Bioequivalence Study of Capsules versus Film Tablets Containing Rivaroxaban in Healthy Caucasian Subjects under Fasting and Fed Conditions.

The bioequivalence (BE) of orally administered capsules versus film tablets containing 20  and 10 mg of rivaroxaban was assessed in 2 single-dose, open-label, randomized 2-way crossover trials with a washout period of at least 1 week. The study for the 10 mg strength was conducted under fasting conditions (n = 68) and the study for the 20 mg strength under fed conditions (n = 52). Blood samples were collected over a 36-hour period and concentrations were assayed using a liquid chromatography tandem mass spectrometry method. Pharmacokinetic (PK) evaluation was performed with the program Phoenix WinNonlin, for non-compartmental assessment of data. After administration of 10 mg rivaroxaban under fasting conditions, mean Area Under the time - concentration Curve until the last blood sampling point (AUCt ), Area Under the time - concentration Curve until infinity (AUC∞ ), and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax ) were comparable (972 ng/mL*h, 1048 ng/mL*h, and 111 ng/mL, respectively, for the test and 1013 ng/mL*h, 1070 ng/mL*h and 130 ng/mL, respectively, for the reference formulation). Mean AUCt , AUC∞ , and Cmax were also comparable under fed conditions after administration of 20 mg rivaroxaban (2145 ng/mL*h, 2198 ng/mL*h and 275 ng/mL, respectively, for the test and 1856 ng/mL*h, 1916 ng/mL*h and 240 ng/mL, respectively, for the reference formulation). The 90% confidence intervals for all PK parameters were within the acceptance range of 80%-125%, suggesting BE between the generic product and the innovator product in healthy Caucasian male subjects. A clinically relevant difference in the tolerability and safety of the treatments was not detected. Study results indicated that the capsule formulations were bioequivalent with the film tablet formulations.

Systemic and Cerebral Concentration of Nimodipine During Established and Experimental Vasospasm Treatment.

BACKGROUND: Oral nimodipine is an established prophylactic agent for cerebral vasospasm after subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH). In highly selected cases, intra-arterial (IA) or intravenous (IV) application of nimodipine may be considered; however, the optimum dosage and modality of application remain a matter of debate. The purpose of this investigation is analysis of nimodipine concentration in serum, cerebrospinal fluid, and cerebral microdialysate in the context of currently effective dose and route of application (oral, IA, IV). METHODS: We prospectively collected 156 samples from 37 patients treated for aneurysmal SAH from May 2014 to July 2015. Treatment groups were stratified according to modality of application and low-dose or high-dose treatment. At time of sampling, current dose and modality of application effectively sustained cerebral perfusion as documented by common diagnostics. Samples were analyzed for nimodipine concentration via high-performance liquid chromatography and tandem mass spectrometry. RESULTS: In most cases (94.3%), nimodipine remained below the limit of quantification (0.5 ng/mL) within the brain (microdialysis, cerebrospinal fluid), even during targeted, local application (IA nimodipine). The median serum concentration for all treatment groups was 17.3 ng/mL. Modality of application (oral, IA, IV) was not associated with significant differences in serum concentrations (P = 0.712), even after stratification for dosage (P = 0.371), implying a comparable systemic distribution, if not efficacy. CONCLUSIONS: Nimodipine does not accumulate sufficiently within the target organ for treatment monitoring. Comparable systemic concentrations can be observed irrespective of application modality and dosing. Future studies will clarify the role of efficacy-driven treatment algorithms, in which lowest dose and least invasive mode of application still effective should be identified.

Sufficient release of antibiotic by a spacer 6 weeks after implantation in two-stage revision of infected hip prostheses.

BACKGROUND: Although antibiotic-loaded spacers are commonly used to treat periprosthetic infections, it is unclear whether spacers continue to release bactericidal levels of antibiotic 6 weeks after implantation. QUESTIONS/PURPOSES: We asked whether an antibiotic can be detected in the tissue surrounding the spacer 6 weeks after implantation and whether the concentration is higher than the minimal inhibition concentration (MIC) previously determined for pathogens that are responsible for most periprosthetic infections. METHODS: We removed 14 spacers used in two-stage septic revisions of infected hip prostheses 6 weeks after the primary implantations and determined the concentration of the antibiotics in the membrane formed between the spacer and the neighboring bone on the acetabular and the femoral sides. In seven cases Copal cement with gentamicin and clindamycin were used, and in seven other cases vancomycin was added to the Copal cement. Concentrations of the spacer antibiotics in the neighboring tissue were determined by tandem mass spectroscopy. RESULTS: All three antibiotics were detected in concentrations higher than their MIC. There were no differences between the groups regardless whether vancomycin was added to the cement, or whether the cement was applied with the acetabular cup spacer or with the stem spacer. CONCLUSIONS: We concluded that, using the spacer technique described in this study, 6 weeks after spacer implantation, the concentrations of antibiotic are sufficient to treat a periprosthetic infection.