Ferric pyrophosphate citrate for parenteral administration of maintenance iron: structure, mechanism of action, clinical efficacy and safety.

Anemia is a common complication in patients with hemodialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease (HDD-CKD). Anemia is principally the result of erythropoietin deficiency, inflammation, and iron deficiency. High molecular weight iron oxide nanoparticles (IONP) are routinely administered intravenously to replace iron losses and, although effective, there are lingering concerns about possible safety issues. Ferric pyrophosphate citrate (FPC, Triferic, Triferic AVNU [Triferic and Triferic AVNU are the proprietary name for ferric pyrophosphate citrate. Triferic and Triferic AVNU are registered trademarks of Rockwell medical Inc.]) is a complex iron salt that donates iron directly to plasma transferrin. FPC is devoid of any carbohydrate moiety and is administered via the dialysate or intravenously during each hemodialysis session to replace iron and maintain hemoglobin. Controlled clinical trials of up to 48 weeks in duration have demonstrated the efficacy of regular administration of dialysate FPC for maintaining hemoglobin levels and iron balance in HDD-CKD patients. Clinical data also suggest that dialysate FPC may reduce the dose requirements for and use of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents and IONPs in HDD-CKD patients. Safety data from clinical studies and post-marketing surveillance show that FPC is well tolerated and not associated with an increased risk of infection, inflammation, iron overload, or serious hypersensitivity reactions. FPC represents an effective and well-tolerated choice for iron replacement and maintenance of hemoglobin in the long-term management of HDD-CKD patients.

Pharmacokinetics and Safety of Intravenous Ferric Pyrophosphate Citrate: Equivalence to Administration via Dialysate.

Ferric pyrophosphate citrate (FPC) is indicated to maintain hemoglobin in patients with stage 5 hemodialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease on chronic hemodialysis by addition to the dialysate. An intravenous (IV) FPC presentation containing 6.75 mg of iron in 4.5 mL was developed. The objective was to establish the equivalence of iron delivery via dialysate and IV infusion using a pharmacokinetic approach. An open-label, randomized, multiple-period, single-dose, crossover study was conducted in 27 patients with CKD-5HD. Each patient received (1) a basal iron profile over 12 hours, (2) FPC 6.75 mg Fe IV predialyzer, (3) FPC 6.75 mg Fe IV postdialyzer, and (4) FPC 2 µM (110 µg Fe/L of hemodialysate). Serum and plasma iron was analyzed for total Fe and transferrin bound iron (TBI). Equivalence was determined by comparing maximum observed concentration and area under the concentration-time curve from time 0 to the last observation of 110 µg Fe/L of hemodialysate (reference) and test treatments Fe predialyzer and postdialyzer iron profiles. The main outcome measure was the measurement of bioequivalence between the reference and test treatments. Bioequivalence parameters showed that infusion of FPC iron IV, predialyzer and postdialyzer delivered equivalent iron as via hemodialysate. The increment in serum total Fe from predialysis to postdialysis was the same as observed in the long-term clinical studies of FPC. FPC IV was well tolerated. IV infusion of 6.75 mg iron as FPC during 3 hours of HD delivers an equivalent amount of iron as when Triferic is delivered via hemodialysate. The IV presentation of FPC extends the ability to provide FPC iron to all patients receiving hemodialysis or hemodiafiltration.

Pharmacokinetics of ferric pyrophosphate citrate administered via dialysate and intravenously to pediatric patients on chronic hemodialysis.

BACKGROUND: Iron deficiency is a common cause of anemia in pediatric patients with hemodialysis-dependent chronic kidney disease (CKD-5HD). Ferric pyrophosphate citrate (FPC, Triferic®) donates iron directly to transferrin, bypassing the reticuloendothelial system and avoiding iron sequestration. Administration of FPC via dialysate or intravenously (IV) may provide a suitable therapeutic option to current IV iron preparations for these patients. METHODS: The pharmacokinetics and safety of FPC administered via dialysate and IV to patients aged < 6 years (n = 3), 6 to < 12 years (n = 4), and 12 to <18 years (n = 15) were investigated in a multicenter, open-label, two-period, single-dose study. FPC (0.07 mg iron/kg) was infused IV into the venous blood return line during hemodialysis session no. 1. FPC iron was added to bicarbonate concentrate to deliver 2 µM (110 µg/L) iron via dialysate during hemodialysis session no. 2. RESULTS: Mean serum total iron concentrations peaked 3 to 4 h after administration via dialysate and 2 to 4 h after IV administration and returned to baseline by 10 h after the start of hemodialysis for both routes. Iron exposure was greater after administration via dialysate than after IV administration. The absolute amount of absorbed iron after administration via dialysate roughly doubled with increasing age, but the weight-normalized amount of absorbed iron was relatively constant across age groups (~ 0.06-0.10 mg/kg). FPC was well tolerated in the small number of patients studied. CONCLUSIONS: FPC iron can be administered to pediatric patients with CKD-5HD via dialysate or by the IV route. Further study of FPC administered to maintain hemoglobin concentration is indicated.

Pharmacokinetics of Ferric Pyrophosphate Citrate, a Novel Iron Salt, Administered Intravenously to Healthy Volunteers.

Ferric pyrophosphate citrate (Triferic) is a water-soluble iron salt that is administered via dialysate to maintain iron balance and hemoglobin in hemodialysis patients. This double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, single-, ascending-dose study was conducted to evaluate the pharmacokinetics and safety of intravenous ferric pyrophosphate citrate in 48 healthy iron-replete subjects (drug, n = 36; placebo, n = 12). Single doses of 2.5, 5.0, 7.5, or 10 mg of ferric pyrophosphate citrate or placebo were administered over 4 hours, and single doses of 15 or 20 mg of ferric pyrophosphate citrate or placebo were administered over 12 hours via intravenous infusion. Serum total iron (sFetot ), transferrin-bound iron (TBI), hepcidin-25, and biomarkers of oxidative stress and inflammation were determined using validated assays. Marked diurnal variation in sFetot was observed in placebo-treated subjects. Concentrations of sFetot and TBI increased rapidly after drug administration, with maximum serum concentrations (Cmax ) reached at the end of infusion. Increases in baseline-corrected Cmax and area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to the time of the last quantifiable concentration (AUC0-t ) were dose proportional up to 100% transferrin saturation. Iron was rapidly cleared (apparent terminal phase half-life 1.2-2 hours). No significant changes from baseline in serum hepcidin-25 concentration were observed at end of infusion for any dose. Biomarkers of oxidative stress and inflammation were unaffected. Intravenous doses of ferric pyrophosphate citrate were well tolerated. These results demonstrate that intravenous ferric pyrophosphate citrate is rapidly bound to transferrin and cleared from the circulation without increasing serum hepcidin levels or biomarkers of oxidative stress or inflammation.

Ferrous iron content of intravenous iron formulations.

The observed biological differences in safety and efficacy of intravenous (IV) iron formulations are attributable to physicochemical differences. In addition to differences in carbohydrate shell, polarographic signatures due to ferric iron [Fe(III)] and ferrous iron [Fe(II)] differ among IV iron formulations. Intravenous iron contains Fe(II) and releases labile iron in the circulation. Fe(II) generates toxic free radicals and reactive oxygen species and binds to bacterial siderophores and other in vivo sequestering agents. To evaluate whether differences in Fe(II) content may account for some observed biological differences between IV iron formulations, samples from multiple lots of various IV iron formulations were dissolved in 12 M concentrated HCl to dissociate and release all iron and then diluted with water to achieve 0.1 M HCl concentration. Fe(II) was then directly measured using ferrozine reagent and ultraviolet spectroscopy at 562 nm. Total iron content was measured by adding an excess of ascorbic acid to reduce Fe(III) to Fe(II), and Fe(II) was then measured by ferrozine assay. The Fe(II) concentration as a proportion of total iron content [Fe(III) + Fe(II)] in different lots of IV iron formulations was as follows: iron gluconate, 1.4 and 1.8 %; ferumoxytol, 0.26 %; ferric carboxymaltose, 1.4 %; iron dextran, 0.8 %; and iron sucrose, 10.2, 15.5, and 11.0 % (average, 12.2 %). The average Fe(II) content in iron sucrose was, therefore, ≥7.5-fold higher than in the other IV iron formulations. Further studies are needed to investigate the relationship between Fe(II) content and increased risk of oxidative stress and infections with iron sucrose.

Ferric pyrophosphate citrate (Triferic™) administration via the dialysate maintains hemoglobin and iron balance in chronic hemodialysis patients.

BACKGROUND: Administration of ferric pyrophosphate citrate (FPC, Triferic™) via hemodialysate may allow replacement of ongoing uremic and hemodialysis-related iron losses. FPC donates iron directly to transferrin, bypassing the reticuloendothelial system and avoiding iron sequestration. METHODS: Two identical Phase 3, randomized, placebo-controlled trials (CRUISE 1 and 2) were conducted in 599 iron-replete chronic hemodialysis patients. Patients were dialyzed with dialysate containing 2 µM FPC-iron or standard dialysate (placebo) for up to 48 weeks. Oral or intravenous iron supplementation was prohibited, and doses of erythropoiesis-stimulating agents were held constant. The primary efficacy end point was the change in hemoglobin (Hgb) concentration from baseline to end of treatment (EoT). Secondary end points included reticulocyte hemoglobin content (CHr) and serum ferritin. RESULTS: In both trials, Hgb concentration was maintained from baseline to EoT in the FPC group but decreased by 0.4 g/dL in the placebo group (P < 0.001, combined results; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.2-0.6). Placebo treatment resulted in significantly larger mean decreases from baseline in CHr (-0.9 pg versus -0.4 pg, P < 0.001) and serum ferritin (-133.1 µg/L versus -69.7 µg/L, P < 0.001) than FPC treatment. The proportions of patients with adverse and serious adverse events were similar in both treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: FPC delivered via dialysate during hemodialysis replaces iron losses, maintains Hgb concentrations, does not increase iron stores and exhibits a safety profile similar to placebo. FPC administered by hemodialysis via dialysate represents a paradigm shift in delivering maintenance iron therapy to hemodialysis patients.

A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, parallel-group study of methylphenidate transdermal system in pediatric patients with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the efficacy and safety of methylphenidate transdermal system compared with placebo, using osmotic-release oral system (OROS) methylphenidate as a reference therapy. METHOD: We conducted a 7-week, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled trial in children diagnosed with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder by DSM-IV-TR criteria, within a community setting. The study was conducted from August 2004 to February 2005. Participants were randomly assigned to 1 of 3 treatments: methylphenidate transdermal system patch plus placebo capsule (N = 100), OROS methylphenidate capsule plus placebo patch (N = 94), or placebo capsule plus placebo patch (N = 88). Over 5 weeks, once-daily doses were optimized using 10-, 15-, 20-, and 30-mg methylphenidate transdermal system patches (9-hour wear time) or 18-, 27-, 36-, and 54-mg OROS methylphenidate capsules. Thereafter, optimal treatment doses were maintained for 2 weeks with blinded ratings of attention, behavior, and academic performance occurring at the end of each week. The primary efficacy measure was the clinician-rated ADHD Rating Scale-Version IV (ADHD-RS-IV). Additional measures included teacher, parent, and other clinician rating scales. Safety and tolerability were assessed throughout the study. RESULTS: The mean change from baseline in ADHD-RS-IV scores was greater for participants receiving methylphenidate transdermal system and OROS methylphenidate treatments compared with placebo (p < .0001). Similar results were observed for parent and teacher rating scales. More participants receiving active treatments compared with placebo were rated as improved by clinicians and parents (p < .0001). Adverse events were generally mild or moderate in intensity, and the most common included decreased appetite, nausea, vomiting, and insomnia. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that the methylphenidate transdermal system is an efficacious treatment option for children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00444574.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of epoetin delta in two studies in healthy volunteers and two studies in patients with chronic kidney disease.

BACKGROUND: Epoetin delta, unlike recombinant erythropoietins, is produced in a human cell line and therefore has a human-type glycosylation profile. OBJECTIVES: The pharmacokinetics of epoetin delta were examined in 2 studies in healthy volunteers and 2 studies in patients with chronic kidney disease. METHODS: In study 1, 21 healthy men were randomized to receive epoetin delta 15, 40, or 100 IU/kg IV tiw or placebo for 4 weeks. In study 2, an open-label, cross-over study, 32 healthy volunteers were randomized to receive single doses of epoetin delta 75 IU/kg IV or SC. In study 3, 40 patients receiving hemodialysis were withdrawn from epoetin alfa and randomized to receive epoetin delta or epoetin alfa 50 or 100 IU/kg tiw for 4 weeks. Study 4 was a single-dose study comparing epoetin delta 150 and 300 IU/kg IV or SC in 28 hemodialysis patients. RESULTS: In study 1, after repeated dosing (day 24) in healthy men, mean C(max) values ranged from 219.9 to 1793.0 enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay units (EU)/L; AUC from 827 to 9318 h x EU/L; C1 from 0.014 to 0.024 L/h per kg; Vd from 0.067 to 0.076 L/kg; and t(1/2) from 2.23 to 3.35 hours. There was evidence of a dose-dependent effect of epoetin delta on hemoglobin levels and hematocrit, with doses of 40 and 100 IU/kg associated with significant increases compared with 15 IU/kg (P < 0.001 for dose trend). The only adverse event occurring in > or = 10% of healthy individuals in study 1 was headache (1 [20.0%] in the epoetin delta 15 IU-kg group, 3 [60.0%] in the epoetin delta 100-IU/kg group, 2 [33.3%] in the placebo group). In study 2 in healthy volunteers, mean values for epoetin delta 75 IU/kg IV were 1771 EU/L for C(max), 10,632 h x EU/L for AUC, 0.010 L/h per kg for Cl, 0.074 L/kg for Vd, and 5.12 hours for t(1/2); the corresponding values for epoetin delta 75 IU/kg SC were 113 EU/L, 3231 h x EU/L, 0.035 L/h per kg, 0.760 L/kg, and 14.90 hours. The serum epoetin delta concentration peaked after 10.9 hours with subcutaneous administration. The most common adverse event in study 2 was back pain (10 [31.3%] individuals). In study 3 in patients receiving hemodialysis, mean values for C(max) and AUC with a single dose of epoetin delta 50 IU/kg were 1103 EU/L and 10,896 h x EU/L, respectively, and with the corresponding dose of epoetin alfa were 1354 EU/L and 9957 h x EU/L. Values for the 100-IU/kg doses were approximately double those for the 50-IU/kg doses. Values for Cl, Vd, and t(1/2) were numerically similar for epoetin delta and epoietin alfa across doses. Epoetin delta 100 IU/kg was associated with a numerically greater rate of increase in hemoglobin compared with the 50-IU/kg dose (mean, 0.025 vs -0.004, respectively); the results were similar for epoetin alfa (0.029 vs -0.001). The difference between epoetin alfa and epoetin delta was not statistically significant. The most common adverse events were related to edema (peripheral edema: 60%/50% for epoetin delta 50/100 IU/kg and 60%/60% for epoetin alfa 50/100 IU/kg; facial edema: 30%/30% and 50%/70%, respectively; generalized edema: 50%/30% and 40%/40%). In study 4 in patients receiving hemodialysis, mean C(max) values with epoetin delta 150 and 300 IU/kg IV were 3257 and 4770 EU/L, respectively; the corresponding mean values were 36,208 and 77,736 h x EU/L for AUC, 0.007 and 0.005 L/h per kg for Cl; 0.097 L/kg for Vd in both groups; and 9.9 and 13.2 hours for t(1/2). With epoetin delta 150 and 300 IU/kg SC, the respective values were 162.2 and 467.7 EU/L, 9547 and 27,888 h x EU/L, 0.026 and 0.020 L/h per kg, 1.28 and 0.78 L/kg, and 33.1 and 27.8 hours. The only adverse event occurring in > or = 10% of subjects was headache (2 [40.0%] in the epoetin delta 150-IU/kg IV group, 3 [50.0%] in the epoetin delta 300-IU/kg SC group). No neutralizing anti-erythropoietin antibodies were detected in any individual. The bioavailability of subcutaneous epoetin delta is approximately 30%, and concentrations peak later and decline more slowly than with intravenous injection. Pharmacokinetic parameters in hemodialysis patients were similar to those in healthy individuals, although AUC and t(1/2) were numerically higher (by 49% and 34%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: These studies in healthy volunteers and patients with chronic kidney disease indicate that the pharmacokinetics of epoetin delta are dose dependent but nonlinear, leading to dose-dependent increases in hemoglobin levels. The pharmacodynamic response to epoetin delta appeared to be as expected for an epoetin.

Epoetin delta, erythropoietin produced in a human cell line, in the management of anaemia in predialysis chronic kidney disease patients.

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate safety and efficacy of epoetin delta for the management of anaemia in predialysis patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a multicentre, open-label, uncontrolled study with predialysis CKD patients who had previously received subcutaneous epoetin therapy. Patients were switched to epoetin delta from their previous therapy, at an identical dose. Dose was subsequently titrated to maintain haemoglobin at 10.0-12.0 g/dL. Study duration was 52 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoint was average haemoglobin levels over Weeks 12, 16, 20 and 24. Secondary analyses were performed on the proportion of patients with haemoglobin and haematocrit levels over preset target levels, haemoglobin and haematocrit levels through to study end and dosing levels. RESULTS: Haemoglobin levels were maintained at 11.3 +/- 1.2 g/dL over Weeks 12-24. Over 80% of the haemoglobin measurements and 95% of the haematocrit measurements were above the predefined target level (haemoglobin > or = 10 g/dL; haematocrit > or = 30%). Weekly dose levels did not change significantly over the course of the trial. Epoetin delta was well tolerated, with adverse events occurring at frequencies expected for this patient population; no patient developed neutralizing anti-erythropoietin antibodies. CONCLUSIONS: Epoetin delta was an effective and well-tolerated agent for the management of anaemia in a subgroup of predialysis CKD patients.

Epoetin delta is effective for the management of anaemia associated with chronic kidney disease.

OBJECTIVE: To demonstrate the efficacy and safety of epoetin delta for the treatment of anaemia in dialysis patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a 12-week, randomized, double-blind, active-comparator study. CKD patients who were naïve to epoetin treatment and had haemoglobin < 10 g/dL were randomized to epoetin delta 15, 50, 150, or 300 IU/kg or epoetin alfa 50 IU/kg. Patients initially entered a correction phase until they recorded haemoglobin of > or = 11.5 g/dL for two consecutive weekly measurements or one haemoglobin measurement of > or = 13 g/dL (correction success). A maintenance phase followed where the dose was adjusted to maintain haemoglobin > or = 10.5 g/dL. Maintenance success was defined as haemoglobin > 10.5 g/dL at Week 12. Total success was defined as achieving maintenance and correction success. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary objective was to demonstrate that the proportion of patients achieving total success was greater in the pooled 150 IU/kg and 300 IU/kg groups compared with the 15 IU/kg dose group. RESULTS: Total success was achieved in 55.6% of patients in the pooled highest epoetin delta group compared with 4.5% in the lowest dose group. There was no significant difference in total success for the epoetin delta and epoetin alfa 50 IU/kg groups. Significant increases in haemoglobin and haematocrit levels were observed in the 150 and 300 IU/kg dose groups. Adverse events occurred at frequencies expected for this patient group. CONCLUSIONS: Epoetin delta was effective in increasing haemoglobin levels in patients with baseline haemoglobin of < 10 g/dL.

Steady-state pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and tolerability of donepezil hydrochloride in hepatically impaired patients.

AIMS: To evaluate the pharmacokinetics (PK), pharmacodynamics (PD), tolerability and safety of donepezil HCl 5 mg following oral doses for 1 and 24 days in hepatically impaired patients compared with healthy controls under steady-state, multiple-dose conditions. METHODS: In this single-centre, multiple-dose, open-label study, patients with impaired hepatic function (Child-Pugh grade A or B) and healthy controls (matched by gender, age and weight to the hepatically impaired patients) received a single 5 mg dose of donepezil on day 1 and then donepezil HCl 5 mg once daily from days 6 to 29. PK and PD (determination of erythrocyte acetylcholinesterase inhibition) parameters were evaluated on days 1 and 29. Treatment-emergent adverse events (AEs), vital signs, physical examination and clinical laboratory test parameters were monitored throughout the study. RESULTS: A total of 35 subjects (18 patients with hepatic impairment and 17 healthy controls) were enrolled and 32 subjects (16 in each group) completed the study. On day 1 (following a single dose) hepatically impaired patients showed a significant decrease in T(max), while t((1/2)) and AUC(0-infinity) were significantly increased compared with the healthy controls. On day 29 (following multiple doses), AUC(0-24 h), C(max), t((1/2)), C(SS), and R(A) were significantly increased in hepatically impaired patients compared with healthy controls. AUC(0-24 h) increased by 47.6% in the patients with hepatic impairment compared with the healthy controls. There were no significant differences in PD between the groups, although at steady state, the mean AChE inhibition was 16.2% higher in the hepatically impaired patients. No serious AEs were reported and no subject withdrew from the study due to AEs. The most common AEs in both groups were headache and diarrhoea. No clinically significant changes from baseline were observed in vital signs, physical examination findings or electrocardiograms. There was a significant difference in the number of hepatically impaired subjects with abnormalities in serum glucose compared with healthy subjects. However, these elevations were not associated with AEs. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study suggest that patients with AD and mild to moderate hepatic impairment (Child-Pugh grade A or B) can be safely given donepezil 5 mg once daily and that this dose is associated with a nonsignificantly higher AChE inhibition than age-matched volunteers.

Concurrent administration of donepezil HCl and sertraline HCl in healthy volunteers: assessment of pharmacokinetic changes and safety following single and multiple oral doses.

AIM: This study evaluated the safety and pharmacokinetics (PK) of donepezil HCl and sertraline HCl when administered separately and in combination. METHODS: This was a randomized, open-label, three-period crossover study. In consecutive dosing periods separated by washout periods of > or = 3 weeks, healthy volunteers received either oral donepezil HCI 5 mg once daily for 15 days, oral sertraline HCl 50 mg once daily for 5 days followed by 10 days of once-daily sertraline HCl 100 mg, or the simultaneous administration of oral donepezil HCl and sertraline HCl. Plasma donepezil and sertraline concentrations were determined by high performance liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry. Safety was evaluated by physical and laboratory evaluations and the monitoring of adverse events (AEs). RESULTS: A total of 19 volunteers (16 male and three female) were enrolled. Three male subjects withdrew from the study prematurely due to AEs (one case of nausea/stomach cramps and one case of eosinophilia during combination treatment, and one upper respiratory tract infection during treatment with sertraline HCl alone). In subjects who completed all three treatment periods (n = 16), the concurrent administration of donepezil HCl and sertraline HCl did not alter the steady-state (day 15) PK parameters of donepezil HCl. A small (< 12%) but statistically significant (P = 0.02) increase in donepezil C(max) was seen after single doses of sertraline HCl and donepezil HCl on day 1 but this was not thought to be clinically meaningful. No significant differences in the t(max) or AUC(0-24 h) of donepezil were observed between the donepezil HCl only or donepezil HCl plus sertraline HCl groups on day 1. No significant changes in sertraline PK parameters were observed either on day 1 (single dose) or on day 15 (steady state) when sertraline HCl was co-administered with donepezil HCl. Generally, the concurrent administration of donepezil HCl and sertraline HCl was well tolerated, with no serious AEs reported during the study. Some digestive system AEs tended to occur more frequently during combination treatment than with either treatment alone, but there was no statistically significant increase in the incidence of any individual AE. The most common AEs during the combination therapy were nausea and diarrhoea, which were rated as mild or moderate in severity. These AEs were also reported during the administration of each drug alone. CONCLUSIONS: The co-administration of once-daily oral donepezil HCl 5 mg for 15 days and once-daily oral sertraline HCl (50 mg for 5 days increased to 100 mg for 10 days) did not result in any clinically meaningful pharmacokinetic interactions, and no unexpected AEs were observed.

Steady-state pharmacokinetics and safety of donepezil HCl in subjects with moderately impaired renal function.

AIMS: To characterize the pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and safety profiles of donepezil in subjects with moderate renal impairment and matched healthy controls during single-dose and multiple-dose phases. METHODS: This open-label study enrolled subjects with moderate renal impairment (creatinine clearance [CL(Cr)] 17-33 ml min(-1) 1.73 m(-2) body surface area) and age, weight and sex-matched healthy controls. A single-dose (5 mg donepezil) phase was followed by a 23-day multiple dose (5 mg day(-1) donepezil) steady-state phase. The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters of donepezil were determined for up to 144 h after the first dose and 168 h after the last dose. RESULTS: Thirty-six subjects were enrolled, 19 renally impaired and 17 healthy controls. All pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic parameters were similar between groups after a single dose of donepezil (C(max) 5.17 +/- 0.36 and 6.07 +/- 0.49 ng ml(-1); AUC(0-24) 76.05 +/- 5.54 and 77.45 +/- 4.49 ng.h ml(-1); mean maximum percentage inhibition [I(max)] red blood cell (RBC) AChE activity 32.07 +/- 2.00 and 31.69 +/- 2.45%; for subjects with renal impairment and healthy subjects, respectively). Pharmacokinetic parameters under steady-state conditions did not differ between renally impaired and healthy subjects (C(SS) 20.83 +/- 1.78 and 18.38 +/- 1.52 ng ml(-1); AUC(0-24) 500.0 +/- 42.8 and 441.1 +/- 36.4 ng.h ml(-1); degree of accumulation [R(A)] 6.98 +/- 0.59 and 5.94 +/- 0.53; for subjects with renal impairment and healthy subjects, respectively). Main pharmacodynamic parameters were also similar in renally impaired and healthy subjects at steady state (average percentage inhibition [I(SS)] RBC AChE activity 65.11 +/- 2.52 and 60.62 +/- 2.95, respectively). Protein binding was also similar between groups (% free donepezil 23.54 +/- 1.96 and 20.23 +/- 0.64, respectively). Donepezil was well tolerated by both groups. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that the pharmacokinetics of donepezil are not altered after dosing to steady state, and that donepezil can be administered safely to subjects with moderate renal impairment.

Concurrent administration of donepezil HCl and levodopa/carbidopa in patients with Parkinson's disease: assessment of pharmacokinetic changes and safety following multiple oral doses.

AIM: The use of acetylcholinesterase inhibitors for the treatment of comorbid Alzheimer's disease in Parkinson's disease (PD) patients stabilized on a levodopa regimen may potentially disrupt cholinergic balance. This randomized, double-blind, crossover study investigated the safety of, and possible drug-drug interaction between, donepezil HCl and levodopa/carbidopa. METHODS: Twenty-five patients with PD who were taking physician-optimized doses of levodopa/carbidopa (with daytime dosing intervals of 4-8 h) were administered once-daily doses of either donepezil HCl (5 mg) or placebo for 15 days, in two treatment periods, separated by a washout of at least 2 weeks. Some patients took a second dose of levodopa/carbidopa after 4 h, therefore subanalysis of the levodopa/carbidopa data was conducted up to 4 h and 8 h after dosing. Twenty-six healthy matched controls received open-label donepezil HCl only, for a single 15-day period. Blood samples were collected before, during and after the 15 doses of donepezil HCl for pharmacokinetic (PK) assessments. Pharmacokinetic parameters included maximum attained plasma drug concentration (C(max)), time at which C(max) is attained (t(max)), plasma drug concentration at steady state (C(ss)), and area under the drug concentration-time curve over the dosing interval. Safety assessments included monitoring adverse events, and the Unified Parkinson's Disease Rating Scale (UPDRS) motor examination. RESULTS: The mean age of all subjects was 72.6 +/- 1.3 years. Donepezil PK assessments of PD patients receiving levodopa/carbidopa were similar to the PK results from healthy controls who received donepezil HCl only (mean AUC(0-12 h)= 281.6 +/- 17.6 and 268.6 +/- 19.9 ng.h ml(-1), respectively). Carbidopa PK were not significantly altered by the concomitant administration of multiple doses of donepezil HCl, compared with when PD patients received placebo (mean AUC(0-8 h)= 921.8 +/- 160 and 821.8 +/- 113 ng.h ml(-1), respectively). Four hours after administration of donepezil HCl in PD patients, AUC(0-4 h), C(max) and C(ss) of levodopa were higher than when PD patients received placebo (P < 0.05). Eight hours after donepezil HCl, however, only C(max) and t(max) were observed to change compared with when PD patients received placebo (mean C(max) = 2652 +/- 429 and 2077 +/- 276 ng ml(-1), respectively; mean t(max) = 1.7 +/- 0.4 and 2.9 +/- 0.5 h, respectively; P< or = 0.05). The number of PD patients who experienced at least one adverse event during the study (13/25) was higher when they received donepezil HCl than when they received placebo (5/25), but was the same as healthy subjects who received donepezil HCl only (13/26). There were no significant differences in change from baseline on the UPDRS motor examination parameters in PD patients when they took donepezil HCl and when they took placebo. CONCLUSIONS: No clinically significant drug-drug interactions between donepezil HCl and levodopa/carbidopa were observed at steady state. The small changes in the pharmacokinetics of levodopa did not result in any change in motor symptoms. Co-administration of the two drugs led to a small increase in adverse events compared with administration of levodopa/carbidopa alone in PD patients. These adverse events, however, were consistent with donepezil's cholinomimetic effect, and their incidence was comparable to that observed following the administration of donepezil HCl alone.

Concurrent administration of donepezil HCl and risperidone in patients with schizophrenia: assessment of pharmacokinetic changes and safety following multiple oral doses.

AIM: This open-label, multiple-dose trial investigated the effect of concurrent administration of donepezil HCl with risperidone on the pharmacokinetics (PK) and safety profiles of both drugs. METHODS: Sixteen male patients with schizophrenia, who were receiving stable, physician-optimized risperidone (1-4 mg twice daily), and 15 healthy age- and weight-matched male controls, received donepezil HCl 5 mg daily for 7 days. Patients with schizophrenia remained on their physician-optimized dose of risperidone throughout the study. Pharmacokinetic parameters (C(max), t(max) and AUC) were assessed from plasma drug concentrations measured in blood collected before, during and after administration (for 12 h after risperidone on days 0 and 7, and for 24 h after donepezil HCl on day 7). RESULTS: The mean age of all the subjects was 38.5 years. Donepezil PK parameters were similar between patients taking donepezil HCl + risperidone (AUC(0-24 h) = 329.0 +/- 17.2 ng x h ml(-1)) and controls taking donepezil HCl alone (AUC(0-24 h) = 354.7 +/- 28.2 ng x h ml(-1)). Pharmacokinetic parameters for risperidone and 9-OH risperidone were not altered in patients with schizophrenia after 7 days of donepezil HCl administration (AUC(0-12 h) standardized by dose: risperidone = 59.6 +/- 16.3 ng.h ml(-1) at day 0, 56.0 +/- 15.8 ng x h ml(-1) at day 7; 9-OH risperidone = 162.1 +/- 19.2 ng x h ml(-1) at day 0, 163.3 +/- 15.0 ng x h ml(-1) at day 7). The most common adverse event in both treatment groups was diarrhoea (6/16 risperidone + donepezil HCl patients and 9/16 donepezil HCl only subjects). There were no significant changes in physical examination, ECG, vital signs or treatment-emergent abnormal laboratory values associated with either of the treatment regimens. No subject developed extrapyramidal side-effects following donepezil administration. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that once-daily dosing of 5 mg donepezil HCl does not alter the PK of risperidone in patients with schizophrenia. The combination of risperidone and donepezil HCl was well tolerated.

Donepezil for the symptomatic treatment of patients with mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The objective was to evaluate the efficacy and tolerability of donepezil (5 and 10 mg/day) compared with placebo in alleviating manifestations of mild to moderate Alzheimer's disease (AD). METHOD: A systematic review of individual patient data from Phase II and III double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled studies of up to 24 weeks and completed by 20 December 1999. The main outcome measures were the ADAS-cog, the CIBIC-plus, and reports of adverse events. RESULTS: A total of 2376 patients from ten trials were randomised to either donepezil 5 mg/day (n = 821), 10 mg/day (n = 662) or placebo (n = 893). Cognitive performance was better in patients receiving donepezil than in patients receiving placebo. At 12 weeks the differences in ADAS-cog scores were 5 mg/day-placebo: - 2.1 [95% confidence interval (CI), - 2.6 to - 1.6; p < 0.001], 10 mg/day-placebo: - 2.5 ( - 3.1 to - 2.0; p < 0.001). The corresponding results at 24 weeks were - 2.0 ( - 2.7 to - 1.3; p < 0.001) and - 3.1 ( - 3.9 to - 2.4; p < 0.001). The difference between the 5 and 10 mg/day doses was significant at 24 weeks (p = 0.005). The odds ratios (OR) of improvement on the CIBIC-plus at 12 weeks were: 5 mg/day-placebo 1.8 (1.5 to 2.1; p < 0.001), 10 mg/day-placebo 1.9 (1.5 to 2.4; p < 0.001). The corresponding values at 24 weeks were 1.9 (1.5 to 2.4; p = 0.001) and 2.1 (1.6 to 2.8; p < 0.001). Donepezil was well tolerated; adverse events were cholinergic in nature and generally of mild severity and brief in duration. CONCLUSION: Donepezil (5 and 10 mg/day) provides meaningful benefits in alleviating deficits in cognitive and clinician-rated global function in AD patients relative to placebo. Increased improvements in cognition were indicated for the higher dose.

Donepezil HCl (E2020) maintains functional brain activity in patients with Alzheimer disease: results of a 24-week, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.

OBJECTIVE: The authors evaluated the effects of donepezil (10 mg/day) versus placebo on brain glucose metabolism. METHODS: This was a randomized, double-blind, parallel-group, 24-week pilot study in 28 patients with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer disease (AD). Functional brain activity was quantified by measuring average glucose metabolism in an axial brain slice and regional brain glucose metabolism using positron emission tomography. RESULTS: At Week 24, relative to the pons metabolic rate, mean brain glucose metabolism in an axial slice at the level of the striatum was maintained within 0.5% of mean baseline levels for donepezil-treated patients, whereas it declined by an average of 10.4% in placebo-treated patients. This observation was confirmed by an analysis of differences in the mean slopes of glucose metabolism in the striatal slice in donepezil- and placebo-treated patients during the 24-week period. Significant treatment differences at Week 24 favoring donepezil for the mean percentage change from baseline in regional brain glucose metabolism were observed in four predefined regions of interest: the right parietal lobe 1, left temporal lobe 2, right frontal lobe 2, and left frontal lobe 2. CONCLUSION: Placebo-treated patients with AD show a decline in functional brain activity, relative to the pons, in several regions, and treatment with donepezil may slow this decline.