Pharmacokinetic interaction between rosuvastatin and olmesartan: a randomized, open-label, 3-period, multiple-dose crossover study in healthy Korean male subjects

Integrating Full Bayesian Inference and Student's t-Distribution Method for Enhanced Outlier Handling in Caffeine Population Pharmacokinetics: Assessing Drug-Drug Interactions with Enasidenib in Relapsed or Refractory AML and MDS Patients

As the first-in-class, selective, and potent inhibitor of the isocitrate dehydrogenase-2 (IDH2) mutant protein, enasidenib was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2017 for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia (AML) with an IDH2 mutation. Known for its interactions with various cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes and transporters in vitro, a clinical pharmacokinetics (PK) trial was initiated to assess the impact of multiple doses of enasidenib on the single-dose PK of sensitive probe substrates of several cytochrome P450 enzymes and transporters. In this study, a population pharmacokinetic analysis approach was employed to address challenges posed by high, nonzero baseline caffeine concentrations. Moreover, we integrated full Bayesian inference into this approach innovatively for a more detailed understanding of parameter uncertainty and greater modeling flexibility, alongside Student's t-distribution for robust error modeling in handling the abnormal outlier caffeine concentration data observed in this trial. Our analyses demonstrated that multiple doses of enasidenib altered caffeine clearance to a clinically meaningful extent, as evidenced by an approximate 8-fold decrease. This finding led to a specific recommendation in the package insert to avoid the concurrent use of certain CYP1A2 substrates with enasidenib, unless directed otherwise in the prescribing information. Furthermore, this research underlines the technical benefits of integrating full Bayesian inference and incorporating Student's t-distribution for residual error modeling in the PK field.

Rosuvastatin-Induced Dizziness and Pruritus: A Case Report and Summary of Statin-Associated Dizziness and Pruritus

Drug-associated adverse events can present with varying symptoms, such as dizziness and pruritus. A 48-year-old woman initiated rosuvastatin to treat her elevated triglycerides. She developed rosuvastatin-associated adverse events, which included dizziness and pruritus within two weeks after starting treatment. After stopping the medication, the dizziness immediately cleared; the pruritus diminished during the next two weeks and eventually resolved completely. Side effects associated with rosuvastatin are discussed. The possibility of a medication-related etiology should be entertained when an individual suddenly develops either dizziness or pruritus or both.

Assessment of drug-drug interactions of CC-90001, a potent and selective inhibitor of c-Jun N-terminal kinase

CC-90001 is predominantly metabolised via glucuronidation, while oxidative metabolism is a minor pathway in human hepatocytes and liver microsomes. In vitro, CC-90001 glucuronidation was catalysed by UGT1A9, UGT1A4, and UGT1A1, while oxidative metabolism was primarily mediated by CYP3A4/5 with minor contributions from CYP1A2, CYP2C9, CYP2B6, and CYP2D6.CC-90001 in vitro inhibits CYP2A6, CYP2B6, CYP2C8, CYP2C9, CYP2C19, and CYP3A4 ≤ 55% at 100 μM, and the inhibition was negligible at ≤30 μM. CC-90001 is not a time-dependent CYP inhibitor.In human hepatocytes CC-90001 is an inducer of CYP2B6 and CYP3A, with mRNA levels increased 34.4% to 52.8% relative to positive controls.In vitro CC-90001 is a substrate of P-gp, and an inhibitor of P-gp, BCRP, OAT3, OATP1B1, OATP1B3, OCT2, MATE1, and MATE2k with IC₅₀ values of 30.3, 25.8, 17.7, 0.417, 19.9, 0.605, 4.17, and 20 μM, respectively.A clinical study demonstrated that CC-90001 has no or little impact on the exposure of warfarin (CYP2C9), omeprazole (CYP2C19), midazolam (CYP3A) or metformin (OCT2, MATE1/2k). CC-90001 co-administration increases the AUC_t and C_max 176% and 339% for rosuvastatin (BCRP/OATP1B1/3), 116% and 171% for digoxin (P-gp), and 266% and 321% for nintedanib (CYP3A & P-gp), respectively.In conclusion, CC-90001 in unlikely to be a victim or perpetrator of clinically relevant interactions involving CYPs or UGTs. Weak to moderate interactions are expected in clinic with substrates of P-gp and OATP1B1 due to CC-90001 inhibition of these transporters.

Assessment of Transporter-Mediated Drug Interactions for Enasidenib Based on a Cocktail Study in Patients With Relapse or Refractory Acute Myeloid Leukemia or Myelodysplastic Syndrome

As a first-in-class, selective, potent inhibitor of the isocitrate dehydrogenase-2 (IDH2) mutant protein, enasidenib was approved by the US Food and Drug Administration in 2017 for the treatment of adult patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia with an isocitrate dehydrogenase-2 mutation. An in vitro study showed that enasidenib at clinically relevant concentrations has effects on multiple drug metabolic enzymes and transporters, including inhibition of P-glycoprotein, breast cancer resistance protein, organic anion transporter (OAT) P1B1, and OATP1B3 transporters. Therefore, a drug-drug interaction study was conducted to assess the impact of enasidenib at steady state on the pharmacokinetics of several probe compounds in patients with relapsed or refractory acute myeloid leukemia or myelodysplastic syndrome, including the probes herein described in this article, digoxin and rosuvastatin. Results from 8 patients (all Asian) with a mean age of 67.1 years showed that following coadministration of enasidenib (100 mg, 28-day once-daily schedule) for 28 days (at steady state), digoxin's (0.25 mg) area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to 30 days was 1.2-fold (90% confidence interval, 0.9-1.6), compared with digoxin alone. Following coadministration of enasidenib (100 mg, 28-day once-daily schedule) for 28 days (at steady state), rosuvastatin's (10 mg) area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time 0 to infinity was 3.4-fold (90% confidence interval, 2.6-4.5) compared with rosuvastatin alone. These results should serve as the basis for dose recommendations for drugs that are substrates of P-glycoprotein, breast cancer resistance protein, OATP1B1, and OATP1B3 transporters, when used concomitantly with enasidenib.

Pharmacokinetics of Rosuvastatin: A Systematic Review of Randomised Controlled Trials in Healthy Adults

BACKGROUND

Rosuvastatin is a lipid-lowering drug that works by inhibiting 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase, the rate-limiting enzyme responsible for producing cholesterol in humans. The pharmacokinetic data of rosuvastatin are considerably variable across studies.

OBJECTIVE

To review the pharmacokinetics of rosuvastatin from randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in healthy adults.

METHODS

A review of the pharmacokinetics of rosuvastatin was performed using systematic search strategies. The Sheiner method was used to summarise the pharmacokinetics of the drug.

RESULTS

Randomised controlled studies (n = 70) involving healthy subjects (n = 2355) that examined the pharmacokinetics of rosuvastatin following single and multiple doses were included in the review. Rosuvastatin is given once daily in the dose range of 5-80 mg, with 40 mg being the maximum approved daily dose. Rosuvastatin achieves maximum plasma concentration at a median of 5 h (range: 0.5-6 h) under fasting conditions following single and multiple doses. Following single doses, rosuvastatin has a mean absolute oral availability of 20%, an overall mean total clearance of 28.3 L/h and an average terminal elimination half-life of approximately 20 h. The overall mean total clearance of the drug in Caucasian subjects was 1.7-fold higher than that in healthy Chinese subjects. The systemic exposure of rosuvastatin is characterised by a large coefficient of variation (48%.) There is a small accumulation with repeated dosing. The interaction of rosuvastatin with darunavir/ritonavir was considered statistically and clinically relevant. Interactions of rosuvastatin single doses with erythromycin, fluconazole, itraconazole and antacid were statistically significant.

DISCUSSION AND CONCLUSIONS

There is considerable variation in the pharmacokinetics of rosuvastatin between races. The clinical relevance of the statistically significant drug interactions is yet to be investigated following repeated co-administration for at least 15 days, consistent with a half-life of low-density lipoprotein of 3 days.

Synergistic protective effects of a statin and an angiotensin receptor blocker for initiation and progression of atherosclerosis

Aim

Although the atheroprotective effects of statins and angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) are well-established, little is known about their additive effects, especially during the early period of atherosclerosis. The aim of this study was to investigate whether combination of a statin and an ARB exerts synergistic anti-atherosclerotic effects, and to elucidate the mechanisms of combined effects.

Methods

Atherosclerotic plaques were developed in arteries of 23 rabbits using a high-cholesterol diet (HCD) and intra-arterial balloon inflation. Rabbits received one of five different treatment strategies for 4 weeks: positive control [n = 5, HCD]; negative control [n = 3, regular chow diet]; statin [n = 5, HCD and rosuvastatin 10 mg]; ARB [n = 5, HCD and olmesartan 20 mg]; and combination [n = 5, HCD and statin+ARB].

Results

Histological analysis demonstrated that development of atherosclerotic plaques was inhibited more in combination group than in statin group (P = 0.001). Although macrophage infiltration identified by RAM11 staining was not significantly different between combination and individual treatment groups (31.76±4.84% [combination] vs. 38.11±6.53% [statin; P = 0.35] or 35.14±2.87% [ARB; P = 0.62]), the relative proportion of pro-inflammatory M1-macrophages was significantly lower in combination group than in ARB group (3.20±0.47% vs. 5.20±0.78%, P = 0.02). Furthermore, M2-macrophage polarization was higher in combination group than in statin group (17.70±3.04% vs. 7.86±0.68%, P = 0.001).

Conclusion

Combination treatment with a statin and an ARB produced synergistic protective effects for atherosclerosis initiation and progression, which may be attributed to modulation of macrophage characteristics in the early period of atherosclerosis.

Pharmacokinetic interaction between fimasartan and atorvastatin in healthy male volunteers

Introduction

Major cardiovascular risk factors, including hypertension and dyslipidemia, are often comorbidities, frequently leading to concurrent prescription of angiotensin receptor blockers and 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-coenzyme A reductase inhibitors (statins). The study’s objective was to evaluate the effect of coadministration of fimasartan and atorvastatin on their pharmacokinetics (PKs).

Subjects and methods

In a randomized, open-label, three-period, six-sequence, crossover, multiple-dose study, 36 healthy subjects received 120 mg fimasartan, 40 mg atorvastatin, or both (based on their assigned sequence) once daily for 7 days in each period, with a 7-day washout between periods. Blood samples for the PK analysis of fimasartan, atorvastatin, and the 2-hydroxy atorvastatin metabolite were collected up to 48 h after the last dose.

Results

The coadministration of fimasartan and atorvastatin was well tolerated and led to an increase in the peak concentration and area under the concentration–time curve at steady state of fimasartan by 2.18-fold (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.79–2.65) and 1.35-fold (95% CI, 1.26–1.43) and those of atorvastatin increased by 1.82-fold (95% CI, 1.51–2.18) and 1.12-fold (95% CI, 1.04–1.22), respectively.

Conclusion

Coadministration increased the systemic exposures of fimasartan and atorvastatin, but the clinical significance of this finding needs to be evaluated with respect to exposure responses and clinical outcomes.

Efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combination therapy with olmesartan medoxomil and rosuvastatin in Korean patients with mild to moderate hypertension and dyslipidemia: an 8-week, multicenter, randomized, double-blind, factorial-design study (OLSTA-D RCT: OLmesartan rosuvaSTAtin from Daewoong)

The pill burden of patients with hypertension and dyslipidemia can result in poor medication compliance. This study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of fixed-dose combination (FDC) therapy with olmesartan medoxomil (40 mg) and rosuvastatin (20 mg) in Korean patients with mild to moderate hypertension and dyslipidemia. This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, factorial-design study included patients aged ≥20 years with mild to moderate essential hypertension and dyslipidemia. Patients were randomly assigned to receive FDC therapy (40 mg olmesartan medoxomil, 20 mg rosuvastatin), 40 mg olmesartan medoxomil, 20 mg rosuvastatin, or a placebo. The percentage change from baseline in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels was compared between FDC therapy and olmesartan medoxomil, and the change from baseline in diastolic blood pressure was compared between FDC therapy and rosuvastatin 8 weeks after treatment. A total of 162 patients were included. The least square mean percentage change (standard error) from baseline in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels 8 weeks after treatment was significantly greater in the FDC than in the olmesartan medoxomil group (−52.3% [2.8%] vs −0.6% [3.5%], P<0.0001), and the difference was −51.7% (4.1%) (95% confidence interval: −59.8% to −43.6%). The least square mean change (standard error) from baseline in diastolic blood pressure 8 weeks after treatment was significantly greater in the FDC group than in the rosuvastatin group (−10.4 [1.2] mmHg vs 0.1 [1.6] mmHg, P<0.0001), and the difference was −10.5 (1.8) mmHg (95% confidence interval: −14.1 to −6.9 mmHg). There were 50 adverse events in 41 patients (22.7%) and eight adverse drug reactions in five patients (2.8%). The study found that FDC therapy with olmesartan medoxomil and rosuvastatin is an effective, safe treatment for patients with hypertension and dyslipidemia. This combination may improve medication compliance in patients with a large pill burden.

A pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic drug interaction between rosuvastatin and valsartan in healthy subjects

PURPOSE

Valsartan, an angiotensin-receptor blocker, and rosuvastatin, a competitive inhibitor of the 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase, are frequently coadministered to treat patients with hypertension and dyslipidemia. The study reported here sought to evaluate the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions between rosuvastatin and valsartan in healthy Korean subjects.

SUBJECTS AND METHODS

Thirty healthy male Korean subjects were administered with rosuvastatin (20 mg/day), valsartan (160 mg/day), and both drugs concomitantly for 4 days in a randomized, open-label, multiple-dose, three-treatment, three-period crossover study. Plasma concentrations of rosuvastatin, N-desmethyl rosuvastatin, and valsartan were determined using validated high-performance liquid chromatography with tandem mass spectrometry. Lipid profiles and vital signs (systolic and diastolic blood pressure and pulse rate) were measured for the pharmacodynamic assessment.

RESULTS

For rosuvastatin, the geometric mean ratios (90% confidence intervals [CIs]) of coadministration to mono-administration were 0.8809 (0.7873-0.9857) for maximum plasma concentration at steady state and 0.9151 (0.8632-0.9701) for area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) over a dosing interval at steady state. For valsartan, the geometric mean ratios (90% CIs) of those were 0.9300 (0.7946-1.0884) and 1.0072 (0.8893-1.1406), respectively. There were no significant differences in the metabolic ratio of N-desmethyl rosuvastatin AUC to rosuvastatin AUC between coadministration and rosuvastatin alone. No interaction was found in terms of systolic or diastolic blood pressure or lipid profiles. Combined treatment with valsartan and rosuvastatin was generally well tolerated without serious adverse events.

CONCLUSION

The pharmacokinetic profiles of rosuvastatin and valsartan in combination were comparable with those of rosuvastatin and valsartan administered individually, suggesting that their individual pharmacokinetics were not affected by their coadministration. No dose adjustment was required and the results are supportive of a study in a larger patient population.