration were 0.9195 (0.8795-0.9614) and 0.8630 (0.8472-0.8791) in the fasting study and 1.0926 (1.0102-1.1818) and 0.9998 (0.9675-1.0332) in the fed study, respectively. The time to reach Cmax of the enteric-coated tablet compared to that of the capsule was extended by 1 and 3 hours under fasting and fed conditions, respectively. In conclusion, enteric-coated tablets have a higher bioavailability than capsules. In addition, the enteric-coated tablet was smaller than the capsule, making it easier for patients to swallow. Trial Registration: Clinical Research Information Service Identifier: KCT0007177, KCT0003304.

Pharmacokinetic Interaction between Atorvastatin and Omega-3 Fatty Acid in Healthy Volunteers.

The interaction between statins and omega-3 fatty acids remains controversial. The aim of this phase 1 trial was to evaluate the pharmacokinetics of drug-drug interaction between atorvastatin and omega-3 fatty acids. Treatments were once-daily oral administrations of omega-3 (4 g), atorvastatin (40 mg), and both for 14 days, 7 days, and 14 days, respectively, with washout periods. The concentrations of atorvastatin, 2-OH-atorvastatin, docosahexaenoic acid (DHA), and eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) were determined with LC-MS/MS. Parameters of DHA and EPA were analyzed after baseline correction. A total of 37 subjects completed the study without any major violations. The geometric mean ratios (GMRs) and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the co-administration of a single drug for the area under the concentration-time curve during the dosing interval at steady state of atorvastatin, 2-OH-atorvastatin, DHA, and EPA were 1.042 (0.971-1.118), 1.185 (1.113-1.262), 0.157 (0.091-0.271), and 0.557 (0.396-0.784), respectively. The GMRs (90% Cis) for the co-administration at steady state of atorvastatin, 2-OH-atorvastatin, DHA, and EPA were 1.150 (0.990-1.335), 1.301 (1.2707-1.1401), 0.320 (0.243-0.422), and 0.589 (0.487-0.712), respectively. The 90% CIs for most primary endpoints were outside the range of typical bioequivalence, indicating a pharmacokinetic interaction between atorvastatin and omega-3.

Evaluation of food effects on the pharmacokinetics of Pelargonium sidoides and Coptis with each bioactive compound berberine and epicatechin after a single oral dose of an expectorant and antitussive agent UI026 in healthy subjects.

UI026 is an expectorant and antitussive agent which is a new combination of Pelargonium sidoides extract and Coptis extract. The bioactive compounds of Pelargonium sidoides and Coptis extracts were identified as epicatechin and berberine, respectively. This study evaluated the effect of food on the pharmacokinetics (PKs) and safety of UI026. A randomized, open-label, single-dose, 2-treatment, parallel study in 12 healthy male subjects was performed. Subjects received a single oral dose of UI026 (27 mL of syrup) under a fed or fasted condition according to their randomly assigned treatment. Blood samples for the PK analysis were obtained up to 24 hours post-dose for berberine and 12 hours post-dose for epicatechin. The PK parameters were calculated by non-compartmental analysis. In the fed condition, the mean maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) and mean area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to the last observed time point (AUClast) for berberine were approximately 33% and 67% lower, respectively, compared with the fasted condition, both showing statistically significant difference. For epicatechin, the mean Cmax and mean AUClast were about 29% and 45% lower, respectively, compared to the fasting condition, neither of which showed a statistically significant difference. There were no drug-related adverse events. This finding suggests that food affects the systemic exposure and bioavailability of berberine and epicatechin. Trial Registration: Clinical Research Information Service Identifier: KCT0003451.

Double controlled release of highly insoluble cilostazol using surfactant-driven pH dependent and pH-independent polymeric blends and in vivo bioavailability in beagle dogs.

Commercially available cilostazol (CIL) tablet releases drug immediately and is given twice a day as an antiplatelet and vasodilatory agent. However, clinical usefulness of immediate release (IR) preparation is limited due to its extremely poor water solubility and the difficulty in sustaining the blood concentration, resulting in unwanted side effects such as headaches, pyknocardia and heavy-headed symptoms. To achieve once a day dosage form with enhanced solubility and controlled release, double controlled release CIL matrix tablets (DCRT) were designed by modulating a sol-gel process of binary polymeric blends of a pH-independent hydroxylpropylmethylcellulose (HPMC) and a pH-dependent polymer (carbomer) assisted with anionic surfactant (sodium lauryl sulfate, SLS). The release profiles of the DCRT were varied according to the ratio of the two polymers. This DCRT enhanced dissolution rate of CIL in a controlled manner due to the sol-gel and erosion process of HPMC, and SLS-driven modulation of charged carbomer via neutralization and micellar interaction. The near-infrared (NIR) chemical imaging and gravimetric behaviors of DCRT clearly showed dynamic modulation of CIL during the swelling and hydration process. Furthermore, the plasma concentration of CIL in DCRT was highly improved and sustained in beagle dogs in a controlled manner.

Simultaneous analysis of acetylcarnitine, proline, hydroxyproline, citrulline, and arginine as potential plasma biomarkers to evaluate NSAIDs-induced gastric injury by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry.

Although major adverse effects associated with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) are gastric injury, assessment of NSAIDs-induced gastrointestinal adverse effects is mostly dependent on endoscopy due to the lack of plasma biomarkers. Several amino acids associated with collagenase activity and gastric mucosal mass have been suggested as plasma biomarker candidates for gastric injury. Therefore, this study aimed to develop a liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) method for the plasma biomarker candidates, i.e., acetylcarnitine, proline, hydroxyproline, citrulline, and arginine and evaluate their potential as a biomarker for NSAIDs-induced gastric injury. The method utilized simple protein precipitation with methanol and D4-citrulline as an internal standard (IS). The assay resulted in the lower limit of quantification (LLOQ) of 0.1 µg/mL for acetylcarnitine and 1 µg/mL for proline, hydroxyproline, citrulline, and arginine in the surrogate blank plasma. The intra- and inter-day accuracy ranged 82.5-111.2% for acetylcarnitine, 95.4-103.3% for proline, 98.9-106.4% for hydroxyproline, 99.5-103.5% for citrulline, and 87.4-105.3% for arginine. The precision was within 6.17%, 3.63%, 6.20%, 6.31%, and 6.17% for acetylcarnitine, proline, hydroxyproline, citrulline, and arginine, respectively. The developed assay was successfully applied to monitor the changes of the plasma levels of the five amino acids in rats and Beagle dogs following repeated oral administrations of aceclofenac. In rats, plasma concentrations of proline, hydroxyproline, and citrulline were significantly reduced after 4 days of aceclofenac administration compared to the control group. In dogs, plasma concentrations of proline and citrulline were significantly decreased after 7 days of aceclofenac administration compared to those obtained after the first aceclofenac administration. These data indicate that plasma levels of proline, hydroxyproline, and citrulline may be used as quantitative biomarkers of NSAIDs-induced gastric damage. The present assay could also be utilized to monitor the changes of these amino acids as potential indicators for various physiological and pathophysiological conditions.

Pharmacokinetics and Anti-Gastric Ulceration Activity of Oral Administration of Aceclofenac and Esomeprazole in Rats.

This study examined the effects of esomeprazole on aceclofenac pharmacokinetics and gastrointestinal complications in rats. Aceclofenac alone, or in combination with esomeprazole, was orally administered to male Sprague-Dawley rats. Plasma concentrations of aceclofenac, its major metabolite diclofenac, and esomeprazole were simultaneously determined by a novel liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry method. Gastrointestinal damage was determined by measuring ulcer area and ulcer lesion index of the stomach. Oral administration of aceclofenac induced significant gastric ulceration, which was inhibited by esomeprazole administration. Following concurrent administration of aceclofenac and esomeprazole, overall pharmacokinetic profiles of aceclofenac and metabolic conversion to diclofenac were unaffected by esomeprazole. Aceclofenac metabolism and pharmacokinetics were not subject to significant food effects, whereas bioavailability of esomeprazole decreased in fed compared to fasting conditions. In contrast, the pharmacokinetics of aceclofenac and esomeprazole were significantly altered by different dosing vehicles. These results suggest that co-administration of esomeprazole with aceclofenac may reduce aceclofenac-induced gastrointestinal complications without significant pharmacokinetic interactions. The optimal combination and clinical significance of the benefits of the combination of aceclofenac and esomeprazole need to be further evaluated.

Evaluation of the effects of food on levodropropizine controlled-release tablet and its pharmacokinetic profile in comparison to that of immediate-release tablet.

BACKGROUND: Levodropropizine is a non-opioid antitussive agent that inhibits cough reflex by reducing the release of sensory peptide in the peripheral region. To improve patients' compliance, a controlled-release (CR) tablet is under development. The aim of this study was to compare the pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles of the CR and immediate-release (IR) tablets of levodropropizine. In addition, the effect of food on the PK properties of levodropropizine CR tablet in healthy subjects was evaluated. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A randomized, open-label, multiple-dose, three-treatment, three-period, six-sequence, crossover study was conducted on 47 healthy subjects. All subjects were randomly assigned to one of the six sequences, which involve combinations of the following three treatments: levodropropizine IR 60 mg three times in the fasted state (R), levodropropizine CR 90 mg two times in the fasted state (T), and levodropropizine CR 90 mg two times in the fed state (TF). Serial blood samples were collected up to 24 h after the first dose. Tolerability was assessed based on the vital signs, adverse events (AEs), and clinical laboratory tests. RESULTS: Levodropropizine CR showed lower maximum drug concentration (Cmax) and similar total exposure compared to levodropropizine IR. The geometric mean ratios (GMRs) (90% confidence intervals [CIs]) of T to R for the Cmax and area under the concentration-time curve from the 0 to 24 h time points (AUC0-24h) were 0.80 (0.75-0.85) and 0.89 (0.86-0.93), respectively. In the fed group, levodropropizine CR showed exposure similar to that in the fasted group. The GMRs (90% CIs) of TF to T for the Cmax and AUC0-24h were 0.90 (0.85-0.97) and 1.10 (1.05-1.14), respectively. No serious AEs occurred with both levodropropizine CR and IR tablets. CONCLUSION: Total systemic exposure for levodropropizine was similar in subjects receiving the CR and IR formulations in terms of the AUC. Although food delayed the absorption of levodropropizine CR, systemic exposure was not affected.

Comparisons of the pharmacokinetics and tolerability of fixed-dose combinations of amlodipine besylate/losartan and amlodipine camsylate/losartan in healthy subjects: a randomized, open-label, single-dose, two-period, two-sequence crossover study.

BACKGROUND: A fixed-dose combination (FDC) of amlodipine and losartan has been used to reduce blood pressure in patients whose hypertension is not sufficiently controlled with either drug alone. The aim of this study was to evaluate the pharmacokinetic (PK) characteristics and tolerability of an FDC of 6.94 mg amlodipine besylate (5 mg as amlodipine)/50 mg losartan potassium compared to an FDC of 5 mg amlodipine camsylate/50 mg losartan potassium in healthy subjects. SUBJECTS AND METHODS: A randomized, open-label, single-dose, two-period, two-sequence crossover study was conducted on 46 healthy male subjects. Blood concentrations were measured by liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry. Blood samples were collected up to 144 hours post dose for each period. PK parameters were calculated in each treatment group using a noncompartmental method. The 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the geometric mean ratios of the two treatments for the maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) and the area under the concentration curve from time zero to the last quantifiable time point (AUC0-t) were estimated. Tolerability assessments were performed for all subjects who received the drug at least once. RESULTS: The PK profiles of the two treatments were similar. For amlodipine, the geometric mean ratios (90% CIs) of amlodipine besylate to amlodipine camsylate for the Cmax and AUC0-t were 0.98 (0.94-1.01) and 0.97 (0.93-1.01), respectively. The corresponding values for losartan were 0.91 (0.81-1.02) and 1.05 (0.98-1.12), respectively. The incidence of adverse events was not significantly different between the two treatments, and both were well tolerated. CONCLUSION: An FDC of 6.94 mg amlodipine besylate (5 mg as amlodipine)/50 mg losartan potassium produced similar results to an FDC of 5 mg amlodipine camsylate/50 mg losartan potassium treatment with respect to the PK parameters of amlodipine and losartan based on Cmax and AUC0-t values. The amlodipine besylate/losartan potassium combination was well tolerated by healthy male subjects.