Cargando…

Similar pharmacokinetics of three dosing regimens comprising two oral delayed‐release mesalamine formulations in healthy adult volunteers: Randomised, open‐label, parallel‐group study

AIMS: Mesalamine is the first‐line therapy for treating mild‐to‐moderate ulcerative colitis. Multiple mesalamine formulations are available, with similar safety and efficacy profiles. Mesalamine is commonly administered as divided dosing, although once‐daily dosing may provide benefits for patients....

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Vande Casteele, Niels, Jakate, Abhijeet, McNamee, Brian, Sandborn, William J.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9328660/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32671846
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bcp.14479
Descripción
Sumario:AIMS: Mesalamine is the first‐line therapy for treating mild‐to‐moderate ulcerative colitis. Multiple mesalamine formulations are available, with similar safety and efficacy profiles. Mesalamine is commonly administered as divided dosing, although once‐daily dosing may provide benefits for patients. We evaluated the pharmacokinetics of three dosing regimens of two oral delayed‐release mesalamine formulations in healthy adult volunteers. METHODS: A randomised, open‐label, parallel‐group study of mesalamine pharmacokinetics following Lialda 2 × 1.2 g once daily (QD) (dose A), Asacol 6 × 400 mg QD (dose B), or Asacol 2 × 400 mg three times daily (TID) (dose C) over 7 days. Assessments included 5‐aminosalicylic acid (5‐ASA) and N‐acetyl 5‐aminosalicylic acid (N‐Ac‐5‐ASA, primary metabolite) pharmacokinetics (A (e)(%), AUC(0‐24) and C (max)), safety and tolerability. RESULTS: All enrolled volunteers (n = 37) completed the study. Steady state was achieved for all treatments by day 4. Ratios (95% CI) of means for steady‐state AUC(0‐24) (dose A vs B 90.3% [39.8, 204.8], dose A vs C 123.5% [55.3, 275.7], dose B vs C 136.8% [61.3, 305.5]) and C (max) (dose A vs B 106.0% [46.4, 242.2], dose A vs C 133.0% [59.1, 299.0], dose B vs C 125.5% [55.8, 282.1]) were similar for all 5‐ASA treatments. Mean urinary excretion of 5‐ASA plus N‐Ac‐5‐ASA was comparable between treatments (dose A 21.3%, dose B 20.2%, dose C 17.9%). All treatment regimens were well tolerated; no safety issues were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Plasma and urine pharmacokinetics for Asacol TID, Asacol QD, and Lialda QD are similar, suggesting similar daily systemic exposures can be obtained with either TID or QD dosing. NCT00751699.