Cargando…

A Steady‐State Head‐to‐Head Pharmacokinetic Comparison of All FK‐506 (Tacrolimus) Formulations (ASTCOFF): An Open‐Label, Prospective, Randomized, Two‐Arm, Three‐Period Crossover Study

This two‐sequence, three‐period crossover study is the first pharmacokinetic (PK) study to compare all three innovator formulations of tacrolimus (twice‐daily immediate‐release tacrolimus capsules [IR‐Tac]; once‐daily extended‐release tacrolimus capsules [ER‐Tac]; novel once‐daily tacrolimus tablets...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tremblay, S., Nigro, V., Weinberg, J., Woodle, E. S., Alloway, R. R.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5297985/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27340950
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ajt.13935
_version_ 1782505815516643328
author Tremblay, S.
Nigro, V.
Weinberg, J.
Woodle, E. S.
Alloway, R. R.
author_facet Tremblay, S.
Nigro, V.
Weinberg, J.
Woodle, E. S.
Alloway, R. R.
author_sort Tremblay, S.
collection PubMed
description This two‐sequence, three‐period crossover study is the first pharmacokinetic (PK) study to compare all three innovator formulations of tacrolimus (twice‐daily immediate‐release tacrolimus capsules [IR‐Tac]; once‐daily extended‐release tacrolimus capsules [ER‐Tac]; novel once‐daily tacrolimus tablets [LCPT]). Stable renal transplant patients were dosed with each drug for 7 days, and blood samples were obtained over 24 h. Thirty subjects were included in the PK analysis set. A conversion factor of 1:1:0.80 for IR‐Tac:ER‐Tac:LCPT was used; no dose adjustments were permitted during the study. The median (interquartile range) total daily dose was 6.0 (4.0–8.0) mg for IR‐Tac and ER‐Tac and 4.8 (3.3–6.3) for LCPT. Significantly higher exposure on a per milligram basis, lower intraday fluctuation and prolonged time (T(max)) to peak concentration (C(max)) were found for LCPT versus IR‐Tac or ER‐Tac. ER‐Tac showed no differences versus IR‐Tac in exposure, C(max), T(max) or fluctuation. The observed exposure of IR‐Tac was used to normalize exposure for LCPT and ER‐Tac, resulting in the following recommended total daily dose conversion rates: IR‐Tac:ER‐Tac, +8%; IR‐Tac:LCPT, −30%; ER‐Tac:LCPT, −36%. After exposure normalization, C(max) was ~17% lower for LCPT than for IR‐Tac or ER‐Tac; C(min) was ~6% lower for LCPT compared with IR‐Tac and 3% higher compared with ER‐Tac.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5297985
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-52979852017-02-22 A Steady‐State Head‐to‐Head Pharmacokinetic Comparison of All FK‐506 (Tacrolimus) Formulations (ASTCOFF): An Open‐Label, Prospective, Randomized, Two‐Arm, Three‐Period Crossover Study Tremblay, S. Nigro, V. Weinberg, J. Woodle, E. S. Alloway, R. R. Am J Transplant Original Articles This two‐sequence, three‐period crossover study is the first pharmacokinetic (PK) study to compare all three innovator formulations of tacrolimus (twice‐daily immediate‐release tacrolimus capsules [IR‐Tac]; once‐daily extended‐release tacrolimus capsules [ER‐Tac]; novel once‐daily tacrolimus tablets [LCPT]). Stable renal transplant patients were dosed with each drug for 7 days, and blood samples were obtained over 24 h. Thirty subjects were included in the PK analysis set. A conversion factor of 1:1:0.80 for IR‐Tac:ER‐Tac:LCPT was used; no dose adjustments were permitted during the study. The median (interquartile range) total daily dose was 6.0 (4.0–8.0) mg for IR‐Tac and ER‐Tac and 4.8 (3.3–6.3) for LCPT. Significantly higher exposure on a per milligram basis, lower intraday fluctuation and prolonged time (T(max)) to peak concentration (C(max)) were found for LCPT versus IR‐Tac or ER‐Tac. ER‐Tac showed no differences versus IR‐Tac in exposure, C(max), T(max) or fluctuation. The observed exposure of IR‐Tac was used to normalize exposure for LCPT and ER‐Tac, resulting in the following recommended total daily dose conversion rates: IR‐Tac:ER‐Tac, +8%; IR‐Tac:LCPT, −30%; ER‐Tac:LCPT, −36%. After exposure normalization, C(max) was ~17% lower for LCPT than for IR‐Tac or ER‐Tac; C(min) was ~6% lower for LCPT compared with IR‐Tac and 3% higher compared with ER‐Tac. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016-08-02 2017-02 /pmc/articles/PMC5297985/ /pubmed/27340950 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ajt.13935 Text en © 2016 The Authors. American Journal of Transplantation published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Society of Transplant Surgeons This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial‐NoDerivs (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Tremblay, S.
Nigro, V.
Weinberg, J.
Woodle, E. S.
Alloway, R. R.
A Steady‐State Head‐to‐Head Pharmacokinetic Comparison of All FK‐506 (Tacrolimus) Formulations (ASTCOFF): An Open‐Label, Prospective, Randomized, Two‐Arm, Three‐Period Crossover Study
title A Steady‐State Head‐to‐Head Pharmacokinetic Comparison of All FK‐506 (Tacrolimus) Formulations (ASTCOFF): An Open‐Label, Prospective, Randomized, Two‐Arm, Three‐Period Crossover Study
title_full A Steady‐State Head‐to‐Head Pharmacokinetic Comparison of All FK‐506 (Tacrolimus) Formulations (ASTCOFF): An Open‐Label, Prospective, Randomized, Two‐Arm, Three‐Period Crossover Study
title_fullStr A Steady‐State Head‐to‐Head Pharmacokinetic Comparison of All FK‐506 (Tacrolimus) Formulations (ASTCOFF): An Open‐Label, Prospective, Randomized, Two‐Arm, Three‐Period Crossover Study
title_full_unstemmed A Steady‐State Head‐to‐Head Pharmacokinetic Comparison of All FK‐506 (Tacrolimus) Formulations (ASTCOFF): An Open‐Label, Prospective, Randomized, Two‐Arm, Three‐Period Crossover Study
title_short A Steady‐State Head‐to‐Head Pharmacokinetic Comparison of All FK‐506 (Tacrolimus) Formulations (ASTCOFF): An Open‐Label, Prospective, Randomized, Two‐Arm, Three‐Period Crossover Study
title_sort steady‐state head‐to‐head pharmacokinetic comparison of all fk‐506 (tacrolimus) formulations (astcoff): an open‐label, prospective, randomized, two‐arm, three‐period crossover study
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5297985/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27340950
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ajt.13935
work_keys_str_mv AT tremblays asteadystateheadtoheadpharmacokineticcomparisonofallfk506tacrolimusformulationsastcoffanopenlabelprospectiverandomizedtwoarmthreeperiodcrossoverstudy
AT nigrov asteadystateheadtoheadpharmacokineticcomparisonofallfk506tacrolimusformulationsastcoffanopenlabelprospectiverandomizedtwoarmthreeperiodcrossoverstudy
AT weinbergj asteadystateheadtoheadpharmacokineticcomparisonofallfk506tacrolimusformulationsastcoffanopenlabelprospectiverandomizedtwoarmthreeperiodcrossoverstudy
AT woodlees asteadystateheadtoheadpharmacokineticcomparisonofallfk506tacrolimusformulationsastcoffanopenlabelprospectiverandomizedtwoarmthreeperiodcrossoverstudy
AT allowayrr asteadystateheadtoheadpharmacokineticcomparisonofallfk506tacrolimusformulationsastcoffanopenlabelprospectiverandomizedtwoarmthreeperiodcrossoverstudy
AT tremblays steadystateheadtoheadpharmacokineticcomparisonofallfk506tacrolimusformulationsastcoffanopenlabelprospectiverandomizedtwoarmthreeperiodcrossoverstudy
AT nigrov steadystateheadtoheadpharmacokineticcomparisonofallfk506tacrolimusformulationsastcoffanopenlabelprospectiverandomizedtwoarmthreeperiodcrossoverstudy
AT weinbergj steadystateheadtoheadpharmacokineticcomparisonofallfk506tacrolimusformulationsastcoffanopenlabelprospectiverandomizedtwoarmthreeperiodcrossoverstudy
AT woodlees steadystateheadtoheadpharmacokineticcomparisonofallfk506tacrolimusformulationsastcoffanopenlabelprospectiverandomizedtwoarmthreeperiodcrossoverstudy
AT allowayrr steadystateheadtoheadpharmacokineticcomparisonofallfk506tacrolimusformulationsastcoffanopenlabelprospectiverandomizedtwoarmthreeperiodcrossoverstudy