Biomedical subjects

Terrence F Blaschke

Publications and source records attributed to Terrence F Blaschke.

6 recordsLinked to original sources

PubMed2006

Improving data reliability using a non-compliance detection method versus using pharmacokinetic criteria.

Data from clinical trials present numerous problems for the data analyst. These include non-compliance with the prescribed dosing regimen and inaccurate recollection of dosing history by patients as well as mistakes in recording data. Several methods have been proposed to address these issues. One such technique by Lu et al. (Selecting reliable pharmacokinetic data for explanatory analyses of clinical trials in the presence of possible noncompliance. J. Pharmacokinet. Pharmacodyn. 28:343-362 (2001)) identifies occasions in pharmacokinetic (PK) data where the preceding dosing history is likely to be unreliable. We used this method, implemented in the software program NONMEM (beta) VI, to clean a dataset containing indinavir (IDV) plasma concentrations from HIV-1 infected patients. The data was also cleaned by inspection in Microsoft Excel using clinical PK criteria. A one-compartment model with first order absorption and elimination was fit to both sets of cleaned data. IDV population PK parameters obtained from these analyses were similar to those reported previously. It is established that IDV nephrotoxicity is related to high IDV exposure. However, no relationships were found between any PK parameters and nephrotoxicity in the "compliance cleaned" dataset. In the "PK cleaned" dataset, the oral clearance and apparent volume were lower by 9.1% and 6.6%, respectively in patients with any type of nephrotoxicity and the maximum IDV concentration (C(max)) was 12.1% higher. In patients suffering from nephrolithiasis in particular, C(max) was 15.5% higher. Accordingly, the use of the non-compliance detection method did not improve the reliability of our dataset over the usual method of applying clinical criteria. In fact, analyses on the compliance-cleaned dataset missed some exposure-toxicity relationships. Thus, automated methods must be tested rigorously with 'real life' datasets, used with caution, and always in conjunction with clinical reasoning to avoid overlooking a signal in noisy data.

Adult↗

PubMed2004

Sex differences in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics.

The importance of reviewing and studying sex-based differences in pharmacologic parameters is demonstrated by the increasing data on gender variation in drug efficacy and toxicity profiles. Sex-based differences in the four major factors that contribute to interindividual pharmacokinetic variability--bioavailability, distribution, metabolism, and elimination--are theorized to stem from variations between men and women in factors such as body weight, plasma volume, gastric emptying time, plasma protein levels, cytochrome P450 activity, drug transporter function, and excretion activity. Sex-determined variations in pharmacodynamics have traditionally been more difficult to study, but a number of recent studies have explored these differences. This review examines the biologic basis of differences in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics between the sexes and summarizes studies that have addressed these differences. As an example, sex-based variation in the efficacy and toxicity of antiretroviral therapy in human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients is explored more thoroughly to illustrate some of the factors underlying sex-based differences in drug therapy.

Anti-Retroviral Agents↗

PubMed2003

Effect of simultaneous versus staggered dosing on pharmacokinetic interactions of protease inhibitors.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to determine whether pharmacokinetic interactions between the protease inhibitors saquinavir soft gel, nelfinavir, and ritonavir are affected by the timing of administration. STUDY DESIGN: We used an open-label, 6-period, incomplete Latin square crossover study in 18 human immunodeficiency virus-negative subjects. Each received single oral doses of 2 of the 3 protease inhibitors during each of 6 periods. Single doses were given either simultaneously or separated by 4 hours. The order of the periods was balanced, and periods were separated by 2 days. We measured protease inhibitor concentrations over a 24-hour period by HPLC and estimated pharmacokinetic parameters by noncompartmental methods. RESULTS: Median saquinavir area under the curve (AUC) increased by 62-fold when ritonavir was coadministered, by 50-fold when ritonavir was given 4 hours earlier, and by 16-fold when saquinavir preceded ritonavir by 4 hours. Saquinavir AUC increased by 7-fold when nelfinavir was coadministered. Nelfinavir AUC increased by 2.5-fold with coadministration of ritonavir and by 1.8- and 2.1-fold when ritonavir was administered before nelfinavir and after nelfinavir, respectively. Ritonavir AUCs were unaffected by coadministration of the other drugs. The effect of ritonavir on the kinetics of saquinavir persisted for at least 48 hours after a single dose of ritonavir, suggesting the possibility of metabolic intermediates that form inhibitory complexes. CONCLUSION: Except for saquinavir followed by ritonavir, there is little difference in protease inhibitor exposure for simultaneous or staggered doses. The persistent effect of ritonavir suggests the possibility that lower doses and longer dosing intervals might be effective when ritonavir is used to boost concentrations of other protease inhibitors.

Adult↗

PubMed2003

Protein binding in antiretroviral therapies.

There is marked variability in the extent to which the three classes of antiretroviral (ARV) drugs bind to plasma proteins (<5 to >99%). Protease inhibitors (PIs), with the exception of indinavir, are more than 90% protein bound, mainly to alpha1-acid glycoprotein (AAG). Efavirenz, a nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitor (NNRTI), is more than 99% bound, mainly to albumin. Nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs) are not highly protein bound. The pharmacological activity of ARV drugs is dependent on unbound drug entering cells that harbor the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). There has been concern that changes in protein binding could impact on antiviral activity and management. However, for PIs and NNRTIs, and for many drugs given orally, altered plasma binding would not be expected to influence the average exposure to unbound (active) drug after chronic oral dosing. Nevertheless, there will be a change in the relationship between total and unbound concentrations that will be important if, as part of therapeutic drug monitoring, the total rather than the unbound drug is measured. Measuring drug concentrations that are needed to inhibit different HIV strains (wild type and drug resistant) in vitro could also cause confusion because most methods employ bovine serum in the assay medium, and unbound concentrations are not directly measured. Estimating unbound drug concentrations in human plasma and in incubation media can be highly method dependent and thus may affect the calculated IC50 (the concentration of drug that results in 50% inhibition of viral replication). Because inhibitory quotients (IQs = C(trough)/IC50) are becoming part of pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) analyses of clinical trial data, the strengths and weaknesses of the methods used for the determination of unbound drug concentration in plasma and in vitro systems--ultracentrifugation, ultrafiltration, and equilibrium dialysis--need to be understood. Consensus on standard procedures must be reached. In June 2002, a panel of experts assembled by the Forum for Collaborative HIV Research met in Washington, DC, to review the basic principles of protein binding of ARV drugs, and to discuss the impact that changes in plasma protein binding may have on the PKs and activity of ARV drugs as well as on therapeutic drug monitoring. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the following topics: (1) basic principles of protein binding and how changes in binding can impact on drug PKs and drug exposure in vivo, (2) variability in plasma protein binding among patients taking ARV drugs, (3) the impact of HIV infection and concomitant diseases on the extent of plasma protein binding, (4) the likelihood of clinically relevant drug interactions at the level of plasma protein binding, (5) the evidence that measuring unbound concentrations of ARV drugs in the plasma of patients gives more meaningful information than total drug concentration and, therefore, should be considered in routine therapeutic drug monitoring of ARV agents, (6) optimal method(s) for measuring the unbound concentration of drugs in vitro (for IC50 determination) and in vivo, and (7) future studies that need to be considered to fully understand the importance of plasma protein binding in therapeutic drug monitoring. This report summarizes the topics discussed at this meeting. It guides the reader through the discussions that allowed the panel to formulate a series of statements regarding the significance of plasma protein binding of ARV drugs when studied in vitro and in vivo. The roundtable participants also identified research priorities that are important for understanding the sources of inter- and intraindividual variability in protein binding in patients. These include obtaining data on unbound as well as on total concentrations in PK studies; looking at variants of AAG and whether they differ in binding affinity; and emphasizing the importance of developing a standard procedure for drug susceptibility assays used to determine IC50 values.

Animals↗

PubMed2002

Determination of nelfinavir free drug concentrations in plasma by equilibrium dialysis and liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry: important factors for method optimization.

A method was developed and validated for measuring the free fraction of nelfinavir in plasma employing equilibrium dialysis for the separation of free (unbound) drug and liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry for quantitation. Nelfinavir, widely used to treat HIV infection, is a highly bound HIV protease inhibitor with the fraction bound in plasma being greater than 98%. Thus variations in the free fraction may be clinically important when interpreting total drug concentrations. Optimization of the method was carried out considering the influence of sample matrix and physicochemical and absorptive properties of nelfinavir. Nelfinavir free fraction averaged 0.41 +/- 0.094, 0.43 +/- 0.087 and 0.41 +/- 0.063% at nelfinavir plasma concentrations of 1000, 2000 and 3000 ng/ml, respectively. Free nelfinavir concentrations were underestimated with this assay by approximately 25% because of unavoidable losses to adsorption. However, the adsorptive loss was reproducible and consistent across the concentration range of the assay. Within-day and between-day precisions ranged from 6.0 to 9.4% and 15.2 to 27.3%, respectively. The lower limit of quantitation of the unbound concentration of nelfinavir was 1.0 ng/ml, permitting analysis of samples with total concentrations of nelfinavir in plasma that are > or = 400 ng/ml. This developed method proves reproducible and sensitive and its application to patient plasma samples is also reported.

Adsorption↗

PubMed2002

Model-based analysis of the pharmacokinetic interactions between ritonavir, nelfinavir, and saquinavir after simultaneous and staggered oral administration.

Eighteen healthy human immunodeficiency virus-negative subjects participated in an open-label, six-period, incomplete Latin-square crossover pharmacokinetic study. Each subject received two of the three possible pair-wise combinations of single-dose oral ritonavir (R) (400 mg), nelfinavir (N) (750 mg), and saquinavir (S) (800 mg), each pair on three occasions (simultaneous or staggered administration), each occasion at least 2 days after the last. A model-based analysis reveals the following major drug interactions under the conditions of this study: 1). R given simultaneously with S decreases S hepatic intrinsic clearance almost 50-fold relative to that predicted for S given alone and increases its gut bioavailability 90% (but decreases its rate of absorption 40%) relative to when N is given simultaneously; 2). N given simultaneously with S decreases S hepatic intrinsic clearance 10-fold relative to that predicted for S given alone; and 3) R inhibits S hepatic intrinsic clearance even after R plasma levels have become undetectable (>48 h after dosing), implying that R, when used as a pharmacokinetic enhancer, can be dosed less frequently than might be predicted from the duration of detectable systemic concentrations.

Administration, Oral↗