Model-based drug development: a rational approach to efficiently accelerate drug development.

The pharmaceutical industry continues to face significant challenges. Very few compounds that enter development reach the marketplace, and the investment required for each success can surpass $1.8 billion. Despite attempts to improve efficiency and increase productivity, total investment continues to rise whereas the output of new medicines declines. With costs increasing exponentially through each development phase, it is failure in phase II and phase III that is most wasteful. In today's development paradigm, late-stage failure is principally a result of insufficient efficacy. This is manifested as either a failure to differentiate sufficiently from placebo (shown for both novel and precedented mechanisms) or a failure to demonstrate sufficient differentiation from existing compounds. Set in this context, this article will discuss the role model-based drug development (MBDD) approaches can and do play in accelerating and optimizing compound development strategies through a series of illustrative examples.

Evaluation of the Intelisite capsule to deliver theophylline and frusemide tablets to the small intestine and colon.

The objective of the research was to establish the capability of the Intelisite capsule to deliver the probe drugs, theophylline and frusemide, in the form of split immediate release (IR) tablets, to the small intestine and colon. The two probe drugs were administered together in an open, random, three-way crossover study in eight healthy volunteers, comparing absorption following Intelisite delivery in the small bowel and colon to conventional IR dosing. Gamma scintigraphy was employed to monitor the gastrointestinal transit and activation of the Intelisite capsule. Standard pharmacokinetic parameters, and the percentage remaining in the capsules post defecation were determined. The Intelisite capsule was well tolerated in human volunteers and successfully activated on 15/16 occasions. Pharmacoscintigraphy showed internal marker release from the Intelisite capsule to be approximately 10-fold faster in the small intestine than in the colon. Theophylline and frusemide were both well absorbed following Intelisite activation in the small intestine, whereas complete colonic absorption was only observed in 1/7 subjects for theophylline, and 0/7 subjects for frusemide. The probe drugs were successfully delivered in particulate form from the Intelisite capsule in the small intestine and produced expected pharmacokinetic profiles. However drug release in the colon was incomplete and variable possibly due to: low water content, poor mixing, and a high loading dose.

The QT interval.

The effects of disease states and therapeutic drugs on the QT interval have been extensively studied in an attempt to understand the relationship between QT and the risk of torsade de pointes and sudden cardiac death. Differences in heart rate correction methods, electrocardiogram lead placement, and other internal (eg, genetic, physiologic) and external (eg, food, time of day) factors have confounded the interpretation of this relationship. A comprehensive review of the epidemiologic literature suggests that the corrected QT interval (QTc) is an important but imprecise marker of cardiovascular disease. The association between QTc prolongation and mortality has been identified in patients with cardiac disease but is unclear in patients without cardiac disease. Drug-related prolongation of QTc can clearly increase the risk of torsade de pointes, but this arrhythmia is rarely associated with a QTc of less than 500 ms. It also appears that noncardiac drugs that are associated with QTc prolongation are not identical in their proarrhythmic capacities and that increased exposure via clinically significant drug interactions is a major contributor to the liability of noncardiac drug-induced arrhythmia. Recognition of the aforementioned variables in conjunction with careful QTc measurements assists in establishing a more precise benefit-risk ratio for a specific drug therapy or for arrhythmia risk associated with various pathophysiologic or genetic states.

The pharmacokinetics of ziprasidone in subjects with normal and impaired hepatic function.

AIMS: To assess whether hepatic impairment influences the pharmacokinetics of ziprasidone. METHODS: Thirty subjects with normal hepatic function or a primary diagnosis of clinically significant cirrhosis (Child-Pugh A or B) were enrolled into an open-label, multicentre, multiple-dose study. The subjects with chronic, stable hepatic impairment and the matched control subjects received ziprasidone 40 mg day(-1), given orally with food, as two divided daily doses for 4 days and a single 20 mg dose on the morning of day 5. Pharmacokinetic variables were determined from multiple venous blood samples collected on days 1 and 5. Liver function was evaluated quantitatively using antipyrine. RESULTS: On day 1 there were no statistically significant differences in the pharmacokinetics (AUC(0,12 h), Cmax, tmax) of ziprasidone between the two groups. On day 5 there were no statistically significant differences in the Cmax or tmax for ziprasidone between the two groups. The mean AUC(0,12 h) for ziprasidone was statistically significantly greater in the hepatically impaired subjects compared with the normal subjects (590 ng ml(-1) h vs. 467 ng ml(-1) h, P = 0. 042). However, the AUC(0,12 h) increased by only 26% in the cirrhotic group compared with the matched control group. The ziprasidone lambda(z) in the subjects with normal hepatic function was statistically significantly greater than that in the hepatically impaired subjects (P<0.001). There was no correlation between antipyrine lambda(z) and ziprasidone lambda(z) in the subjects with normal hepatic function or in those with hepatic impairment. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study indicate that mild to moderate hepatic impairment does not result in clinically significant alteration of ziprasidone pharmacokinetics.

The pharmacokinetics of ziprasidone in subjects with normal and impaired renal function.

AIMS: To assess whether renal impairment influences the pharmacokinetics of ziprasidone, and to determine whether ziprasidone is cleared via haemodialysis. METHODS: Thirty-nine subjects with varying degrees of renal impairment were enrolled into an open-label, multicentre, multiple-dose study and assigned to four groups according to their renal function: normal (group 1, creatinine clearance > 70 ml min(-1); mildly impaired (group 2, creatinine clearance 30-60 ml min(-1); moderately impaired (group 3, creatinine clearance 10-29 ml min(-1), and severely impaired (group 4, requiring haemodialysis three times-a-week). Subjects received ziprasidone 40 mg day(-1), given orally with food, as two divided daily doses for 7 days and a single 20 mg dose on the morning of day 8. Pharmacokinetic variables were determined from multiple venous blood samples collected on days 1 and 8 (haemodialysis day for subjects with severe renal impairment). Additional samples were collected from subjects with severe renal impairment on day 7 (nonhaemodialysis day). RESULTS: On day 1 there were no statistically significant differences in the pharmacokinetics (AUC(0, 12 h), Cmax, tmax) of ziprasidone among subjects with normal renal function and those with mild, moderate and severe renal impairment. The AUC(0,12 h) and Cmax in subjects with mildly impaired renal function were statistically significantly greater than in those with moderately impaired renal function (P = 0.0163-0.0385). The mean AUC(0,12 h) was 272, 370, 250 and 297 ng ml(-1) h in groups 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively. Corresponding mean Cmax values were 47, 61, 41 and 50 ng ml(-1) and corresponding mean tmax values were 5, 6, 5 and 5 h. On day 8 there were no statistically significant differences in the pharmacokinetics (AUC(0,12 h), Cmax, tmax, lambda(z), Fb) of ziprasidone among subjects with normal renal function and those with moderate or severe renal impairment. The AUC(0,12 h) in subjects with mild renal impairment was statistically significantly greater than those in the other three groups (P = 0.0025-0.0221), but this was not considered clinically significant. The mean AUC(0,12 h) were 446, 650, 389 and 427 ng ml(-1) h in groups 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively. Corresponding mean Cmax values were 68, 93, 54 and 70 ng ml(-1), corresponding mean tmax values were 4, 5, 4 and 5 h and corresponding mean lambda(z) were 0.14, 0.11, 0.14 and 0.17 h(-1). The mean percentage Fb was 99.84-99.88% across all groups and the mean t(1/2),z ranged from 4.2 to 6.4 h. Comparison of the mean AUC(0,12 h) and Cmax values in subjects with severe renal impairment on day 7 with those on day 8 suggested that haemodialysis does not have a clinically significant effect on the pharmacokinetics of ziprasidone. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study indicate that mild-to-moderate impairment of renal function does not result in clinically significant alteration of ziprasidone pharmacokinetics and therefore does not necessitate dose adjustment.

Ziprasidone and the activity of cytochrome P450 2D6 in healthy extensive metabolizers.

AIMS: To determine whether ziprasidone alters the metabolizing activity of the 2D6 isoenzyme of cytochrome P450 (CYP2D6). METHODS: Twenty-four healthy young subjects aged 18-45 years were screened for CYP2D6 metabolizing activity and shown to be extensive metabolizers of dextromethorphan. These subjects were then randomized to receive a single dose of ziprasidone 80 mg, paroxetine 20 mg or placebo, 2 h before receiving a dose of dextromethorphan. Urine samples for the determination of dextromethorphan concentrations were collected over the 8 h period following dextromethorphan dosing, and used for the determination of dextromethorphan/dextrorphan ratios. Blood samples were collected immediately before and up to 10 h after the administration of ziprasidone or paroxetine, and used to derive pharmacokinetic parameters of ziprasidone and paroxetine. RESULTS: There were no statistically significant changes in the urinary dextromethorphan/dextrorphan ratio in the ziprasidone group or the placebo group. By contrast, there was a 10-fold increase in the urinary dextromethorphan/dextrorphan ratio in the paroxetine group and this differed significantly from those in the ziprasidone and placebo groups (P = 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study suggest that ziprasidone does not inhibit the clearance of drugs metabolized by CYP2D6.

The effects of ziprasidone on steady-state lithium levels and renal clearance of lithium.

AIMS: To assess the potential of ziprasidone to alter the renal clearance and steady-state serum levels of lithium. METHODS: Healthy subjects who had stable serum lithium levels during the first 7 days of treatment with lithium 900 mg day(-1), given as two divided daily doses, were randomized to receive concomitant treatment with either ziprasidone, 40 mg day(-1), given as two divided daily doses, on days 9-11 followed by 80 mg day(-1), given as two divided daily doses on days 12-15 (n = 12), or placebo twice daily (n = 13). Ziprasidone or placebo was administered 2 h before each dose of lithium. RESULTS: Ziprasidone administration was associated with a 0.07 mmol l(-1) (13%) mean increase in steady-state serum lithium levels compared with a mean increase of 0.06 mmol l(-1) (10%) with placebo. Mean renal clearance of lithium decreased by 0.09 l h(-1) (5%) in the ziprasidone group and by 0.14 l h(-1) (9%) in the placebo group. None of these differences between the two groups was statistically or clinically significant. CONCLUSIONS: Ziprasidone does not alter steady-state serum lithium concentrations or renal clearance of lithium.

Ziprasidone and the pharmacokinetics of a combined oral contraceptive.

AIMS: To determine whether multiple doses of ziprasidone alter the steady-state pharmacokinetics of the component steroids, ethinyloestradiol and levonorgestrel, of an oral contraceptive; to evaluate the tolerability of a co-administered combined oral contraceptive and ziprasidone; and to compare plasma concentrations of prolactin in subjects taking a combined oral contraceptive with placebo or ziprasidone. METHODS: Nineteen women taking a combined oral contraceptive (ethinyloestradiol 30 microg day(-1) and levonorgestrel 150 microg day(-1)) were enrolled into a double-blind, placebo-controlled, two-way crossover study. They received ziprasidone 40 mg day- 1 in two divided daily doses or placebo for 8 days (days 8-15) in one of two 21 day treatment periods separated by a 7 day washout period. Venous blood samples were collected immediately before and up to 24 h after the morning dose of oral contraceptive and ziprasidone or placebo on day 15 of each 21 day treatment period. These were assayed for ethinyloestradiol and levonorgestrel and the resulting data used to derive pharmacokinetic data for these steroids. Additional samples were collected immediately before and 4 h after the morning dose of oral contraceptive and ziprasidone or placebo on day 15 of each 21 day treatment period for prolactin assay. All observed and volunteered adverse events were recorded throughout the study. RESULTS: The mean AUC(0,24 h), Cmax and tmax for ethinyloestradiol and the mean AUC(0, 24 h) and Cmax for levonorgestrel during ziprasidone co-administration were not statistically significantly different from corresponding values occurring during placebo co-administration. The tmax for levonorgestrel was approximately 0.5 h longer. Concomitant therapy with a combined oral contraceptive and ziprasidone did not result in adverse events not previously seen with either preparation alone. CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study suggest that, based on pharmacokinetic and tolerability data, ziprasidone may be co-administered with ethinyloestradiol and levonorgestrel without loss of contraceptive efficacy or increased risk of adverse events.

The effect of carbamazepine on the steady-state pharmacokinetics of ziprasidone in healthy volunteers.

AIMS: To evaluate the effect of steady-state carbamazepine administration on the steady-state pharmacokinetics of ziprasidone in healthy young adults, in an open, randomised, parallel-group study. METHODS: Twenty-five subjects were randomized to one of two treatment groups. Group 1 received 20 mg ziprasidone twice daily on days 1 and 2, and a single dose on day 3. A single 100 mg dose of carbamazepine was given once daily on days 5 and 6 and twice daily on days 7 and 8, followed by 200 mg twice daily until day 28 and on the morning only on day 29. Ziprasidone 20 mg was also administered twice daily on days 26 and 27 and in the morning only on day 28. Group 2 received the same treatment regimen with carbamazepine replaced by placebo. Pharmacokinetic data were obtained on days 3 and 28. RESULTS: Nine subjects in group 1 and 10 in group 2 completed all three treatment periods (ziprasidone, carbamazepine or placebo; and ziprasidone plus carbamazepine or placebo). Carbamazepine administration to group 1 was associated with modest reductions in ziprasidone exposure, with mean decreases in ziprasidone AUC(0,12 h) and Cmax values of 36% and 27%, respectively, on day 28 compared with day 3 (P<0.03). The mean differences between day 28 and day 3 ziprasidone AUC(0,12 h) and Cmax values were also statistically significantly greater in the carbamazepine group than in the placebo group. The mean half-life of ziprasidone decreased by 1 h from day 3 to day 28 in the subjects receiving carbamazepine, compared with virtually no change in the placebo group. All adverse events were mild or moderate in severity and there were no serious adverse events, or clinically significant changes in ECGs and vital signs throughout the study. CONCLUSIONS: Induction of CYP3A4 with carbamazepine led to a modest reduction (<36%) in steady-state exposure to ziprasidone that is believed to be clinically insignificant.