Population pharmacokinetics of rosuvastatin: implications of renal impairment, race, and dyslipidaemia.

OBJECTIVES: To build the structural model of pharmacokinetics for rosuvastatin and evaluate the impact of demographic characteristics including renal function on its pharmacokinetic parameters. METHODS: A population pharmacokinetic analysis of rosuvastatin in healthy volunteers, subjects with dyslipidaemia, and renal failure patients was performed using non-linear mixed-effects modelling and a two-compartment pharmacokinetic model with simultaneous first- and zero-order absorption. Demographic covariates, dyslipidaemic state and renal function were evaluated for their impact on pharmacokinetic parameters by step-wise additions or deletions using the likelihood ratio test. RESULTS: Typical pharmacokinetic parameters were estimated for a healthy white male subject. For example, apparent oral clearance (CL/F) was estimated to be 257 L/h. Age, smoking status, weight, body surface area, and lean body mass had no significant effect on rosuvastatin pharmacokinetics. The model predicted that CL/F for subjects with creatinine clearance (CLCR) of 30 mL/min (moderate renal impairment) and of 50 mL/min (mild renal impairment) was 17% and 9.7% lower, respectively, relative to subjects with CLCR of 94 mL/min, the data set median value. CL/F was reduced by 71.1% and 43.7% in subjects with dyslipidaemia and in Asian subjects, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Reduction of CL/F of rosuvastatin is not considered clinically significant for patients with mild-to-moderate renal impairment. Rosuvastatin CL/F was reduced in subjects with dyslipidaemia, but it is important to realise that the safety/efficacy profile of rosuvastatin has been well established in this population. However, the potential for increased exposure in Asian subjects should be considered when initiating rosuvastatin treatment or increasing dose in this population.

The effect of a combination antacid preparation containing aluminium hydroxide and magnesium hydroxide on rosuvastatin pharmacokinetics.

OBJECTIVE: Rosuvastatin, a 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitor used for the treatment of dyslipidaemia, may be co-administered with antacids in clinical practice. This trial assessed the effect of simultaneous and separated administration of an antacid preparation containing aluminium hydroxide 220 mg/5 mL and magnesium hydroxide 195 mg/5 mL (co-magaldrox 195/220) on the pharmacokinetics of rosuvastatin. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: A randomised, open-label, three-way crossover trial was performed. Healthy male volunteers (n = 14) received a single dose of rosuvastatin 40 mg alone, rosuvastatin 40 mg plus 20 mL antacid suspension taken simultaneously, and rosuvastatin 40 mg plus 20 mL antacid suspension taken 2 h after rosuvastatin on three separate occasions with a washout of > or = 7 days between each. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary parameters were area under the rosuvastatin plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to the last quantifiable concentration (AUC(0-t)) and maximum observed rosuvastatin plasma concentration (C(max)) in the absence and presence of antacid. RESULTS: When rosuvastatin and antacid were given simultaneously, the antacid reduced the rosuvastatin AUC(0-t) by 54% (90% confidence interval [CI] for the treatment 0.40-0.53) and C(max) by 50% (90% CI 0.41-0.60). When the antacid was given 2 h after rosuvastatin, the antacid reduced the rosuvastatin AUC(0-t) by 22% (90% CI 0.68-0.90) and the C(max) by 16% (90% CI 0.70-1.01). The effect of repeated antacid administration was not studied and it cannot be discounted that this may have resulted in a stronger interaction than that observed here. CONCLUSIONS: Simultaneous dosing with rosuvastatin and antacid resulted in a decrease in rosuvastatin systemic exposure of approximately 50%. This effect was mitigated when antacid was administered 2 h after rosuvastatin.

Effect of rosuvastatin on warfarin pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics.

The effect of rosuvastatin on warfarin pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics was assessed in 2 trials. In trial A (a randomized, double-blind, 2-period crossover study), 18 healthy volunteers were given rosuvastatin 40 mg or placebo on demand (o.d.) for 10 days with 1 dose of warfarin 25 mg on day 7. In trial B (an open-label, 2-period study), 7 patients receiving warfarin therapy with stable international normalized ratio values between 2 and 3 were coadministered rosuvastatin 10 mg o.d. for up to 14 days, which increased to rosuvastatin 80 mg if the international normalized ratio values were <3 at the end of this period. The results indicated that rosuvastatin can enhance the anticoagulant effect of warfarin. The mechanism of this drug-drug interaction is unknown. Rosuvastatin had no effect on the total plasma concentrations of the warfarin enantiomers, but the free plasma fractions of the enantiomers were not measured. Appropriate monitoring of the international normalized ratio is indicated when this drug combination is coadministered.

Rosuvastatin pharmacokinetics in heart transplant recipients administered an antirejection regimen including cyclosporine.

BACKGROUND: Cyclosporine (INN, ciclosporin) increases the systemic exposure of all statins. Therefore rosuvastatin pharmacokinetic parameters were assessed in an open-label trial involving stable heart transplant recipients (> or =6 months after transplant) on an antirejection regimen including cyclosporine. Rosuvastatin has been shown to be a substrate for the human liver transporter organic anion transporting polypeptide C (OATP-C). Inhibition of this transporter could increase plasma concentrations of rosuvastatin. Therefore the effect of cyclosporine on rosuvastatin uptake by cells expressing OATP-C was also examined. METHODS: Ten subjects were assessed while taking 10 mg rosuvastatin for 10 days; 5 of these were then assessed while taking 20 mg rosuvastatin for 10 days. Rosuvastatin steady-state area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to 24 hours [AUC(0-24)] and maximum observed plasma concentration (Cmax) were compared with values in controls (historical data from 21 healthy volunteers taking 10 mg rosuvastatin). Rosuvastatin uptake by OATP-C-transfected Xenopus oocytes was also studied by use of radiolabeled rosuvastatin with and without cyclosporine. RESULTS: In transplant recipients taking 10 mg rosuvastatin, geometric mean values and percent coefficient of variation for steady-state AUC(0-24) and Cmax were 284 ng. h/mL (31.3%) and 48.7 ng/mL (47.2%), respectively. In controls, these values were 40.1 ng. h/mL (39.4%) and 4.58 ng/mL (46.9%), respectively. Compared with control values, AUC(0-24) and Cmax were increased 7.1-fold and 10.6-fold, respectively, in transplant recipients. In transplant recipients taking 20 mg rosuvastatin, these parameters increased less than dose-proportionally. Rosuvastatin had no effect on cyclosporine blood concentrations. The in vitro results demonstrate that rosuvastatin is a good substrate for OATP-C-mediated hepatic uptake (association constant, 8.5 +/- 1.1 micromol/L) and that cyclosporine is an effective inhibitor of this process (50% inhibition constant, 2.2 +/- 0.4 micromol/L when the rosuvastatin concentration was 5 micromol/L). CONCLUSIONS: Rosuvastatin exposure was significantly increased in transplant recipients on an antirejection regimen including cyclosporine. Cyclosporine inhibition of OATP-C-mediated rosuvastatin hepatic uptake may be the mechanism of the drug-drug interaction. Coadministration of rosuvastatin with cyclosporine needs to be undertaken with caution.

The effect of gemfibrozil on the pharmacokinetics of rosuvastatin.

BACKGROUND: Coadministration of statins and gemfibrozil is associated with an increased risk for myopathy, which may be due in part to a pharmacokinetic interaction. Therefore the effect of gemfibrozil on rosuvastatin pharmacokinetics was assessed in healthy volunteers. Rosuvastatin has been shown to be a substrate for the human hepatic uptake transporter organic anion transporter 2 (OATP2). Inhibition of this transporter could increase plasma concentrations of rosuvastatin. The effect of gemfibrozil on rosuvastatin uptake by cells expressing OATP2 was also examined. METHODS: In a randomized, double-blind, 2-period crossover trial, 20 healthy volunteers were given oral doses of gemfibrozil, 600 mg, or placebo twice daily for 7 days. On the fourth morning of each dosing period, a single oral dose of rosuvastatin, 80 mg, was coadministered. Plasma concentrations of rosuvastatin, N-desmethyl rosuvastatin, and rosuvastatin-lactone were measured. In addition, the effect of gemfibrozil on the uptake of radiolabeled rosuvastatin by OATP2-transfected Xenopus oocytes was studied. RESULTS: Gemfibrozil increased the rosuvastatin area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to the time of the last quantifiable concentration [AUC(0-t)] 1.88-fold (90% confidence interval, 1.60-2.21) and the maximum observed rosuvastatin plasma concentration (C(max)) 2.21-fold (90% confidence interval, 1.81-2.69) compared with placebo. N-desmethyl rosuvastatin AUC(0-t) and C(max) decreased by 48% and 39%, respectively. Pharmacokinetics of rosuvastatin-lactone was unchanged. The in vitro results indicate that the maximum gemfibrozil inhibition of rosuvastatin OATP2-mediated uptake was 50%; the inhibition constant for the inhibitory process was 4.0 +/- 1.3 micromol/L. CONCLUSIONS: Gemfibrozil increased rosuvastatin plasma concentrations approximately 2-fold, which is similar to the effect of gemfibrozil on pravastatin, simvastatin acid, and lovastatin acid plasma concentrations and substantially less than the effect observed for cerivastatin. Gemfibrozil inhibition of OATP2-mediated rosuvastatin hepatic uptake may contribute to the mechanism of the drug-drug interaction. Care is warranted when gemfibrozil is coadministered with rosuvastatin and other statins.

The effect of rosuvastatin on oestrogen & progestin pharmacokinetics in healthy women taking an oral contraceptive.

AIMS: To assess the effect of rosuvastatin on oestrogen and progestin pharmacokinetics in women taking a commonly prescribed combination oral contraceptive steroid (OCS); the effect on endogenous hormones and the lipid profile was also assessed. METHODS: This open-label, nonrandomised trial consisted of 2 sequential menstrual cycles. Eighteen healthy female volunteers received OCS (Ortho Tri-Cyclen) on Days 1-21 and placebo OCS on Days 22-28 of Cycles A and B Rosuvastatin 40 mg was also given on Days 1-21 of Cycle B. RESULTS: Co-administration did not result in lower exposures to the exogenous oestrogen or progestin OCS components. Co-administration increased AUC[0-24] for ethinyl oestradiol (26%; 90% CI ratio 1.19-1.34), 17-desacetyl norgestimate (15%; 90% CI 1.10-1.20), and norgestrel (34%; 90% CI 1.25-1.43), and increased Cmax for ethinyl oestradiol (25%; 90% CI 1.17-1.33) and norgestrel (23%; 90% CI 1.14-1.33). The increases in exposure were attributed to a change in bioavailability rather than a decrease in clearance. Luteinizing and follicle-stimulating hormone concentrations were similar between cycles. There were no changes in the urinary excretion of cortisol and 6beta-hydroxycortisol. Rosuvastatin significantly decreased low-density lipoprotein cholesterol [-55%], total cholesterol [-27%], and triglycerides [-12%], and significantly increased high-density lipoprotein cholesterol[11%]. Co-administration was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: Rosuvastatin can be coadministered with OCS without decreasing OCS plasma concentrations, indicating that contraceptive efficacy should not be decreased. The results are consistent with an absence of induction of CYP3A4 by rosuvastatin. The expected substantial lipid-regulating effect was observed in this study, and there was no evidence of an altered lipid-regulating effect with OCS coadministration.

Rosuvastatin improves the atherogenic and atheroprotective lipid profiles in patients with hypertriglyceridemia.

BACKGROUND: We examined the effects of rosuvastatin treatment on triglyceride levels and lipid measures in a parallel-group multicenter trial (4522IL/0035) in patients with hypertriglyceridemia (Fredrickson Type IIb or IV). METHODS: After a 6-week dietary lead-in period while on a National Cholesterol Education Program step I diet, 156 patients with fasting triglyceride levels >/= 300 and < 800 mg/dl were randomized to 6 weeks of double-blinded treatment: once-daily rosuvastatin of 5, 10, 20, 40 or 80 mg or placebo. The primary end point was mean percentage change from baseline in total serum triglyceride levels at week 6 as determined by analysis of variance. RESULTS: Rosuvastatin at all doses produced significant mean reductions in triglycerides compared with placebo (-18 to -40 compared with +2.9%, P 5 mg. The occurrence of adverse events was generally low and not dose related, although some adverse events occurred more frequently in the rosuvastatin 80 mg group. CONCLUSIONS: Rosuvastatin reduced triglyceride levels and improved the overall atherogenic and atheroprotective lipid profiles in hypertriglyceridemic patients.

An open-label, randomized, three-way crossover trial of the effects of coadministration of rosuvastatin and fenofibrate on the pharmacokinetic properties of rosuvastatin and fenofibric acid in healthy male volunteers.

BACKGROUND: Rosuvastatin and fenofibrate are lipid-regulating agents with different modes of action. Patients with dyslipidemia who have not achieved treatment targets with monotherapy may benefit from the combination of these agents. OBJECTIVE: The effect of coadministration of rosuvastatin and fenofibrate on the steady-state pharmacokinetics of rosuvastatin and fenofibric acid (the active metabolite of fenofibrate) was assessed in healthy volunteers. METHODS: This was an open-label, randomized, 3-way crossover trial consisting of three 7-day treatment periods. Healthy male volunteers received one of the following treatment regimens in each period: rosuvastatin 10 mg orally once daily; fenofibrate 67 mg orally TID; and rosuvastatin + fenofibrate dosed as above. The steady-state pharmacokinetics of rosuvastatin and fenofibric acid, both as substrate and as interacting drug, were investigated on day 7 of dosing. Treatment effects were assessed by construction of 90% CIs around the ratios of the geometric least-square means for rosuvastatin + fenofibrate/rosuvastatin and rosuvastatin + fenofibrate/fenofibrate for the area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) and maximum plasma concentration (derived from analysis of variance of log-transformed parameters). RESULTS: Fourteen healthy male volunteers participated in the study. When rosuvastatin was coadministered with fenofibrate, there were minor increases in the AUC from 0 to 24 hours and maximum concentration (Cmax) of rosuvastatin: the respective geometric least-square means increased by 7% (90% CI, 1.00-1.15) and 21% (90% CI, 1.14-1.28). The pharmacokinetic parameters of fenofibric acid were similar when fenofibrate was dosed alone and with rosuvastatin: the geometric least-square means for fenofibric acid AUC from 0 to 8 hours and Cmax decreased by 4% (90% CI, 0.90-1.02) and 9% (90% CI, 0.84-1.00), respectively. The treatments were well tolerated alone and in combination. CONCLUSION: Coadministration of rosuvastatin and fenofibrate produced minimal changes in rosuvastatin and fenofibric acid exposure.

Effect of itraconazole on the pharmacokinetics of rosuvastatin.

BACKGROUND: Rosuvastatin is a new 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitor. Itraconazole, an inhibitor of cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 and the transport protein P-glycoprotein, is known to interact with other HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors. The current trials aimed to examine in vivo the effect of itraconazole on the pharmacokinetics of rosuvastatin. METHODS: Two randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, 2-way crossover trials were performed. Healthy male volunteers (trial A, n = 12; trial B, n = 14) received itraconazole, 200 mg, or placebo once daily for 5 days; on day 4, 10 mg (trial A) or 80 mg (trial B) of rosuvastatin was coadministered. Plasma concentrations of rosuvastatin, rosuvastatin-lactone (trial A only), and active and total HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors were measured up to 96 hours after dosing. RESULTS: After coadministration with itraconazole, the rosuvastatin geometric least-square mean for the treatment ratio was increased by 39% for AUC(0-ct) (area under the rosuvastatin plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to the last common time at which quantifiable concentrations were obtained for both treatments within a volunteer in trial A) and by 28% for AUC(0-t) (area under the rosuvastatin plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to the time of the last quantifiable concentration in trial B), with the treatment ratio for maximum observed plasma drug concentration increased by 36% in trial A and 15% in trial B compared with placebo. For trial A (but not for trial B), the upper boundary of the 90% confidence interval for the treatment ratios fell outside the preset limits (0.7-1.43). The 95% confidence intervals for all treatment ratios (except maximum observed plasma drug concentration in trial B) did not include 1. These results indicate that itraconazole produces a modest increase in plasma concentrations of rosuvastatin. Rosuvastatin accounted for the majority of the circulating active HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (> or =87%) and most of the total inhibitors (> or =75%). CONCLUSIONS: Itraconazole produced modest increases in rosuvastatin plasma concentrations, which are unlikely to be of clinical relevance. The results support previous in vitro metabolism findings that CYP3A4 plays a minor role in the limited metabolism of rosuvastatin.

Lack of effect of ketoconazole on the pharmacokinetics of rosuvastatin in healthy subjects.

AIMS: To examine in vivo the effect of ketoconazole on the pharmacokinetics of rosuvastatin, a 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitor. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, two-way crossover, placebo-controlled trial. Healthy male volunteers (n = 14) received ketoconazole 200 mg or placebo twice daily for 7 days, and rosuvastatin 80 mg was coadministered on day 4 of dosing. Plasma concentrations of rosuvastatin, and active and total HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors were measured up to 96 h postdose. RESULTS: Following coadministration with ketoconazole, rosuvastatin geometric least square mean AUC(0,t) and Cmax were unchanged compared with placebo (treatment ratios (90% confidence intervals): 1.016 (0.839, 1.230), 0.954 (0.722, 1.260), respectively). Rosuvastatin accounted for essentially all of the circulating active HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors and most (> 85%) of the total inhibitors. Ketoconazole did not affect the proportion of circulating active or total inhibitors accounted for by circulating rosuvastatin. CONCLUSIONS: Ketoconazole did not produce any change in rosuvastatin pharmacokinetics in healthy subjects. The data suggest that neither cytochrome P450 3A4 nor P-gp-mediated transport contributes to the elimination of rosuvastatin.

Comparative effects of rosuvastatin and atorvastatin across their dose ranges in patients with hypercholesterolemia and without active arterial disease.

The lipid-lowering effects of rosuvastatin and atorvastatin were determined across their dose ranges in a 6-week, randomized, double-blind trial. Three hundred seventy-four hypercholesterolemic patients with fasting low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol > or =160 but <250 mg/dl (> or =4.14 but <6.47 mmol/L) and fasting triglycerides <400 mg/dl (<4.52 mmol/L) and without active arterial disease within 3 months of entry received once-daily rosuvastatin (5, 10, 20, 40, or 80 mg [n = 209]) or atorvastatin (10, 20, 40, or 80 mg [n = 165]). The percentage decrease in plasma LDL cholesterol versus dose was log-linear for each drug, ranging from -46.6% to -61.9% for rosuvastatin 10 and 80 mg, compared with -38.2% to -53.5% for atorvastatin 10 and 80 mg. The dose curve for rosuvastatin yielded an 8.4% greater decrease in LDL cholesterol compared with atorvastatin at any given dose (p <0.001). Similarly greater decreases were observed for rosuvastatin across the dose range in total cholesterol (-4.9%), non-high-density lipoprotein (non-HDL) cholesterol (-7.0%), apolipoprotein B (-6.3%), and related ratios versus atorvastatin (all p <0.001). Because dose responses for HDL cholesterol, triglycerides, and apolipoprotein A-I were non-log-linear and nonparallel between the 2 drugs, percentage changes from baseline were compared at each dose. Significantly greater increases for rosuvastatin compared with atorvastatin were observed for HDL cholesterol at 40 and 80 mg, and for apolipoprotein A-I at 80 mg. Significantly greater triglyceride decreases were seen at 80 mg with atorvastatin over rosuvastatin. Both rosuvastatin and atorvastatin were well tolerated over 6 weeks.

No effect of rosuvastatin on the pharmacokinetics of digoxin in healthy volunteers.

The effect of rosuvastatin on the pharmacokinetics of digoxin was assessed in 18 healthy male volunteers in this double-blind, randomized, two-way crossover trial. Volunteers were dosed with rosuvastatin (40 mg once daily) or placebo to steady state before being given a single dose of digoxin 0.5 mg. Blood and urine samples for the measurement of serum and urine digoxin concentrations were collected up to 96 hours following dosing. The effect of rosuvastatin was assessed by constructing 90% confidence intervals (CIs) around the treatment ratios (rosuvastatin + digoxin/placebo + digoxin) for digoxin exposure. The geometric least square mean AUC(0-t) and Cmax of digoxin were only 4% higher when the drug was coadministered with rosuvastatin compared to placebo. The 90% CIs for both treatment ratios (AUC(0-t) = 0.88-1.24; Cmax = 0.89-1.22) fell within the prespecified margin of 0.74 to 1.35; therefore, no significant pharmacokinetic interaction occurred between rosuvastatin and digoxin. The geometric mean amount of digoxin excreted into the urine and its renal clearance were similar with rosuvastatin and placebo. These results demonstrate that rosuvastatin has no effect on the pharmacokinetics of digoxin. Coadministration of rosuvastatin and digoxin was well tolerated.

Pharmacodynamic effects and pharmacokinetics of a new HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor, rosuvastatin, after morning or evening administration in healthy volunteers.

AIMS: To compare the lipid-regulating effects and steady-state pharmacokinetics of rosuvastatin, a new synthetic hydroxy methylglutaryl-coenzyme A (HMG-CoA) reductase inhibitor, following repeated morning and evening administration in volunteers with fasting serum low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) concentrations < 4.14 mmol l-1. METHODS: In this open-label two-way crossover trial 24 healthy adult volunteers were randomized to receive rosuvastatin 10 mg orally each morning (07.00 h) or evening (18.00 h) for 14 days. After a 4 week washout period, volunteers received the alternative regimen for 14 days. Rosuvastatin was administered in the absence of food. RESULTS: Reductions from baseline in serum concentrations of LDL-C (-41.3%[morning]vs-44.2%[evening]), total cholesterol (-30.9%vs-31.8%), triglycerides (-17.1%vs-22.7%), and apolipoprotein B (-32.4%vs-35.3%) were similar following morning and evening administration. AUC(0,24 h) for plasma mevalonic acid (MVA), an in vivo marker of HMG-CoA reductase activity, decreased by -29.9% (morning) vs-32.6% (evening). Urinary excretion of MVA declined by -33.6% (morning) vs-29.2% (evening). The steady-state pharmacokinetics of rosuvastatin were very similar following the morning and evening dosing regimens. The Cmax values were 4.58 vs 4.54 ng ml-1, and AUC(0,24 h) values were 40.1 vs 42.7 ng ml-1 h, following morning and evening administration, respectively. There were no serious adverse events during the trial, and rosuvastatin was well tolerated after morning and evening administration. CONCLUSIONS: The pharmacodynamic effects and pharmacokinetics of rosuvastatin are not dependent on time of dosing. Morning or evening administration is equally effective in lowering LDL-C.

No effect of age or gender on the pharmacokinetics of rosuvastatin: a new HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor.

The effects of age and gender on the pharmacokinetics of rosuvastatin (Crestor) were assessed in healthy young (18-35 years) and elderly (> 65 years) males and females in this open, nonrandomized, noncontrolled, parallel-group trial. Sixteen males and 16 females (8 young and elderly volunteers per gender group) were enrolled. Mean (range) ages were 24 (18-33) and 68 (65-73) years for young and elderly volunteers, respectively. Volunteers were given a single oral 40 mg dose of rosuvastatin. Blood samples for measurement of rosuvastatin plasma concentration were collected up to 96 hours following dosing. Age and gender effects were assessed by constructing 90% confidence intervals (CIs) around the ratios of young/elderly and male/female geometric least square means (glsmeans) for AUC(0-t) and Cmax (derived from ANOVA of log-transformed parameters). Small differences in rosuvastatin pharmacokinetics were noted between age and gender groups. Glsmean AUC(0-t) was 6% higher (90% CI = 0.86-1.30) and glsmean Cmax, 12% higher (90% CI = 0.83-1.51) in the young compared with the elderly group. Glsmean AUC(0-t) was 9% lower (90% CI = 0.74-1.12) and glsmean Cmax 18% lower (90% CI = 0.61-1.11) in the male compared with the female group. These small differences are not considered clinically relevant, and dose adjustments based on age or gender are not anticipated. Rosuvastatin was well tolerated in all volunteers.