Effects of fesoterodine on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of warfarin in healthy volunteers

Lesinurad: Evaluation of Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Interactions With Warfarin in Healthy Volunteers

Lesinurad is a selective uric acid reabsorption inhibitor approved for use in combination with xanthine oxidase inhibitors for the treatment of hyperuricemia associated with gout. In vitro, lesinurad was shown to be a weak inhibitor of cytochrome P450 (CYP)2C9 and a weak inducer of CYP3A4. Warfarin is a widely prescribed oral coumarin-based anticoagulant commonly prescribed in gout patients. In an open-label clinical study in healthy adult male subjects, the effects of multiple daily doses of 400 mg lesinurad on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of a single dose of 25 mg warfarin (racemic mixture of R- and S- enantiomers) were evaluated. Lesinurad had no effect on the absorption or the exposure (area under the concentration-time curve [AUC] and peak concentration) of the more active S-warfarin enantiomer. A slight reduction (19%) in overall plasma exposure (AUC) was observed for the R-warfarin enantiomer. Lesinurad had no meaningful clinical impact on anticoagulation activity as measured by prothrombin time, activated partial thromboplastin time, and international normalized ratio of prothrombin time and Factor VII clotting activity. Overall, the administration of warfarin in the presence of multiple-dose lesinurad was devoid of clinically significant drug-drug interaction.

Assessment of Pharmacokinetic Interactions Between Obeticholic Acid and Caffeine, Midazolam, Warfarin, Dextromethorphan, Omeprazole, Rosuvastatin, and Digoxin in Phase 1 Studies in Healthy Subjects

Introduction

Obeticholic acid (OCA), a potent and selective farnesoid X receptor agonist, is indicated for the treatment of primary biliary cholangitis (PBC). We investigated the potential drug–drug interaction effect of OCA on metabolic CYP450 enzymes and drug transporters.

Methods

Five phase 1 single-center, open-label, fixed-sequence, inpatient studies were conducted in healthy adult subjects to evaluate the effect of oral daily doses of 10 or 25 mg OCA on single-dose plasma pharmacokinetics of specific probe substrates for enzymes CYP1A2 (caffeine, R-warfarin), CYP3A (midazolam, R-warfarin), CYP2C9 (S-warfarin), CYP2D6 (dextromethorphan), CYP2C19 (omeprazole), and drug transporters, BCRP/OATP1B1/OATP1B3 (rosuvastatin), and P-gp (digoxin).

Results

OCA showed no substantial suppression/inhibition of S-warfarin, digoxin, and dextromethorphan and weak interactions with caffeine, omeprazole, rosuvastatin, and midazolam. The maximal pharmacodynamic responses (E_max) to warfarin-based INR, PT, and aPTT were reduced by 11%, 11%, and 1%, respectively, for the 10-mg dose group and by 7%, 7% and 0%, respectively, for the 25-mg dose group. Overall, drugs dosed in combination with OCA were well tolerated, and most adverse events were mild in severity. No clinically important trends were noted in laboratory evaluations, vital signs, or 12-lead ECGs.

Conclusion

In these studies, OCA showed weak to no suppression/inhibition of metabolic enzymes and drug transporters at the highest recommended therapeutic dose in patients with PBC. On the basis on these analyses, monitoring and maintenance of target INR range are required during coadministration of OCA with drugs that are metabolized by CYP1A2 (R-warfarin).

Funding

Intercept Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s12325-017-0601-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions of aspirin with warfarin in beagle dogs

1. Warfarin and aspirin are widely used in a wide spectrum of thromboembolic and atherothrombotic diseases. Despite the potential efficacy of warfarin-aspirin therapy, the safety and side effect of combined therapy remains unclear. 2. The aim of this study was to investigate the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions between warfarin and aspirin in beagles after single and multiple doses. 3. Coadministration of aspirin had no significant effects on the area under the plasma concentration time curve (AUC(0-t)) and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) of R- and S-warfarin after a single dose of warfarin, but significantly increase the AUC(0-t) and Cmax and dramatically decrease the clearance (CL) of R- and S-warfarin after multiple dose of warfarin. Accordingly, there was a slight increase in the AUEC(0-t) and Emax of activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT), prothrombin time (PT) and international normalized ratio (INR) after multiple dose of warfarin. 4. Coadministration of warfarin had no markedly effects on the AUC(0-t) and Cmax of aspirin and its metabolite salicylic acid after single or multiple dose of aspirin. Meanwhile, the AUEC(0-t) and Emax of inhibition of platelet aggregation (IPA) were not significantly affected by warfarin. 5. Our animal study indicated that coadministration of aspirin with warfarin can cause significant pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic drug-drug interactions in beagles. However, more studies are urgently needed to assess related information of warfarin-aspirin drug interactions in healthy volunteers or patients.

Fesoterodine clinical efficacy and safety for the treatment of overactive bladder in relation to patient profiles: a systematic review

OBJECTIVE

To summarize published evidence on the pharmacology, efficacy, and safety of fesoterodine for the treatment of overactive bladder (OAB) symptoms in relation to patient clinical and demographic profiles.

METHODS

A systematic review of published articles on fesoterodine was conducted via a PubMed search. Articles were identified using the search term fesoterodine, with limits of human species and abstract available. Review and meta-analysis articles, validation studies, articles focused on treatment compliance/adherence, meeting abstracts, and articles not focused on oral fesoterodine administration in human subjects were excluded. Data from retained articles were summarized descriptively.

RESULTS

Of 137 articles identified, 61 (15 articles on the pharmacology and 46 articles on the efficacy and/or safety of fesoterodine) met inclusion criteria. Superiority trials demonstrated the additional efficacy of fesoterodine 8 mg versus fesoterodine 4 mg and tolterodine extended release 4 mg in treating OAB. Prospective trials in specific patient populations indicated beneficial effects of fesoterodine in elderly patients, vulnerable elderly patients, patients dissatisfied with or with a suboptimal response to previous antimuscarinic therapy, patients with urge urinary incontinence (UUI) or nocturnal urgency, and men with persistent LUTS during alpha-blocker treatment. With two effective doses, the fesoterodine dose can be adjusted to achieve optimal efficacy and tolerability in individual patients. The most common adverse events during fesoterodine treatment are dry mouth and constipation.

CONCLUSIONS

Extensive evidence demonstrates the efficacy and safety of fesoterodine in relieving OAB symptoms, including urgency, urinary frequency, UUI, and nocturnal urgency, in patients with various clinical and demographic profiles. Trial results provide valuable information on fesoterodine treatment in specific patient populations, including both elderly and vulnerable elderly patients. Potential limitations of this review are that only English language articles in PubMed were searched and included.

Lack of clinical pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions between warfarin and the antisense oligonucleotide mipomersen

Mipomersen is a second-generation antisense oligonucleotide indicated as an adjunct therapy for homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia (HoFH). Warfarin is commonly prescribed for a variety of cardiac disorders in homozygous familial hypercholesterolemia population, and concurrent use of warfarin and mipomersen is likely. This open-label, single-sequence 2-period phase 1 study in healthy subjects evaluated the potential drug-drug interactions between mipomersen and warfarin. The subjects received a single oral 25 mg dose of warfarin alone on day 1, and after a 7-day washout period, received 200 mg mipomersen alone subcutaneously every other day on days 8-12, and received both concurrently on day 14. Coadministration of mipomersen did not change the pharmacodynamics (international normalized ratio, prothrombin time, and activated partial thromboplastin time) and pharmacokinetics (PK) of warfarin. There were no clinically significant changes in the PK of mipomersen with concurrent administration of warfarin. There were no events indicative of an increase in bleeding tendency when warfarin was coadministered with mipomersen, and the adverse event profile of mipomersen did not appear to be altered in combination with warfarin, as compared with that of the respective reference treatment. The combination of these 2 medications appeared to be safe and well tolerated. These results suggest that the dosage adjustment of warfarin or mipomersen is not expected to be necessary with coadministration.

Lack of the effect of lobeglitazone, a peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-γ agonist, on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of warfarin

Aims

Lobeglitazone has been developed for the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus. This study was conducted to evaluate potential drug–drug interactions between lobeglitazone and warfarin, an anticoagulant with a narrow therapeutic index.

Methods

In this open-label, three-treatment, crossover study, 24 healthy male subjects were administered lobeglitazone (0.5 mg) for 1–12 days with warfarin (25 mg) on day 5 in one period. After a washout interval, subjects were administered warfarin (25 mg) alone in the other period. Pharmacokinetics of R- and S-warfarin and lobeglitazone, as well as pharmacodynamics of warfarin, as measured by international normalized ratio (INR) and factor VII activity, were assessed.

Results

The geometric mean ratios (GMRs) and 90% confidence intervals (CIs) for area under the curve from time zero to the time of the last quantifiable concentration (AUC_last) for warfarin + lobeglitazone: warfarin alone were 1.0076 (90% CI: 0.9771, 1.0391) for R-warfarin and 0.9880 (90% CI: 0.9537, 1.0235) for S-warfarin. The maximum observed plasma concentration (C_max) values were 1.0167 (90% CI: 0.9507, 1.0872) for R-warfarin and 1.0028 (90% CI: 0.9518, 1.0992) for S-warfarin, both of which were contained in the interval 0.80–1.25. Lobeglitazone had no effect on the area under the effect–time curve from time 0 to 168 hours (AUEC) of INR and factor VII activity, as demonstrated by the GMRs of 1.0091 (90% CI: 0.9872, 1.0314) and 0.9355 (90% CI: 0.9028, 0.9695), respectively. In addition, the pharmacokinetics of lobeglitazone was also unaffected by warfarin.

Conclusion

Concomitant administration of lobeglitazone and warfarin was well tolerated. Lobeglitazone had no meaningful effect on the pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics of warfarin. These findings indicate that lobeglitazone and warfarin can be coadministered without dosage adjustments for either drug.

Absence of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions between almorexant and warfarin in healthy subjects

Background and Objective

Almorexant is the first representative of the new class of orexin receptor antagonists, which could become a new treatment option for insomnia. The present study investigated the potential interaction between almorexant and warfarin.

Methods

In this open-label, two-way crossover, drug–drug interaction study, healthy male subjects received, in a randomized fashion, almorexant 200 mg once daily for 10 days and a single dose of 25 mg warfarin co-administered on day 5 (treatment A) and a single dose of 25 mg warfarin on day 1 (treatment B). Serial blood samples for warfarin pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics were drawn during both treatments.

Results

Of the 14 enrolled subjects, one withdrew due to an adverse event and 13 completed the study. Almorexant had no effect on the pharmacokinetics of warfarin. The geometric mean ratios (90 % confidence interval) for the area under the plasma concentration–time curve to infinity (AUC_0–∞) of S- and R-warfarin were 0.99 (0.89, 1.09) and 1.05 (0.95, 1.16), respectively, and for the maximum plasma concentration (C_max) were 0.99 (0.86, 1.14) and 1.00 (0.88, 1.13), respectively. The main pharmacodynamic variable was the AUC for the international normalized ratio (AUC_INR). Almorexant had no effect on this variable as demonstrated by a geometric mean ratio of 0.99 (0.82, 1.19). Secondary pharmacodynamic variables including maximum effect (E_max), the time to the maximum INR, and factor VII plasma concentrations were also not affected by almorexant.

Conclusion

No dose adjustment of warfarin is necessary when concomitantly administered with almorexant.

Evaluation of fesoterodine fumarate for the treatment of an overactive bladder

INTRODUCTION

Fesoterodine fumarate is an approved drug for overactive bladder. The aim of this study is to review the preclinical and most up to date clinical data on fesoterodine, with a special emphasis on its unique pharmacokinetic features and its implications on safety and tolerability in various patient populations.

AREAS COVERED

In this review, the authors extensively reviewed available literature via PubMed search regarding fesoterodine, covering its mechanism of action, pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics, clinical efficacy, safety, and tolerability.

EXPERT OPINION

Fesoterodine is an anti-muscarinic agent with a unique pharmacokinetic profile. It is a prodrug that is rapidly metabolized to its active form by nonspecific plasma esterases. Its metabolism is independent of the cytochrome P450 enzyme system. This along with its dual excretion pathways and minimal central nervous system penetration leads to less variability in drug exposure and allowance of administration in those with mild to moderate renal and hepatic insufficiency and in the geriatric population.

Self-nanoemulsifying drug delivery system of lutein: physicochemical properties and effect on bioavailability of warfarin

Objective of present study was to prepare and characterize self-nanoemulsifying drug delivery system (SNEDDS) of lutein and to evaluate its effect on bioavailability of warfarin. The SNEDDS was prepared using an oil, a surfactant, and co-surfactants with optimal composition based on pseudo-ternary phase diagram. Effect of the SNEDDS on the bioavailability of warfarin was performed using Sprague Dawley rats. Lutein was successfully formulated as SNEDDS for immediate self-emulsification and dissolution by using combination of Peceol as oil, Labrasol as surfactant, and Transcutol-HP or Lutrol-E400 as co-surfactant. Almost complete dissolution was achieved after 15 min while lutein was not detectable from the lutein powder or intra-capsule content of a commercial formulation. SNEDDS formulation of lutein affected bioavailability of warfarin, showing about 10% increase in C_max and AUC of the drug in rats while lutein as non-SNEDDS did not alter these parameters. Although exact mechanism is not yet elucidated, it appears that surfactant and co-surfactant used for SNEDDS formulation caused disturbance in the anatomy of small intestinal microvilli, leading to permeability change of the mucosal membrane. Based on this finding, it is suggested that drugs with narrow therapeutic range such as warfarin be administered with caution to avoid undesirable drug interaction due to large amount of surfactants contained in SNEDDS.

Cardiovascular effects of antimuscarinic agents in overactive bladder

INTRODUCTION

The potential impact of antimuscarinics (AMs) on cardiac function is a major concern in the treatment of overactive bladder (OAB) patients, especially in older ones who are likely to present cardiovascular (CV) comorbidities and other risk factors that may predispose them to the adverse cardiac effects of this therapy.

AREAS COVERED

This article aims to review the literature on the impact on the CV system of AMs used in the treatment of OAB, giving a comprehensive explanation of the pathogenetic mechanisms of AMs' effects on CV system and the impact of each AM drug on cardiac function.

EXPERT OPINION

Although the CV safety of AM drugs seems to be good, evidence provided in this manuscript does not allow to exclude an increase in HR, QT prolongation or an increase in the CV risk due to drug-drug interactions in OAB patients who are usually elderly and have comorbidities. Clinical and electrocardiographic monitoring may be necessary throughout the administration period in selected populations such as patients aged > 80 years, those with coronary heart disease or congestive heart failure. Further studies are needed to understand whether the most recently developed AM drugs, such as imidafenacin, are safer than the old ones.

Lack of effect of lacosamide on the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles of warfarin

PURPOSE

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of the antiepileptic drug lacosamide on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the anticoagulant warfarin.

METHODS

In this open-label, two-treatment crossover study, 16 healthy adult male volunteers were randomized to receive a single 25-mg dose of warfarin alone in one period and lacosamide 200 mg twice daily on days 1-9 with a single 25 mg dose of warfarin coadministered on day 3 in the other period. There was a 2-week washout between treatments. Pharmacokinetic end points were area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC(0,last) and AUC(0,∞) ) and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax ) for S- and R-warfarin. Pharmacodynamic end points were area under the international normalized ratio (INR)-time curve (AUCINR ), maximum INR (INRmax ), maximum prothrombin time (PTmax ) and area under the PT-time curve (AUCPT ).

KEY FINDINGS

Following warfarin and lacosamide coadministration, Cmax and AUC of S- and R-warfarin, as well as peak value and AUC of PT and INR, were equivalent to those after warfarin alone. In particular, the AUC(0,∞) ratio (90% confidence interval) for coadministration of warfarin and lacosamide versus warfarin alone was 0.97 (0.94-1.00) for S-warfarin and 1.05 (1.02-1.09) for R-warfarin, and the AUCINR ratio was 1.04 (1.01-1.06). All participants completed the study.

SIGNIFICANCE

Coadministration of lacosamide 400 mg/day did not alter the pharmacokinetics of warfarin 25 mg or the anticoagulation level. These results suggest that there is no need for dose adjustment of warfarin when coadministered with lacosamide.

Overactive bladder, differential diagnosis, and clinical utility of fesoterodine

Overactive bladder is a symptom syndrome with urgency, frequency and, in many cases, nocturia. Urge incontinence is not present in all. There is no direct correlation with detrusor overactivity, an objective finding during urodynamic testing where involuntary contractions can be noticed. In the pathophysiology, much more attention has been given to the afferent/sensory arm of the micturition reflex in the last decade. Anatomical and infectious causes have to be diagnosed or ruled out. Diagnosis of overactive bladder is made mostly by history-taking, but other tests can be necessary in specific patients. Treatment consists of behavioral measures, a good explanation of the condition, training, and pelvic floor physiotherapy. Drugs are often used. Until recently, antimuscarinic drugs have been the mainstay of pharmacological therapy. Fesoterodine is a newer antimuscarinic agent which is more pharmacodynamically stable then tolterodine. Fesoterodine has been extensively researched using different dosages and compared with placebo and tolterodine, in different age groups, and under different conditions. Fesoterodine is superior to placebo and to tolterodine in the short term and long term. Its safety is very acceptable.