The effect of acarbose on the pharmacokinetics of rosiglitazone

Rosiglitazone Does Not Show Major Hidden Cardiotoxicity in Models of Ischemia/Reperfusion but Abolishes Ischemic Preconditioning-Induced Antiarrhythmic Effects in Rats In Vivo

Clinical observations are highly inconsistent with the use of the antidiabetic rosiglitazone regarding its associated increased risk of myocardial infarction. This may be due to its hidden cardiotoxic properties that have only become evident during post-marketing studies. Therefore, we aimed to investigate the hidden cardiotoxicity of rosiglitazone in ischemia/reperfusion (I/R) injury models. Rats were treated orally with either 0.8 mg/kg/day rosiglitazone or vehicle for 28 days and subjected to I/R with or without cardioprotective ischemic preconditioning (IPC). Rosiglitazone did not affect mortality, arrhythmia score, or infarct size during I/R. However, rosiglitazone abolished the antiarrhythmic effects of IPC. To investigate the direct effect of rosiglitazone on cardiomyocytes, we utilized adult rat cardiomyocytes (ARCMs), AC16, and differentiated AC16 (diffAC16) human cardiac cell lines. These were subjected to simulated I/R in the presence of rosiglitazone. Rosiglitazone improved cell survival of ARCMs at 0.3 μM. At 0.1 and 0.3 μM, rosiglitazone improved cell survival of AC16s but not that of diffAC16s. This is the first demonstration that chronic administration of rosiglitazone does not result in major hidden cardiotoxic effects in myocardial I/R injury models. However, the inhibition of the antiarrhythmic effects of IPC may have some clinical relevance that needs to be further explored.

Prediction of inter-individual variability on the pharmacokinetics of CYP2C8 substrates in human

Inter-individual variability in pharmacokinetics can lead to unexpected side effects and treatment failure, and is therefore an important factor in drug development. CYP2C8 is a major drug-metabolizing enzyme known to be involved in the metabolism of over 100 drugs. In this study, we predicted the inter-individual variability in AUC/Dose of CYP2C8 substrates in healthy volunteers using the Monte Carlo simulation. Inter-individual variability in the hepatic intrinsic clearance of CYP2C8 substrates (CL_int,h,2C8) was estimated from the inter-individual variability in pharmacokinetics of pioglitazone, which is a major CYP2C8 substrate. The coefficient of variation (CV) of CL_int,h,2C8 was estimated to be 40%. Using this value, the CVs of AUC/Dose of other major CYP2C8 substrates, rosiglitazone and amodiaquine, were predicted to validate the estimated CV of CL_int,h,2C8. As a result, the reported CVs of both substrates were within the 2.5-97.5 percentile range of the predicted CVs. Furthermore, the CVs of AUC/Dose of the CYP2C8 substrates loperamide and chloroquine, which are affected by renal clearance, were also successfully predicted. Combining this value with previously reported CVs of other CYPs, we were able to successfully predict the inter-individual variability in pharmacokinetics of various drugs in clinical.

Reappraisal and perspectives of clinical drug-drug interaction potential of α-glucosidase inhibitors such as acarbose, voglibose and miglitol in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus

1. Amidst the new strategies being developed for the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM) with both established and newer therapies, alpha glucosidase inhibitors (AGIs) have found a place in several treatment protocols. 2. The objectives of the review were: (a) to compile and evaluate the various clinical pharmacokinetic drug interaction data for AGIs such as acarbose, miglitol and voglibose; (b) provide perspectives on the drug interaction data since it encompasses coadministered drugs in several key areas of comorbidity with T2DM. 3. Critical evaluation of the interaction data suggested that the absorption and bioavailability of many coadministered drugs were not meaningfully affected from a clinical perspective. Therefore, on the basis of the current appraisal, none of the AGIs showed an alarming and/or overwhelming trend of interaction potential with several coadministered drugs. Hence, dosage adjustment is not warranted in the use of AGIs in T2DM patients in situations of comorbidity. 4. The newly evolving fixed dose combination strategies with AGIs need to be carefully evaluated to ensure that the absorption and bioavailability of the added drug are not impaired due to concomitant food ingestion.

Effects of Icosapent Ethyl (Eicosapentaenoic Acid Ethyl Ester) on Pharmacokinetic Parameters of Rosiglitazone in Healthy Subjects

Background

Icosapent ethyl is a high-purity form of eicosapentaenoic acid ethyl ester approved to reduce triglyceride levels in adults with triglycerides ≥500 mg/dL. Candidates for triglyceride-lowering therapy include patients with diabetes mellitus who may be receiving rosiglitazone. We assessed the effects of icosapent ethyl on the pharmacokinetic parameters of rosiglitazone.

Methods

Subjects received a single 8-mg oral dose of rosiglitazone alone and with oral icosapent ethyl 4 g/day in this open-label drug–drug interaction study. Pharmacokinetic end points included area under the concentration versus time curve from time zero to infinity (AUC_0–inf) and maximum observed concentration (C_max) for rosiglitazone with and without icosapent ethyl.

Results

Of 30 subjects enrolled, 28 completed the study. Icosapent ethyl 4 g/day at steady-state did not significantly change the single-dose AUC_0–inf or C_max of rosiglitazone 8 mg. Least squares geometric mean ratios (90% confidence interval) for AUC_0–inf and C_max of rosiglitazone given with icosapent ethyl versus rosiglitazone alone were 0.90 (87.00–93.40) and 1.01 (92.02–109.9), respectively. No serious adverse events were reported and no subject discontinued due to an adverse event.

Conclusions

At steady-state concentrations, icosapent ethyl did not inhibit the pharmacokinetics of rosiglitazone. Co-administration of icosapent ethyl and rosiglitazone was safe and well tolerated.

Multiple-Dose Administration of Sitagliptin, a Dipeptidyl Peptidase-4 Inhibitor, Does Not Alter the Single-Dose Pharmacokinetics of Rosiglitazone in Healthy Subjects

Sitagliptin, a dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor, is an incretin enhancer that is approved for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Sitagliptin is mainly renally eliminated and not a potent inhibitor of CYP450 enzymes in vitro. Rosiglitazone, a thiazolidenedione, is an insulin sensitizer and mainly metabolized by CYP2C8. Since both agents may potentially be coadministered, the purpose of this study was to examine the effects of sitagliptin on rosiglitazone pharmacokinetics. In this open-label, randomized, 2-period, crossover study, 12 healthy normoglycemic subjects, 21 to 44 years, received single 4-mg doses of rosiglitazone alone in one period and coadministered with sitagliptin on day 5 following a multiple-dose regimen for sitagliptin (200 mg once daily x 5 days) in the other period. The geometric mean ratios and 90% confidence intervals ([rosiglitazone + sitagliptin]/rosiglitazone) for rosiglitazone AUC(0-infinity) and Cmax were 0.98 (0.93, 1.02) and 0.99 (0.88, 1.12), respectively. In conclusion, sitagliptin did not alter the pharmacokinetics of rosiglitazone in healthy subjects.

The effects of febuxostat on the pharmacokinetic parameters of rosiglitazone, a CYP2C8 substrate

AIMS

To determine the effect of febuxostat on cytochrome P450 2C8 (CYP2C8) activity using rosiglitazone as a CYP2C8 substrate.

METHODS

Healthy subjects received febuxostat 120 mg daily (regimen A) or matching placebo (regimen B) for 9 days along with a single oral dose of rosiglitazone 4 mg on day 5 in a double-blind, randomized, cross-over fashion (≥7 day washout between periods). Plasma samples for analysis of the impact of febuxostat on the pharmacokinetics (PK) of rosiglitazone and its metabolite, N-desmethylrosiglitazone, were collected for 120 h after co-administration.

RESULTS

Of the 39 subjects enrolled, 36 completed the study and were included in the PK analyses. Rosiglitazone PK parameters were comparable between regimens A and B. Median time to maximal plasma concentration, mean maximal plasma concentration (C(max)), area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) from time zero to the last quantifiable concentration (AUC(0-tlqc)), AUC from time zero to infinity (AUC(0-∞)), and terminal elimination half-life for regimen A were 0.50 h, 308.6 ng ml⁻¹, 1594.9 ng h ml⁻¹, 1616.0 ng h ml⁻¹ and 4.1 h, respectively, and for regimen B they were 0.50 h, 327.6 ng ml⁻¹, 1564.5 ng h ml⁻¹, 1584.2 ng h ml⁻¹ and 4.0 h, respectively. Point estimates for the ratio of regimen A to regimen B (90% confidence intervals) for rosiglitazone C(max) , AUC(0-tlqc) and AUC(0-∞) central values were 0.94 (0.89-1.00), 1.02 (1.00-1.04) and 1.02 (1.00-1.04), respectively.

CONCLUSIONS

Co-administration of febuxostat had no effect on rosiglitazone or N-desmethylrosiglitazone PK parameters, suggesting that febuxostat can be given safely with drugs metabolized through CYP2C8.

Rosiglitazone inhibits acyl-CoA synthetase activity and fatty acid partitioning to diacylglycerol and triacylglycerol via a peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor-gamma-independent mechanism in human arterial smooth muscle cells and macrophages

Rosiglitazone is an insulin-sensitizing agent that has recently been shown to exert beneficial effects on atherosclerosis. In addition to peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR)-gamma, rosiglitazone can affect other targets, such as directly inhibiting recombinant long-chain acyl-CoA synthetase (ACSL)-4 activity. Because it is unknown if ACSL4 is expressed in vascular cells involved in atherosclerosis, we investigated the ability of rosiglitazone to inhibit ACSL activity and fatty acid partitioning in human and murine arterial smooth muscle cells (SMCs) and macrophages. Human and murine SMCs and human macrophages expressed Acsl4, and rosiglitazone inhibited Acsl activity in these cells. Furthermore, rosiglitazone acutely inhibited partitioning of fatty acids into phospholipids in human SMCs and inhibited fatty acid partitioning into diacylglycerol and triacylglycerol in human SMCs and macrophages through a PPAR-gamma-independent mechanism. Conversely, murine macrophages did not express ACSL4, and rosiglitazone did not inhibit ACSL activity in these cells, nor did it affect acute fatty acid partitioning into cellular lipids. Thus, rosiglitazone inhibits ACSL activity and fatty acid partitioning in human and murine SMCs and in human macrophages through a PPAR-gamma-independent mechanism likely to be mediated by ACSL4 inhibition. Therefore, rosiglitazone might alter the biological effects of fatty acids in these cells and in atherosclerosis.

Pharmacokinetic interactions with thiazolidinediones

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a complex disease combining defects in insulin secretion and insulin action. New compounds called thiazolidinediones or glitazones have been developed for reducing insulin resistance. After the withdrawal of troglitazone because of liver toxicity, two compounds are currently used in clinical practice, rosiglitazone and pioglitazone. These compounds are generally used in combination with other pharmacological agents. Because they are metabolised via cytochrome P450 (CYP), glitazones are exposed to numerous pharmacokinetic interactions. CYP2C8 and CYP3A4 are the main isoenzymes catalysing biotransformation of pioglitazone (as with troglitazone), whereas rosiglitazone is metabolised by CYP2C9 and CYP2C8. For both rosiglitazone and pioglitazone, the most relevant interactions have been described in healthy volunteers with rifampicin (rifampin), which results in a significant decrease of area under the plasma concentration-time curve [AUC] (54-65% for rosiglitazone, p<0.001; 54% for pioglitazone, p<0.001), and with gemfibrozil, which results in a significant increase of AUC (130% for rosiglitazone, p<0.001; 220-240% for pioglitazone, p<0.001). The relevance of such drug-drug interactions in patients with type 2 diabetes remains to be evaluated. However, in the absence of clinical data, it is prudent to reduce the dosage of each glitazone by half in patients treated with gemfibrozil. Conversely, rosiglitazone and pioglitazone do not seem to significantly affect the pharmacokinetics of other compounds. Although some food components have also been shown to potentially interfere with drugs metabolised with the CYP system, no published study deals specifically with these possible CYP-mediated food-drug interactions with glitazones.

Drug interactions of clinical importance with antihyperglycaemic agents: an update

Because management of type 2 diabetes mellitus usually involves combined pharmacological therapy to obtain adequate glucose control and treatment of concurrent pathologies (especially dyslipidaemia and arterial hypertension), drug-drug interactions must be carefully considered with antihyperglycaemic drugs. Additive glucose-lowering effects have been extensively reported when combining sulphonylureas (or the new insulin secretagogues, meglitinide derivatives, i.e. nateglinide and repaglinide) with metformin, sulphonylureas (or meglitinide derivatives) with thiazolidinediones (also called glitazones) and the biguanide compound metformin with thiazolidinediones. Interest in combining alpha-glucosidase inhibitors with either sulphonylureas (or meglitinide derivatives), metformin or thiazolidinediones has also been demonstrated. These combinations result in lower glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA(1c)), fasting glucose and postprandial glucose levels than with either monotherapy. Even if modest pharmacokinetic interferences have been reported with some combinations, they do not appear to have important clinical consequences. No significant adverse effects, except a higher risk of hypoglycaemic episodes that may be attributed to better glycaemic control, occur with any combination. Challenging the classical dual therapy with sulphonylurea plus metformin, there is a recent trend to use alternative dual combinations (sulphonylurea plus thiazolidinedione or metformin plus thiazolidinedione). In addition, triple therapy with the addition of a thiazolidinedione to the metformin-sulphonylurea combination has been recently evaluated and allows glucose targets to be reached before insulin therapy is considered. This triple therapy appears to be safe, with no deleterious drug-drug interactions being reported so far.Potential interferences may also occur between glucose-lowering agents and other drugs, and such drug-drug interactions may have important clinical implications. Relevant pharmacological agents are those that are widely coadministered in diabetic patients (e.g. lipid-lowering agents, antihypertensive agents); those that have a narrow efficacy/toxicity ratio (e.g. digoxin, warfarin); or those that are known to induce (rifampicin [rifampin]) or inhibit (fluconazole) the cytochrome P450 (CYP) system. Metformin is currently a key compound in the pharmacological management of type 2 diabetes, used either alone or in combination with other antihyperglycaemics. There are no clinically relevant metabolic interactions with metformin, because this compound is not metabolised and does not inhibit the metabolism of other drugs. In contrast, sulphonylureas, meglitinide derivatives and thiazolidinediones are extensively metabolised in the liver via the CYP system and thus, may be subject to drug-drug metabolic interactions. Many HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors (statins) are also metabolised via the CYP system. Even if modest pharmacokinetic interactions may occur, it is not clear whether drug-drug interactions between oral antihyperglycaemic agents and statins may have clinical consequences regarding both efficacy and safety. In contrast, a marked pharmacokinetic interference has been reported between gemfibrozil and repaglinide and, to a lesser extent, between gemfibrozil and rosiglitazone. This leads to a drastic increase in plasma concentrations of each antihyperglycaemic agent when they are coadministered with the fibric acid derivative, and an increased risk of adverse effects. Some antihypertensive agents may favour hypoglycaemic episodes when co-prescribed with sulphonylureas or meglitinide derivatives, especially ACE inhibitors, but this effect seems to result from a pharmacodynamic drug-drug interaction rather than from a pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction. No, or only modest, interferences have been described with glucose-lowering agents and other pharmacological compounds such as digoxin or warfarin. The effects of inducers or inhibitors of CYP isoenzymes on the metabolism and pharmacokinetics of the glucose-lowering agents of each pharmacological class has been tested. Significantly increased (with CYP inhibitors) or decreased (with CYP inducers) plasma levels of sulphonylureas, meglitinide derivatives and thiazolidinediones have been reported in healthy volunteers, and these pharmacokinetic changes may lead to enhanced or reduced glucose-lowering action, and thus hypoglycaemia or worsening of metabolic control, respectively. In addition, some case reports have evidenced potential drug-drug interactions with various antihyperglycaemic agents that are usually associated with a higher risk of hypoglycaemia.

Effect of ketoconazole on the pharmacokinetics of rosiglitazone in healthy subjects

AIMS

Fungal infection is a significant comorbidity in patients with diabetes mellitus, and ketoconazole, an antifungal agent, causes a number of drug interactions with coadministered drugs. Rosiglitazone is a novel thiazolidinedione antidiabetic drug, mainly metabolized by CYP2C8 and to a lesser extent CYP2C9. We investigated the possible effect of ketoconazole on the pharmacokinetics of rosiglitazone in humans.

METHODS

Ten healthy Korean male volunteers were treated twice daily for 5 days with 200 mg ketoconazole or with placebo, using a randomized, open-label, two-way crossover study. On day 5, a single dose of 8 mg rosiglitazone was administered orally, and plasma rosiglitazone concentrations were measured.

RESULTS

Ketoconazole increased the mean area under the plasma concentration-time curve for rosiglitazone by 47%[P = 0.0003; 95% confidence interval (CI) 23, 70] and the mean elimination half-life from 3.55 to 5.50 h (P = 0.0003; 95% CI in difference 1.1, 2.4). The peak plasma concentration of rosiglitazone was increased by ketoconazole treatment by 17% (P = 0.03; 95% CI 5, 29). The apparent oral clearance of rosiglitazone decreased by 28% after ketoconazole treatment (P = 0.0005; 95% CI 18, 38).

CONCLUSIONS

This study revealed that ketoconazole affected the disposition of rosiglitazone in humans, probably by the inhibition of CYP2C8 and CYP2C9, leading to increasing rosiglitazone concentrations that could increase the efficacy of rosiglitazone or its adverse events.

PPAR-gamma activation fails to provide myocardial protection in ischemia and reperfusion in pigs

Peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor (PPAR)-gamma modulates substrate metabolism and inflammatory responses. In experimental rats subjected to myocardial ischemia-reperfusion (I/R), thiazolidinedione PPAR-gamma activators reduce infarct size and preserve left ventricular function. Troglitazone is the only PPAR-gamma activator that has been shown to be protective in I/R in large animals. However, because troglitazone contains both alpha-tocopherol and thiazolidinedione moieties, whether PPAR-gamma activation per se is protective in myocardial I/R in large animals remains uncertain. To address this question, 56 pigs were treated orally for 8 wk with troglitazone (75 mg x kg(-1) x day(-1)), rosiglitazone (3 mg x kg(-1) x day(-1)), or alpha-tocopherol (73 mg x kg(-1) x day(-1), equimolar to troglitazone dose) or received no treatment. Pigs were then anesthetized and subjected to 90 min of low-flow regional myocardial ischemia and 90 min of reperfusion. Myocardial expression of PPAR-gamma, determined by ribonuclease protection assay, increased with troglitazone and rosiglitazone compared with no treatment. Rosiglitazone had no significant effect on myocardial contractile function (Frank-Starling relations), substrate uptake, or expression of proinflammatory cytokines during I/R compared with untreated pigs. In contrast, preservation of myocardial contractile function and lactate uptake were greater and cytokine expression was attenuated in pigs treated with troglitazone or alpha-tocopherol compared with untreated pigs. Multivariate analysis indicated that presence of an alpha-tocopherol, but not a thiazolidinedione, moiety in the test compound was significantly related to greater contractile function and lactate uptake and lower cytokine expression during I/R. We conclude that PPAR-gamma activation is not protective in a porcine model of myocardial I/R. Protective effects of troglitazone are attributable to its alpha-tocopherol moiety. These findings, in conjunction with prior rat studies, suggest interspecies differences in the response to PPAR-gamma activation in the heart.

Comparison of the effects of pioglitazone and rosiglitazone on macrophage foam cell formation

In order to elucidate the antiatherogenic effects of pioglitazone (a peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor [PPAR]gamma agonist with PPARalpha agonistic activity) and rosiglitazone (a more selective PPARgamma agonist), we examined gene expression and cholesteryl ester accumulation in THP-1-derived macrophages. Pioglitazone enhanced the mRNA expression of the proatherogenic factors CD36 and adipophilin, but was approximately 10 times less potent than rosiglitazone. The potencies of the two agents appeared to correspond to their PPARgamma agonistic activities in this respect. However, both agents were similarly potent in enhancing the mRNA expression of the antiatherogenic factors liver X receptor alpha and ATP-binding cassette-transporter A1. Furthermore, both agents enhanced cholesteryl ester hydrolase mRNA expression and inhibited acyl-CoA cholesterol acyltransferase-1 mRNA expression and cholesteryl ester accumulation in macrophages. In this respect, their potencies appeared to correspond to their PPARalpha agonistic activities. These results suggest that pioglitazone has an equally beneficial effect on antiatherogenic events to rosiglitazone, despite being almost 10 times less potent than a PPARgamma agonist.

Lack of effect of sucralfate on the absorption and pharmacokinetics of rosiglitazone

The aim of the present study was to investigate the effect of sucralfate pretreatment on the pharmacokinetics of rosiglitazone following a single oral dose in healthy male volunteers. After an over night fast, and according to a randomized schedule, each volunteer (n = 9) received a single oral dose of rosiglitazone 8 mg (Avandia tablets, 4 mg x 2) with or without pretreatment of sucralfate 2 g (Recolfate tablets, 1 g x 2) in an open-label crossover study with a 2-week washout period. Plasma samples were collected over a period of 24 hours at regular intervals. Safety assessment included monitoring of the vital signs, blood parameters, and ECG. No statistically significant differences (p > 0.05) were observed for any of the calculated rosiglitazone pharmacokinetic parameters in the two treatment groups. The mean parameters, AUC0-infinity and Cmax, following rosiglitazone administration alone were 3825.02 ng x h/ml and 664.47 ng/ml, respectively, and for rosiglitazone administered after pretreatment with sucralfate were 4848.19 ng x h/ml and 624.88 ng/ml, respectively. The t(max) for rosiglitazone alone and for rosiglitazone after sucralfate treatments was 1.11 and 1.67 hours, respectively. The mean elimination half-life for rosiglitazone and rosiglitazone after sucralfate treatment was 4.35 and 4.51 hours, respectively. Fraction of rosiglitazone absorbed was calculated by the Wagner-Nelson method, and no statistically significant difference (p > 0.05) was observed for the two treatments. Since sucralfate pretreatment did not show any significant difference in the pharmacokinetics of rosiglitazone, no dose adjustment is warranted for rosiglitazone when it is administered with sucralfate.