Dataset Information

Pharmacokinetic Interaction between Naloxone and Naltrexone Following Intranasal Administration to Healthy Subjects.

ABSTRACT: Naloxone (17-allyl-4,5?-epoxy-3,14-dihydroxymorphinan-6-one HCl), a ?-opioid receptor antagonist, is administered intranasally to reverse an opioid overdose but its short half-life may necessitate subsequent doses. The addition of naltrexone [17-(cyclopropylmethyl)-4,5?-epoxy-3,14-dihydroxymorphinan-6-one], another ?-receptor antagonist, which has a reported half-life of 3 1/2 hours, may extend the available time to receive medical treatment. In a phase 1 pharmacokinetic study, healthy adults were administered naloxone and naltrexone intranasally, separately and in combination. When administered with naloxone, the C max value of naltrexone decreased 62% and the area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to infinity (AUC0-inf) decreased 38% compared with when it was given separately; lower concentrations of naltrexone were observed as early as 5 minutes postdose. In contrast, the C max and AUC0-inf values of naloxone decreased only 18% and 16%, respectively, when given with naltrexone. This apparent interaction was investigated further to determine if naloxone and naltrexone shared a transporter. Neither compound was a substrate for organic cation transporter (OCT) 1, OCT2, OCT3, OCTN1, or OCTN2. There was no evidence of the involvement of a transmembrane transporter when they were tested separately or in combination at concentrations of 10 and 500 µM using Madin-Darby canine kidney II cell monolayers at pH 7.4. The efflux ratios of naloxone and naltrexone increased to six or greater when the apical solution was pH 5.5, the approximate pH of the nasal cavity; there was no apparent interaction when the two were coincubated. The importance of understanding how opioid antagonists are absorbed by the nasal epithelium is magnified by the rise in overdose deaths attributed to long-lived synthetic opioids and the realization that better strategies are needed to treat opioid overdoses.

SUBMITTER: Krieter P

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6548978 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jul

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background and objectiveRosuvastatin and ezetimibe are commonly applied in lipid-lowering pharmacotherapy. However, the pharmacokinetic (PK) interaction was not clear by the coadministration of rosuvastatin and ezetimibe. This study investigated the pharmacodynamic (PD) and PK interactions between rosuvastatin and ezetimibe through a crossover clinical trial.Subjects and methodsA randomized, open-label, multiple-dose, two-treatment, two-period, two-sequence crossover study with two treatment parts was conducted in healthy male subjects. Study part A involved rosuvastatin, and study part B involved ezetimibe. A total of 25 subjects in both parts completed the PK and PD evaluations. Rosuvastatin (20 mg) or ezetimibe (10 mg) was administered once daily for 7 days as monotherapy or co-therapy. The plasma concentrations of rosuvastatin, total ezetimibe and free ezetimibe were measured for 72 h after day 7. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) and total cholesterol (TC) were investigated for the PD assessments on day 1 (pretreatment) and day 8.ResultsRosuvastatin and ezetimibe presented multiple peaks. The 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the geometric mean ratios for the peak plasma concentration at steady state (Cmax,ss) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve during the dosing interval at steady state (AUCτ,ss) of rosuvastatin and total ezetimibe were within the range 0.8-1.25. However, the coadministration increased the systemic exposure of free ezetimibe. In the PD assessments, rosuvastatin and ezetimibe monotherapy reduced the LDL-C and TC levels effectively. In addition, the lipid-lowering effects of the coadministration corresponded to an approximate summation of the effects of rosuvastatin and ezetimibe monotherapy. However, no significant changes in HDL-C were observed with rosuvastatin or ezetimibe treatment. No significant safety issue was noted.ConclusionThe coadministration of rosuvastatin and ezetimibe revealed a bioequivalent PK interaction. Additional lipid-lowering effects, including decreased LDL-C and TC, were observed as expected in combination therapy without significant safety concern.

Project description:BackgroundTransient lower esophageal sphincter relaxations (TLESRs) have been identified as a primary cause of reflux events in patients with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD). GABA(B) receptor agonists such as lesogaberan (AZD3355) have been shown to inhibit TLESRs in healthy subjects and patients with GERD, and, therefore, offer a novel therapeutic add-on strategy to acid suppression for the management of GERD. As lesogaberan is being developed as an add-on treatment for the management of patients with GERD who have a partial response to proton pump inhibitor (PPI) therapy, it is important to rule out any clinically important pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction between lesogaberan and PPIs.ObjectiveTo evaluate the effect of esomeprazole on the pharmacokinetics and safety of lesogaberan and vice versa.Study designThis was an open-label, randomized, three-way crossover study. The study was open to healthy adult male and female subjects. The study subjects received treatment with, in random order, lesogaberan (150 mg twice daily [dose interval 12 hours]), esomeprazole (40 mg once daily), and a combination of both, during 7-day treatment periods.Main outcomeThe presence or absence of pharmacokinetic interactions between lesogaberan and esomeprazole was assessed by measuring the steady-state area under the plasma concentration-time curves during the dosing interval (AUC(τ)) and the maximum observed plasma concentration (C(max)) for lesogaberan and esomeprazole.ResultsThirty male subjects (mean age 23.2 years, 97% Caucasian) were randomized to treatment and 28 subjects completed the study (one subject was lost to follow-up, and one subject discontinued due to an adverse event). The 95% confidence intervals of the geometric mean ratios for AUC(τ) and C(max) of lesogaberan and esomeprazole administered alone and concomitantly were within the recognized boundaries of bioequivalence (0.8-1.25). No new safety concerns were raised during this study. The number of patients with adverse events during treatment with lesogaberan alone (n = 17) and concomitantly with esomeprazole (n = 18) were comparable but higher than with esomeprazole alone (n = 10). Paresthesia (episodic, mild, and transient), pharyngitis, and flatulence were the most frequently reported adverse events.ConclusionsThere was no observed pharmacokinetic interaction between lesogaberan and esomeprazole when concomitantly administered to healthy subjects, and concomitant therapy was well tolerated. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER (clinicaltrials.gov): NCT00684190.

Project description:This open-label, fixed-sequence, phase 1 study evaluated the pharmacokinetic interaction between maraviroc (MVC) and ritonavir-boosted fosamprenavir (FPV/r) in healthy subjects. In period 1, subjects received 300 mg of MVC twice daily (BID; cohort 1) or once daily (QD; cohort 2) for 5 days. In period 2, cohort 1 subjects received 700/100 mg of FPV/r BID alone on days 1 to 10 and then FPV/r at 700/100 mg BID plus MVC at 300 mg BID on days 11 to 20; cohort 2 subjects received FPV/r at 1,400/100 mg QD alone on days 1 to 10 and then FPV/r at 1,400/100 mg QD plus MVC at 300 mg QD on days 11 to 20. Pharmacokinetic parameters, assessed on day 5 of period 1 and on days 10 and 20 of period 2, included the maximum plasma concentration (Cmax), the concentration at end of dosing interval (Cτ), and the area under the curve over dosing interval (AUCτ). Safety and tolerability were also assessed. MVC geometric mean AUCτ, Cmax, and Cτ were increased by 149, 52, and 374%, respectively, after BID dosing with FPV/r, and by 126, 45, and 80%, respectively, after QD dosing. Amprenavir (the active form of the prodrug fosamprenavir) and ritonavir exposures were decreased in the presence of MVC with amprenavir AUCτ, Cmax, and Cτ decreased by 34 to 36% in the presence of FPV/r plus maraviroc BID and by 15 to 30% with FPV/r plus MVC QD both compared to FPV/r alone. The overall all-causality adverse-event (AE) incidence rate was 96.4%; all AEs were of mild or moderate severity. Commonly reported treatment-related AEs (>20% of patients overall) included diarrhea, fatigue, abdominal discomfort, headache, and nausea. No serious AEs or deaths occurred. In summary, maraviroc exposure increased in the presence of FPV/r, whereas MVC coadministration decreased amprenavir and ritonavir exposures. MVC dosed at 300 mg BID with FPV/r is not recommended due to concerns of lower amprenavir exposures; however, no dose adjustment is warranted with MVC at 150 mg BID in combination with FPV/r based on the available clinical data. MVC plus FPV/r was generally well tolerated; no new safety signals were detected.

Dataset Information

Pharmacokinetic Interaction between Naloxone and Naltrexone Following Intranasal Administration to Healthy Subjects.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets