Gary J. Muirhead

Sildenafil citrate and blood-pressure-lowering drugs: results of drug interaction studies with an organic nitrate and a calcium antagonist.

Sildenafil, a selective inhibitor of cyclic guanosine monophosphate (cGMP)-specific phosphodiesterase type 5 (PDE5), is a well-tolerated and highly effective treatment for erectile dysfunction. The mechanism of action of sildenafil depends on activation of the nitric oxide (NO)-cGMP pathway during sexual stimulation, which results in corpus cavernosal smooth muscle relaxation and penile erection. Endogenously derived NO is also involved in blood pressure regulation through its effect on basal vascular tone, which is mediated by cGMP levels. Organic nitrates and NO donors exert their therapeutic effects on blood pressure and vascular smooth muscle by the same mechanism as endogenous NO. Since both sildenafil and organic nitrates exert their pharmacologic effects via increases in cGMP concentrations, a double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study was undertaken to investigate the effects of sildenafil coadministered with glyceryl trinitrate on blood pressure and heart rate in healthy male subjects. The hemodynamic effects of sildenafil were also evaluated in a second placebo-controlled crossover study in men with hypertension who were taking the calcium antagonist amlodipine, which has a mechanism of action that does not involve the cGMP pathway. In the first crossover study, subjects were treated with oral sildenafil (25 mg, 3 times a day for 4 days) or placebo and then challenged on day 4 with a 40-minute, stepwise, intravenous infusion of glyceryl trinitrate (0.5 mg/mL in 5% dextrose at an initial infusion rate of 2.5 microg/min and doubling every 5 minutes to a maximum rate of 40 microg/min) 1 hour after taking sildenafil or placebo. On day 5, subjects received a sublingual glyceryl trinitrate tablet (500 microg) 1 hour after taking 25 mg of sildenafil or placebo. During sildenafil treatment, the subjects were significantly less tolerant of intravenously administered glyceryl trinitrate than during placebo treatment, based on the occurrence of a >25 mm Hg decrease in blood pressure or the incidence of symptomatic hypotension (p <0.01). When a sublingual glyceryl trinitrate tablet was administered on day 5, a 4-fold greater decrease in systolic blood pressure was observed for the subjects during the sildenafil treatment period than during the placebo treatment period. The changes in heart rate were negligible during both glyceryl trinitrate challenges. In conclusion, sildenafil potentiated the hypotensive effects of glyceryl trinitrate, an organic nitrate. Thus, sildenafil administration to patients who are using organic nitrates, either regularly and/or intermittently, in any form is contraindicated. In the second crossover study, men with hypertension, who were taking 5 or 10 mg/day of amlodipine, received a single oral dose of 100 mg sildenafil or placebo. Coadministration of sildenafil did not significantly affect the pharmacokinetics of amlodipine. In the 4 hours after dosing, differences in the mean maximum change from baseline in supine systolic and diastolic blood pressures between the sildenafil plus amlodipine and the placebo plus amlodipine treatment periods were -8 mm Hg and -7 mm Hg, respectively (p < or =0.002). The mean maximum supine heart rate increased 2.1 beats/min during sildenafil plus amlodipine treatment and decreased 1.5 beats/min during placebo plus amlodipine treatment (p <0.02). The adverse events in this study were predominantly mild or moderate and did not cause discontinuation of treatment. Adverse events considered to be related to sildenafil treatment included headache, nausea, and dyspepsia. In patients with hypertension who were taking amlodipine therapy, sildenafil produced additive, but not synergistic, reductions in blood pressure. The difference in the mean maximum change from baseline in blood pressure between sildenafil plus amlodipine and placebo plus amlodipine was comparable to the decrease in blood pressure reported for healthy men taking sildenafil alone. (ABSTRACT TRUNCATED)

Sildenafil citrate potentiates the hypotensive effects of nitric oxide donor drugs in male patients with stable angina.

OBJECTIVE We sought to study the effects of a single oral dose of sildenafil citrate (50 mg) on blood pressure (BP) in men taking the nitric oxide (NO) donor drugs isosorbide mononitrate (ISMN) or glyceryl trinitrate (GTN) for stable angina. BACKGROUND Sildenafil, a selective phosphodiesterase type 5 inhibitor, is an orally effective treatment for erectile dysfunction. The presence of phosphodiesterases in the vasculature suggests the possibility of an interaction between sildenafil and NO donor drugs. METHODS Two double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized, two-way crossover trials were undertaken. Sixteen male patients received oral ISMN (20 mg twice a day) for five to seven days before their dose of sildenafil or placebo and continued receiving ISMN daily until administration of the alternate drug seven days later. For the second study, 15 male patients received sublingual GTN (500 microg) 1 h after sildenafil or placebo on each of two study days, which were seven days apart. Sitting or standing BP was measured before and for 6 h after the administration of the study drug. RESULTS The effects of sildenafil plus ISMN on BP (standing mean maximum reductions from baseline in systolic/diastolic BP, -52/-29 mm Hg) were greater than the effects of placebo plus ISMN on BP (-25/-15 mm Hg; p < 0.001). Sildenafil plus GTN also resulted in greater sitting mean maximum reductions from baseline in systolic/diastolic BP (-36/-21 mm Hg) compared with placebo plus GTN (-26/-12 mm Hg; p < 0.01). CONCLUSIONS Coadministration of sildenafil with ISMN or GTN produced significantly greater reductions in BP than ISMN or GTN alone. Based on these data, sildenafil should not be administered to patients taking nitrates.

The karolinska cocktail for phenotyping of five human cytochrome P450 enzymes

Objectives: Our objectives were (1) to determine whether the drugs caffeine, losartan, omeprazole, debrisoquin (INN, debrisoquine), and quinine can be given simultaneously in low doses as a cocktail for the phenotyping of cytochrome P450 (CYP) 1A2, 2C9, 2C19, 2D6, and 3A4, respectively, and (2) to design an administration schedule to give as few sampling occasions as possible.

Assessment of the pharmacokinetics, safety and tolerability of maraviroc, a novel CCR5 antagonist, in healthy volunteers

AIMS To evaluate the pharmacokinetics, safety and tolerability of single and multiple oral doses of maraviroc in healthy volunteers. METHODS Three double-blind, placebo-controlled, dose-escalation studies with either single or multiple doses of maraviroc were conducted in healthy volunteers. Plasma and urine samples were collected to investigate the pharmacokinetics of maraviroc and evaluate any changes with respect to dose and duration/frequency of dosing. Safety and toleration of maraviroc were also assessed. RESULTS Maraviroc is rapidly absorbed following oral administration, and plasma T(max) is achieved within 0.5-4.0 h postdose. Steady-state plasma concentrations are achieved after 7 consecutive days of dosing. Although the pharmacokinetics of maraviroc is nonproportional over the dose range studied (3-1200 mg), the degree of nonproportionality is small at clinically relevant doses. Renal clearance is approximately 10-12 l h(-1) and appears unaffected by increasing maraviroc doses. Maraviroc does not significantly modulate the activity of CYP2D6 or CYP3A4 at clinically relevant doses. There were no serious adverse events in any of these studies, and doses up to 900 mg were generally well tolerated, with postural hypotension being the dose-limiting event. There was no pattern or dose relationship observed with maraviroc with regard to laboratory abnormalities, including hepatic transaminases. No clinically significant increases in QTc were noted at clinically relevant doses. CONCLUSIONS Maraviroc is absorbed into the systemic circulation and reaches steady state by day 7 of multiple dosing. It does not significantly influence the activity of major drug-metabolizing enzymes and is well tolerated at clinically relevant doses, with most adverse events being mild or moderate.

Man Versus Machine: Is There an Optimal Method for QT Measurements in Thorough QT Studies?

Electrocardiographic (ECG) recordings from 3 placebo‐controlled thorough QT healthy volunteer studies were used to compare QT intervals obtained by manual measurement with those generated by ECG machines. The effect of the positive control was compared to placebo at each time point for data obtained from both sources. Both manual and automated techniques consistently demonstrated statistically significant prolongation of QTcF with the positive controls. The proportion of outlier values was small for both methods. The pairwise comparison between manual and automated uncorrected QT intervals demonstrated clear differences, with intervals derived from one machine on average 16 to 19 milliseconds shorter and from the other 7 milliseconds longer than the manually measured QT intervals, but these differences disappeared when analyzing QT change from baseline. Both manual and automated, commercially available QT algorithms demonstrated small statistically significant effects on the QTc interval induced by positive controls.

Effects of CYP3A4 inhibitors on the pharmacokinetics of maraviroc in healthy volunteers

AIMS To evaluate the influence of cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 inhibitors on the clinical pharmacokinetics of maraviroc, a novel CCR5 antagonist. METHODS Four open-label, randomized, placebo-controlled studies were conducted in healthy subjects to assess the effect of separate and distinct combinations of CYP3A4 inhibitors on the steady-state pharmacokinetics of maraviroc. Study 1 was a two-way crossover study investigating the influence of saquinavir (SQV; 1200 mg t.i.d.) and ketoconazole (400 mg q.d.) on the pharmacokinetics of maraviroc (100 mg b.i.d.). All subjects received maraviroc for 7 days in both study periods. Cohort 1 subjects also received SQV or placebo and cohort 2 subjects also received ketoconazole or placebo. Study 2 was a parallel-group study including four treatment groups investigating the effects of ritonavir-boosted lopinavir (LPV/r; 400 mg/100 mg b.i.d.), ritonavir-boosted saquinavir (SQV/r; 1000 mg/100 mg b.i.d.), and low-dose ritonavir (RTV; 100 mg b.i.d.) on the steady-state pharmacokinetics of maraviroc (100 mg b.i.d.), and exploring whether maraviroc dose adjustment can compensate for interaction effects. Treatment lasted 28 days and comprised three distinct phases: (i) maraviroc alone on days 1-7; (ii) maraviroc + interactant on days 8-21; and (iii) maraviroc (adjusted dose) + interactant on days 22-28. Study 3 was a two-way crossover study investigating the effects of atazanavir (ATZ; 400 mg q.d.) and ritonavir-boosted atazanavir (ATZ/r; 300 mg/100 mg b.i.d.) on the pharmacokinetics of maraviroc (300 mg b.i.d.). All subjects received maraviroc on days 1-14 of both study periods. Subjects also received ATZ on days 1-7 and ATZ/r on days 8-14 of one treatment period, and placebo on days 1-14 of the other treatment period. Study 4 was a two-way crossover study investigating the effects of ritonavir-boosted tipranavir (TPV/r; 500 mg/200 mg b.i.d.) on the pharmacokinetics of maraviroc (150 mg b.i.d.). Subjects received maraviroc plus TPV/r or placebo on days 1-8. RESULTS All of the drugs/drug combinations tested (except for TPV/r) increased maraviroc exposure, albeit to different degrees of magnitude. SQV/r caused the largest increase in maraviroc exposure (8.3-fold increase in AUC(tau)), whereas RTV caused the smallest increase in maraviroc exposure (2.6-fold increase in AUC(tau)). Downward adjustment of the maraviroc dose in study 2 during co-administration of HIV protease inhibitors was able to compensate for the interactions. TPV/r had no clinically relevant effect on maraviroc exposure at steady state. There were no treatment-related serious adverse events or discontinuations due to adverse events in any of the studies, and most adverse events were mild or moderate in severity and resolved without intervention. CONCLUSIONS Potent CYP3A4 inhibitors, including ketoconazole and protease inhibitors (except TPV/r), increase maraviroc exposure. Downward adjustment of the maraviroc dose during co-administration with protease inhibitors can compensate for the interaction. TPV/r does not affect the steady-state pharmacokinetics of maraviroc, and hence no dose adjustment would be warranted.

Effects of CYP3A4 inducers with and without CYP3A4 inhibitors on the pharmacokinetics of maraviroc in healthy volunteers

AIMS To assess the potential of known CYP3A4 inducers, with and without CYP3A4 inhibitors, to alter the pharmacokinetic profile of maraviroc. METHODS Two separate, open, randomized, placebo-controlled studies were conducted in healthy subjects. Study 1 was a 28-day parallel-group study with three treatment groups of 12 subjects each. On days 1-7, all subjects received maraviroc 100 mg b.i.d.; on days 8-21, subjects received maraviroc 100 mg b.i.d. plus either rifampicin 600 mg q.d., efavirenz (EFV) 600 mg q.d., or placebo q.d. as assigned; on days 22-28, the maraviroc dose was increased to 200 mg b.i.d. for patients receiving either rifampicin or EFV. Study 2 was a 21-day, two-way crossover study with three cohorts (12 subjects per cohort). On days 1-21, subjects received maraviroc 300 mg b.i.d. and boosted lopinavir (LPV/r, lopinavir 400 mg + ritonavir 100 mg) or placebo b.i.d. in cohort 1, maraviroc 100 mg b.i.d. and boosted saquinavir (SQV/r, saquinavir 1000 mg + ritonavir 100 mg) or placebo b.i.d. in cohort 2, and maraviroc 100 mg b.i.d. and 1000 mg saquinavir + LPV/r (400 mg/100 mg) or placebo b.i.d. in cohort 3. On days 8-21, subjects in all three cohorts also received EFV 600 mg or placebo q.d. RESULTS Maraviroc (100 mg b.i.d.) exposure (AUC(12) and C(max)) was reduced in the presence of rifampicin and EFV by approximately 70% and 50%, respectively. Maraviroc AUC(12) and C(max) approached preinduction values when the maraviroc dose was increased to 200 mg b.i.d. for both the rifampicin-treated and EFV-treated groups. Co-administration of LPV/r with maraviroc (300 mg b.i.d.) resulted in geometric mean ratios (GMRs) of 395% and 197% for maraviroc AUC(12) and C(max), respectively, compared with placebo; addition of EFV resulted in GMRs of 253% and 125% for AUC(12) and C(max), respectively. Co-administration of SQV/r with maraviroc (100 mg b.i.d.) resulted in GMRs of 977% and 478% for maraviroc AUC(12) and C(max), respectively, compared with placebo; addition of EFV resulted in GMRs of 500% and 226% for AUC(12) and C(max), respectively. No pharmacokinetic data are reported for cohort 3 because all subjects were discontinued during period 1 due to poor toleration of the drug regimen. There were no serious adverse events reported in either study, and most adverse events were mild or moderate in severity and resolved without intervention. CONCLUSION As expected with a CYP3A4 substrate, maraviroc exposure (C(max) and AUC(12)) was significantly reduced by the known CYP3A4 inducers, rifampicin and EFV, by approximately 70% and 50%, respectively. Upward adjustment of the maraviroc dose during co-administration with rifampicin or EFV appears to compensate for this reduction. Protease inhibitors (PIs) significantly increased maraviroc exposure; however, the addition of EFV to the maraviroc + PI regimens reduced the magnitude of PI-mediated increase in maraviroc exposure (by approximately 50%), but the net effect was still CYP3A4 inhibition.

Effect of maraviroc on the pharmacokinetics of midazolam, lamivudine/ zidovudine, and ethinyloestradiol/ levonorgestrel in healthy volunteers

AIMS To assess the effect of maraviroc on the pharmacokinetics of midazolam, a sensitive probe CYP3A4 substrate; lamivudine/zidovudine, a combination of nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NRTIs); and ethinyloestradiol/levonorgestrel, a combination oral contraceptive. METHODS Three randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled studies were conducted in healthy subjects to assess the effect of maraviroc on pharmacokinetics of other drugs. Two, two-period crossover studies were conducted to assess (i) the effect of steady-state maraviroc (300 mg b.i.d.) on pharmacokinetics of midazolam; and (ii) the effect of steady-state maraviroc (300 mg b.i.d.) on the pharmacokinetics of lamivudine/zidovudine. A third two-way crossover study was conducted to evaluate the effect of steady-state maraviroc (100 mg b.i.d.) on the pharmacokinetics of 30 microg ethinyloestradiol/150 microg levonorgestrel (Microgynon). RESULTS The geometric mean ratios for C(max) and AUC for each of the compounds tested in the presence and absence of maraviroc were between 92% and 121%. There were no notable differences in T(max), t(1/2) or CL(R) (where measured) for any of the compounds. CONCLUSIONS Maraviroc had no clinically relevant effects on the pharmacokinetics of the CYP3A4 substrate midazolam, the NRTIs zidovudine/lamivudine, or the oral contraceptive steroids ethinyloestradiol and levonorgestrel.

The effects of cotrimoxazole or tenofovir co-administration on the pharmacokinetics of maraviroc in healthy volunteers

AIMS To assess the potential of cotrimoxazole and tenofovir, drugs which are inhibitors and/or substrates of renal transporters, to alter the pharmacokinetic profile of maraviroc. METHODS Two randomized, placebo-controlled, two-way crossover studies were conducted in healthy male and female subjects. In study 1, 16 subjects, aged 18-45 years, received maraviroc (300 mg b.i.d.) with and without cotrimoxazole (960 mg b.i.d.; 160 mg trimethoprim and 800 mg sulfamethoxazole). In study 2, 12 subjects, aged 21-45 years, received maraviroc (300 mg b.i.d.) with and without tenofovir (300 mg q.d.). For study 1, blood was collected predose and on days 1-7. In study 2, blood was collected predose, on day 1 and days 3-7. In both studies, blood was collected at intervals up to 12 h postdose on day 7. Urine was collected on day 7, 0-12 h post morning dose. Blood and urine were analysed for maraviroc using liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry. RESULTS The geometric mean ratios for C(max) and AUC(12) were 119% and 111%, respectively, for maraviroc plus cotrimoxazole and 104% and 103%, respectively, for maraviroc plus tenofovir, compared with maraviroc plus placebo. Renal clearance of maraviroc plus placebo was 8.3 l h(-1) and 8.5 l h(-1) and was 7.8 l h(-1) for maraviroc plus cotrimoxazole and maraviroc plus tenofovir. There were no serious or severe adverse events or any clinically significant changes in laboratory tests, blood pressure, or electrocardiograms. CONCLUSIONS Neither cotrimoxazole nor tenofovir caused a clinically significant effect on the pharmacokinetics of maraviroc. Maraviroc 300 mg b.i.d. was well tolerated when co-administered with either cotrimoxazole or tenofovir.

A novel probe drug interaction study to investigate the effect of selected antiretroviral combinations on the pharmacokinetics of a single oral dose of maraviroc in HIV‐positive subjects

AIMS Maraviroc (UK-427 857), an antagonist of the CCR5 receptor with potent anti-HIV activity, was recently approved for use in treatment-experienced patients infected with CCR5-tropic HIV-1. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of selected commonly used antiretroviral therapy (ART) combinations on the pharmacokinetics of a single oral dose of maraviroc 300 mg in HIV-positive subjects compared with historical controls. METHODS In this study, four cohorts of HIV-positive patients (n = 8 each) receiving one of the following combination therapies were recruited: cohort 1--efavirenz + Combivir (lamivudine/zidovudine); cohort 2--efavirenz + didanosine + tenofovir; cohort 3--nevirapine + lamivudine + tenofovir; cohort 4--Kaletra (lopinavir/ritonavir) + stavudine + lamivudine. Subjects continued on their prescribed ART and also received a single oral dose of maraviroc 300 mg. Serial blood samples and urine for determination of maraviroc pharmacokinetics were collected over 12 h postdose. Plasma pharmacokinetic parameters from this study were compared with historical data generated in HIV-positive subjects receiving maraviroc monotherapy in a Phase IIa study. RESULTS A total of 29 subjects were recruited (eight each in cohorts 1-3, and five in cohort 4). The geometric mean ratios for AUC(12) and C(max) for each treatment group compared with maraviroc monotherapy were: 47% and 67% (cohort 1); 48% and 76% (cohort 2); 101% and 154% (cohort 3); and 265% and 180% (cohort 4), respectively. T(max) was similar in all treatment groups. Mean values for renal clearance ranged from 8.2 l h(-1) (cohort 1) to 13.2 l h(-1) (cohort 4). There were no renal clearance data collected in the comparator study. CONCLUSIONS The results of this study support those previously seen in healthy volunteer studies that showed that efavirenz reduces maraviroc exposure, whereas lopinavir/ritonavir increases maraviroc exposure. These data also suggest that nevirapine does not lead to a clinically significant effect on maraviroc pharmacokinetics.