The pharmacokinetics of lisinopril in hospitalized patients with congestive heart failure

Physiologically based pharmacokinetic modelling of lisinopril in children: A case story of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors

AIMS

Lisinopril is an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor to treat hypertension. It shows complex pharmacokinetics (PK), and its PK behaviour in paediatric populations is not well characterized. The aim of this study was to develop a physiologically based PK (PBPK) model for lisinopril to describe the drug's PK in children.

METHODS

The PBPK model development was performed in a step-wise manner. An adult model was initially developed to characterize lisinopril's disposition and absorption and verified using literature data. Subsequently, the adult PBPK model was extrapolated to the paediatric population (0.5-18 years old) by accounting for age-dependent physiological and anatomical changes. Model performance was evaluated by comparing the PK profiles and drug exposures of observed vs predicted data.

RESULTS

The disposition of lisinopril was well described by a minimal PBPK model-an effective strategy to capture the biphasic elimination of the drug. The absorption of lisinopril was described by the intestinal peptide transporter-mediated uptake. The adult model adequately described the literature data with predictions within a twofold range of clinical observations. Good model predictivity was also observed in children older than 6 years of age. The model overpredicted the drug exposure in children under 6 years, probably due to not incorporating the actual, unknown ontogeny of the intestinal peptide transporter.

CONCLUSIONS

The PBPK model predicted the PK of lisinopril in adults and children above 6 years of age well. Model refinement in children under 6 years warrants future informative ontogeny data of the intestinal peptide transporter.

Cardiovascular Drug Use in the Elderly

The elderly patient is at increased risk for adverse drug effects because of altered pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic changes that occur with aging. In addition, the potential for adverse drug interactions are increased because the elderly take a disproportionate number of drugs relative to younger patients. Cardiovascular drugs are frequently implicated in the occurrence of adverse drug interactions. Recommendations are provided to minimize or avoid adverse drug reactions in the elderly. (c) 2000 by CVRR, Inc.

Comparison of the pharmacokinetics of fosinoprilat with enalaprilat and lisinopril in patients with congestive heart failure and chronic renal insufficiency

AIMS

To compare the serum pharmacokinetics of fosinoprilat with enalaprilat and lisinopril after 1 and 10 days of dosing with fosinopril, enalapril and lisinopril.

METHODS

Patients with congestive heart failure (CHF, NYHA Class II-IV) and chronic renal insufficiency (creatinine clearance </=30 ml min-1 ) were randomized to receive fosinopril, enalapril or lisinopril in two parallel-group studies. In the first study 24 patients were treated with 10 mg fosinopril (n=12 patients) or 2.5 mg enalapril (n=12) every morning for 10 consecutive days. In the second study 31 patients were treated with 10 mg fosinopril (n=16 patients) or 5 mg lisinopril (n=15) every morning for 10 consecutive days. Samples of blood were collected for determination of pharmacokinetic parameters. The area under the curve (AUC) between the first and last days of treatment and the accumulation index (AI) were the primary outcome measures.

RESULTS

All three angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors exhibited a significant increase in AUC between the first and last days of treatment in both studies. The difference between the AI for fosinoprilat (1.41) and enalaprilat (1.96) was statistically significant (95% CI: 1.05, 1.84). Similarly, the difference between the AI for fosinoprilat (1.21) and lisinopril (2.76) was statistically significant (95% CI: 1.85, 2.69). All three ACE inhibitors completely inhibited serum ACE for 24 h. All treatments were well tolerated.

CONCLUSIONS

Fosinoprilat exhibits significantly less accumulation than enalaprilat or lisinopril in patients with CHF and renal insufficiency, most probably because fosinoprilat is eliminated by both the kidney and liver, and increased hepatic elimination can compensate for reduced renal clearance in patients with kidney dysfunction.

Clinical pharmacokinetics of vasodilators. Part I

Understanding the mechanism of action and the pharmacokinetic properties of vasodilatory drugs facilitates optimal use in clinical practice. It should be kept in mind that a drug belongs to a class but is a distinct entity, sometimes derived from a prototype to achieve a specific effect. The most common pharmacokinetic drug improvement is the development of a drug with a half-life sufficiently long to allow an adequate once-daily dosage. Developing a controlled release preparation can increase the apparent half-life of a drug. Altering the molecular structure may also increase the half-life of a prototype drug. Another desirable improvement is increasing the specificity of a drug, which may result in fewer adverse effects, or more efficacy at the target site. This is especially important for vasodilatory drugs which may be administered over decades for the treatment of hypertension, which usually does not interfere with subjective well-being. Compliance is greatly increased with once-daily dosing. Vasodilatory agents cause relaxation by either a decrease in cytoplasmic calcium, an increase in nitric oxide (NO) or by inhibiting myosin light chain kinase. They are divided into 9 classes: calcium antagonists, potassium channel openers, ACE inhibitors, angiotensin-II receptor antagonists, alpha-adrenergic and imidazole receptor antagonists, beta 1-adrenergic agonist, phosphodiesterase inhibitors, eicosanoids and NO donors. Despite chemical differences, the pharmacokinetic properties of calcium antagonists are similar. Absorption from the gastrointestinal tract is high, with all substances undergoing considerable first-pass metabolism by the liver, resulting in low bioavailability and pronounced individual variation in pharmacokinetics. Renal impairment has little effect on pharmacokinetics since renal elimination of these agents is minimal. Except for the newer drugs of the dihydropyridine type, amlodipine, felodipine, isradipine, nilvadipine, nisoldipine and nitrendipine, the half-life of calcium antagonists is short. Maintaining an effective drug concentration for the remainder of these agents requires multiple daily dosing, in some cases even with controlled release formulations. However, a coat-core preparation of nifedipine has been developed to allow once-daily administration. Adverse effects are directly correlated to the potency of the individual calcium antagonists. Treatment with the potassium channel opener minoxidil is reserved for patients with moderately severe to severe hypertension which is refractory to other treatment. Diazoxide and hydralazine are chiefly used to treat severe hypertensive emergencies, primary pulmonary and malignant hypertension and in severe preeclampsia. ACE inhibitors prevent conversion of angiotensin-I to angiotensin-II and are most effective when renin production is increased. Since ACE is identical to kininase-II, which inactivates the potent endogenous vasodilator bradykinin, ACE inhibition causes a reduction in bradykinin degradation. ACE inhibitors exert cardioprotective and cardioreparative effects by preventing and reversing cardiac fibrosis and ventricular hypertrophy in animal models. The predominant elimination pathway of most ACE inhibitors is via renal excretion. Therefore, renal impairment is associated with reduced elimination and a dosage reduction of 25 to 50% is recommended in patients with moderate to severe renal impairment. Separating angiotensin-II inhibition from bradykinin potentiation has been the goal in developing angiotensin-II receptor antagonists. The incidence of adverse effects of such an agent, losartan, is comparable to that encountered with placebo treatment, and the troublesome cough associated with ACE inhibitors is absent.

Lisinopril. A review of its pharmacology and clinical efficacy in elderly patients

Lisinopril, the lysine analogue of enalaprilat, is a long-acting angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor which is administered once daily by mouth. The efficacy of lisinopril in reducing blood pressure is well established in younger populations, and many trials now show it to be effective in lowering blood pressure in elderly patients with hypertension. In comparative and non-comparative clinical trials, 68.2 to 89.1% of elderly patients responded (diastolic pressure < or = 90 mm Hg) to > or = 8 weeks' lisinopril treatment. Age-related differences in antihypertensive efficacy do not appear to be clinically significant, and dosages effective in elderly patients tend to range from 2.5 to 40 mg/day. Dosages usually need to be lower in patients with significant renal impairment. In congestive heart failure, lisinopril 2.5 to 20 mg/day increases exercise duration, improves left ventricular ejection fraction and has no significant effect on ventricular ectopic beats. It is similar in efficacy to enalapril and digoxin and similar or superior to captopril on most end-points. Data from the GISSI-3 post-myocardial infarction trial show that lisinopril reduced mortality and left ventricular dysfunction when given for 42 days starting within 24 hours of the onset of infarction symptoms. Results at 6 weeks and 6 months were similar in elderly and younger patients. Elderly patients, however, among other subgroups, exhibited a strong reduction in risk of low ejection fraction after treatment (-25.5%). Economic studies suggest that lisinopril is cost saving compared with other ACE inhibitors in some markets. When given according to the GISSI-3 protocol, lisinopril appears to be one of the less expensive of the successful ACE inhibitor regimens for acute myocardial infarction. In other trials, patients with diabetic nephropathy and hypertension improved or did not deteriorate during lisinopril treatment. Blood pressure was controlled and reductions or trends towards reductions in albuminuria were observed. These reductions were similar to those in diltiazem, nifedipine and verapamil recipients, and greater than those in patients receiving atenolol. Lisinopril appears to reduce mortality in diabetic patients after myocardial infarction and may also improve neuropathy associated with diabetes. Lisinopril is well tolerated and the profile of adverse events seen is typical of ACE inhibitors as a class. There is a tendency for more elderly than younger patients to discontinue treatment, but this trend is not clearly related to the incidence of adverse events in these age groups. Drug interactions occur with few other agents and are usually clinically significant only between lisinopril and either diuretics or lithium. Lisinopril is, thus, an effective treatment for elderly patients with hypertension, congestive heart failure and acute myocardial infarction and has shown promising benefits in patients with diabetic nephropathy.

Lisinopril. A review of its pharmacology and clinical efficacy in the early management of acute myocardial infarction

Following establishment of its efficacy in hypertension and congestive heart failure, the ACE inhibitor lisinopril has now been shown to reduce mortality and cardiovascular morbidity in patients with myocardial infarction when administered as early treatment. The ability of lisinopril to attenuate the detrimental effects of left ventricular remodelling is a key mechanism; however, additional cardioprotective and vasculoprotective actions are postulated to play a role in mediating the early benefit. The GISSI-3 trial in > 19 000 patients has demonstrated that, when given orally within 24 hours of symptom onset and continued for 6 weeks, lisinopril (with or without nitrates) produces measurable survival benefits within 1 to 2 days of starting treatment. Compared with no lisinopril treatment, reductions of 11% in risk of mortality and 7.7% in a combined end-point (death plus severe left ventricular dysfunction) were evident at 6 weeks. Advantages were apparent in all types of patients. Thus, those at high risk-women, the elderly, patients with diabetes mellitus and those with anterior infarct and/or Killip class > 1 -also benefited. These gains in combined end-point events persisted in the longer term, despite treatment withdrawal after 6 weeks in most patients. At 6 months, the incidence rate for the combined end-point remained lower than with control (a 6.2% reduction). The GISSI-3 results concur with those from recent large investigations (ISIS-4, CCS-1, SMILE) of other ACE inhibitors as early management in myocardial infarction. However, the results of the CONSENSUS II trial (using intravenous enalaprilat then oral enalapril) were unfavourable in some patients. These findings, together with the development of persistent hypotension and, to a lesser extent, renal dysfunction among patients in the GISSI-3 trial, have prompted considerable debate over optimum treatment strategies. Present opinion generally holds that therapy with lisinopril or other ACE inhibitors shown to be beneficial may be started within 24 hours in haemodynamically stable patients with no other contraindications; current labelling in the US and other countries reflects this position. There is virtually unanimous agreement that such therapy is indicated in high-risk patients, particularly those with left ventricular dysfunction. The choice of ACE inhibitor appears less important than the decision to treat; it seems likely that these benefits are a class effect. Lisinopril has a tolerability profile resembling that of other ACE inhibitors, can be given once daily and may be less costly than other members of its class. However, present cost analyses are flawed and this latter points remains to be proven in formal cost-effectiveness analyses. In conclusion, early treatment with lisinopril (within 24 hours of symptom onset) for 6 weeks improves survival and reduces cardiovascular morbidity in patients with myocardial infarction, and confers ongoing benefit after drug withdrawal. While patients with symptoms of left ventricular dysfunction are prime candidates for treatment, all those who are haemodynamically stable with no other contraindications are also eligible to receive therapy. Lisinopril and other ACE inhibitors shown to be beneficial should therefore be considered an integral part of the early management of myocardial infarction in suitable patients.

ACE inhibitors. Differential use in elderly patients with hypertension

High blood pressure (BP) in the elderly must not be ignored as a normal consequence of aging. The criteria for the diagnosis of hypertension and the necessity to treat it are the same in elderly and younger patients. The aim of treatment of elderly hypertensive patients is to decrease BP safely and to reduce risk factors associated with cerebrovascular, cardiovascular and renal morbidity and mortality. The treatment of elderly hypertensive patients should be adjusted according to the needs of the individual, based upon age, race, severity of hypertension, co-existing medical problems, other cardiovascular risk factors, target-organ damage, risk-benefit considerations and costs. In addition to the elevated BP, other cardiovascular risk factors include smoking, glucose intolerance, hyperinsulinaemia, dyslipidaemia, hypercreatininaemia, peripheral vascular disease, left ventricular hypertrophy, and microalbuminuria (or albuminuria). Thus, the choice of initial antihypertensive therapy in elderly hypertensive patients should be based not only on the expected response, but also on the effects of therapy on lipid, potassium, glucose and uric acid levels, and left ventricular anatomy and function. Co-existing medical conditions (such as asthma, diabetes mellitus, heart failure, renal failure, gout, coronary artery disease, hyperlipidaemia and peripheral vascular disease) are major determinants for the selection of antihypertensive medications. With previous therapies (diuretics, beta-blockers, etc.), good BP control in the elderly was associated with clear and statistically significant reductions in stroke-related morbidity and mortality, but the overall effects on cardiovascular and renal complications of hypertension was either more variable or less obvious. Angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are not only efficacious antihypertensive agents in the elderly, but also appear promising in counteracting some of the cardiovascular and renal consequences of hypertension. They are well tolerated and have a relatively low incidence of adverse effects. ACE inhibitors possess ancillary characteristics that are potentially beneficial for many elderly patients, including reduction of left ventricular mass, lack of metabolic and lipid disturbances, no adverse CNS effects, no risk of induction of heart failure, and a low risk of orthostatic hypotension. Since ACE inhibitors may improve perfusion to the heart, kidney and brain, they are well worth considering for the treatment of elderly patients with hypertensive target organ damage, especially in patients with heart failure, and diabetic patients with early nephropathy.

Pharmacokinetic changes in patients with oedema

The pharmacokinetics of furosemide (frusemide) in patients with oedema have been relatively well studied, but in many studies it is unclear whether the disease or the oedema per se has the major effect. The rate of absorption of oral furosemide in patients with oedema was decreased, but total bioavailability was almost unchanged. The peak serum concentration (Cmax) and time taken to achieve Cmax were either decreased or unchanged. Binding of furosemide to plasma proteins is lower in patients with congestive heart failure (CHF), decompensated liver cirrhosis (DLC) and nephrotic syndrome, probably as a result of hypoalbuminaemia. The elimination half-life (t1/2) can be unchanged (CHF, DLC) or prolonged (chronic renal failure: CRF). Plasma and renal clearance are reduced in patients with CRF and nephrotic syndrome, but are almost unchanged in CHF and DLC. Disease-induced disorders are mainly responsible for the alterations of furosemide pharmacokinetics in oedematous conditions, while the influence of oedema per se is probably not clinically relevant. The pharmacokinetics of digoxin have been studied in a small number of studies only. In patients with CHF, considerable interindividual differences have been found. Because digoxin has a narrow therapeutic window, this drug should be administered cautiously to oedematous patients. Theophylline has higher bioavailability in patients with oedema, with a significantly higher Cmax in patients with hepatic cirrhosis and CHF than in healthy volunteers (29 and 22%, respectively). Furthermore, clearance decreases and t1/2 increases in these patients. Angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors are often administered as prodrugs, and their pharmacokinetic profile could be influenced by the diseases that accompany oedematous states. However, the effect of oedema is difficult to discriminate from that of the disease. Individual ACE inhibitors are affected differently, but importantly the dosage of perindopril should be reduced in patients with CHF, while for most other ACE inhibitors the changes in pharmacokinetic parameters are clinically irrelevant. In conclusion, studies on pharmacokinetic changes in oedema are limited. Besides affecting absorption (after oral administration) and conversion of the prodrug to the active form, probably as a result of the associated disease, oedema has not been proven to cause any clinically relevant changes in pharmacokinetic parameters for individual drugs. However, further studies of this aspect of pharmacokinetics are needed.

Survival after myocardial infarction in the rat. Role of tissue angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibition

BACKGROUND

Chronic treatment with high doses of angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors prolongs survival after myocardial infarction. Since the plasma renin-angiotensin system (RAS) is not consistently activated in the chronic phase after myocardial infarction, the beneficial effects of ACE inhibition have been attributed, in part, to inhibition of an activated tissue RAS. However, a relation between tissue ACE inhibition and long-term efficacy (ie, concerning left ventricular [LV] hypertrophy and survival) has not been established. The present study was designed to evaluate the impact of low-dose ACE inhibition (predominant inhibition of plasma ACE) and high-dose ACE inhibition associated with substantial tissue ACE inhibition) on reversal of LV hypertrophy and 1-year mortality after myocardial infarction in the rat.

METHODS AND RESULTS

Infarcted rats were randomized to placebo, low-dose lisinopril, or high-dose lisinopril (each, n = 80) and compared with sham-operated animals (n = 40). In a separate group of animals, tissue ACE activity was determined after 6 weeks of therapy, demonstrating that both regimens were effective with regard to both plasma and pulmonary ACE inhibition; however, only high-dose lisinopril inhibited renal ACE. Neither dose affected LV ACE activity and ACE mRNA levels as determined by competitive polymerase chain reaction, whereas LV ANF mRNA levels were significantly reduced by high-dose lisinopril. High-dose lisinopril reduced arterial blood pressure and normalized right ventricular and LV weight and resulted in a substantial reduction of 1-year mortality, whereas the low dose did not (1 year mortality: placebo, 56.3%; low dose, 53.3%; high dose, 22.9%, P < .0001 versus low dose and versus placebo).

CONCLUSIONS

Hemodynamically effective ACE inhibition is required for reduction of LV hypertrophy and long-term mortality after myocardial infarction in the rat. Sustained inhibition of renal ACE during long-term therapy may contribute to the beneficial effect of high-dose lisinopril. Low-dose lisinopril, although exerting sustained inhibition of the plasma ACE, does not improve survival after myocardial infarction.

Perindopril. A review of its pharmacokinetics and clinical pharmacology

Perindopril is an orally active, non-thiol angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor, which in doses of 4 to 8mg is effective in the control of essential hypertension. As monotherapy it is as effective as once-daily atenolol and possibly more effective than twice-daily captopril. A synergistic response has been noted when perindopril is combined with a thiazide diuretic. Maximal pharmacodynamic effects (ACE inhibition, increase in plasma renin activity and angiotensin I, reduction in aldosterone and angiotensin II and blood pressure) are seen 4 to 6 hours after dosing, with substantial effects still present at 24 hours. Perindopril is a prodrug which requires de-esterification to perindoprilat for useful ACE inhibition. Maximal plasma perindoprilat concentrations are reached 2 to 6 hours after oral administration of perindopril, and 70% of the active metabolite is cleared by the kidneys. The other major metabolite of perindopril is an inactive glucuronide. Ageing is associated with increased serum perindoprilat concentrations, which are probably caused by a combination of enhanced conversion to the active metabolite and diminished renal clearance. Compensated cirrhosis does not appear to have an independent effect. There is little published experience of the use of perindopril in patients with cardiac failure or other cardiac disease, but preliminary evidence would support the general value of this class of agent as adjunctive therapy.