A study of the potential pharmacokinetic interaction of lisinopril and digoxin in normal volunteers

Bioequivalence evaluation and food effect assessment of Lisinopril/amlodipine tablets in healthy Chinese subjects under fasting and fed conditions

PURPOSE

The combination of lisinopril and amlodipine has a marked additional effect on blood pressure and fewer side effects than individual monotherapy. This study was conducted to compare the pharmacokinetic parameters and evaluate the bioequivalence between two Lisinopril/amlodipine tablets in healthy Chinese subjects.

METHODS

A single center, randomized, open-label, single-dose, two-period crossover bioequivalence study was designed in healthy Chinese subjects under both fasting and fed conditions. Blood samples were collected before drug administration and at 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 24, 36, 48, 72, 96, 144, 168 h after administration. Liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) was applied to determine the plasma concentration of lisinopril and amlodipine. Maximum concentration (C_max) and area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) were used to evaluate bioequivalence. Adverse events were recorded.

RESULTS

Ninety-two healthy subjects were enrolled, and 75 completed the study. The 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the ratio of geometric means (GMRs) of C_max, AUC_0-t, and AUC_0-∞ of lisinopril and amlodipine under both fasting and fed conditions fell within the conventional bioequivalence criteria of 0.80-1.25. A high-fat meal appeared to decrease the C_max and AUC of lisinopril. No severe adverse events were observed.

CONCLUSION

The trial demonstrated that the test and the reference lisinopril/amlodipine tablets were bioequivalent and well tolerated in Chinese people under fasting and fed conditions.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Clinical Trails.gov identifier, NCT04885660 (retrospectively registered in 13/05/ 2021).

Impact of Green Tea Catechin Ingestion on the Pharmacokinetics of Lisinopril in Healthy Volunteers

Lisinopril, a highly hydrophilic long‐acting angiotensin‐converting enzyme inhibitor, is frequently prescribed for the treatment of hypertension and congestive heart failure. Green tea consumption may reduce the risk of cardiovascular outcomes and total mortality, whereas green tea or its catechin components has been reported to decrease plasma concentrations of a hydrophilic β blocker, nadolol, in humans. The aim of this study was to evaluate possible effects of green tea extract (GTE) on the lisinopril pharmacokinetics. In an open‐label, randomized, single‐center, 2‐phase crossover study, 10 healthy subjects ingested 200 mL of an aqueous solution of GTE containing ~ 300 mg of (–)‐epigallocatechin gallate, a major catechin component in green tea, or water (control) when receiving 10 mg of lisinopril after overnight fasting. The geometric mean ratio (GTE/control) for maximum plasma concentration and the area under the plasma concentration‐time curve of lisinopril were 0.289 (90% confidence interval (CI) 0.226–0.352) and 0.337 (90% CI 0.269–0.405), respectively. In contrast, there were no significant differences in time to reach maximum lisinopril concentration (6 hours in both phases) and renal clearance of lisinopril (57.7 mL/minute in control vs. 56.9 mL/minute in GTE). These results suggest that the extent of intestinal absorption of lisinopril was significantly impaired in the presence of GTE, whereas it had no major effect on the absorption rate and renal excretion of lisinopril. Concomitant use of lisinopril and green tea may decrease oral exposure to lisinopril, and therefore result in reduced therapeutic efficacy.

Lisinopril quantification in human plasma by liquid chromatography–electrospray tandem mass spectrometry

An analytical method based on liquid chromatography with positive ion electrospray ionization (ESI) coupled to tandem mass spectrometry detection was developed for the determination of Lisinopril in human plasma using Enalaprilat as internal standard. The analyte and internal standard were extracted from the plasma samples by solid-phase extraction using Waters HLB Oasis SPE cartridges and chromatographed on a C8 analytical column. The mobile phase consisted of acetonitrile/water (60:40, v/v) + 20 mM acetic acid + 4.3 mM of triethylamine. The method had a chromatographic total run-time of 6.5 min and was linear within the range 2.00-200 ng/ml. Detection was carried out on a Micromass triple quadrupole tandem mass spectrometer by multiple reaction monitoring (MRM). The precision (CV%) and accuracy, calculated from limit of quantification (LOQ) samples (n = 8), were 8.9 and 98.9%, respectively. The method herein described was employed in a bioequivalence study of two tablet formulations of Lisinopril 20mg.

Lisinopril. A review of its pharmacology and clinical efficacy in elderly patients

Lisinopril, the lysine analogue of enalaprilat, is a long-acting angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor which is administered once daily by mouth. The efficacy of lisinopril in reducing blood pressure is well established in younger populations, and many trials now show it to be effective in lowering blood pressure in elderly patients with hypertension. In comparative and non-comparative clinical trials, 68.2 to 89.1% of elderly patients responded (diastolic pressure < or = 90 mm Hg) to > or = 8 weeks' lisinopril treatment. Age-related differences in antihypertensive efficacy do not appear to be clinically significant, and dosages effective in elderly patients tend to range from 2.5 to 40 mg/day. Dosages usually need to be lower in patients with significant renal impairment. In congestive heart failure, lisinopril 2.5 to 20 mg/day increases exercise duration, improves left ventricular ejection fraction and has no significant effect on ventricular ectopic beats. It is similar in efficacy to enalapril and digoxin and similar or superior to captopril on most end-points. Data from the GISSI-3 post-myocardial infarction trial show that lisinopril reduced mortality and left ventricular dysfunction when given for 42 days starting within 24 hours of the onset of infarction symptoms. Results at 6 weeks and 6 months were similar in elderly and younger patients. Elderly patients, however, among other subgroups, exhibited a strong reduction in risk of low ejection fraction after treatment (-25.5%). Economic studies suggest that lisinopril is cost saving compared with other ACE inhibitors in some markets. When given according to the GISSI-3 protocol, lisinopril appears to be one of the less expensive of the successful ACE inhibitor regimens for acute myocardial infarction. In other trials, patients with diabetic nephropathy and hypertension improved or did not deteriorate during lisinopril treatment. Blood pressure was controlled and reductions or trends towards reductions in albuminuria were observed. These reductions were similar to those in diltiazem, nifedipine and verapamil recipients, and greater than those in patients receiving atenolol. Lisinopril appears to reduce mortality in diabetic patients after myocardial infarction and may also improve neuropathy associated with diabetes. Lisinopril is well tolerated and the profile of adverse events seen is typical of ACE inhibitors as a class. There is a tendency for more elderly than younger patients to discontinue treatment, but this trend is not clearly related to the incidence of adverse events in these age groups. Drug interactions occur with few other agents and are usually clinically significant only between lisinopril and either diuretics or lithium. Lisinopril is, thus, an effective treatment for elderly patients with hypertension, congestive heart failure and acute myocardial infarction and has shown promising benefits in patients with diabetic nephropathy.

ACE inhibitors. Drug interactions of clinical significance

ACE inhibitors are used widely in the treatment of hypertension and congestive heart failure, but there is only limited information on adverse interactions between ACE inhibitors and other cardiovascular or noncardiovascular drugs. The present article provides an overview of this issue, with emphasis on those interactions having the greatest clinical implications. In patients who have been sodium and/or volume depleted by thiazide or loop diuretics, the additional use of ACE inhibitors can lead to an excessive reduction in blood pressure and symptomatic hypotension. An increase in serum potassium levels may occur after coadministration of potassium-sparing diuretics and ACE inhibitors, resulting in hyperkalaemia especially in patients with renal insufficiency. The incidence of acute renal failure may be associated with ACE inhibitor therapy when these drugs are combined with nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory agents and given to patients whose renal function becomes increasingly dependent on angiotensin II and prostaglandins. There is some evidence, albeit scant, linking ACE inhibitors with the induction of lithium toxicity in patients maintained on lithium, and with the occurrence of severe hypersensitivity reactions in patients undergoing haemodialysis, venom immunisation or concomitant allopurinol therapy.

Digoxin pharmacokinetics and perindopril in heart failure patients

The influence of chronic perindopril treatment on digoxin pharmacokinetics was investigated in 10 patients with mild chronic heart failure under stable diuretic and digitalis treatment and normal renal function. Digoxin was administered at a dose of 0.125 mg/day (n = 2) or 0.250 mg/day (n = 8). The 24-hour steady-state digoxin profile was assessed before and after concomitant administration of perindopril for 1 month at doses of 2 mg once a day for the first 8 days and 4 mg once a day for the remaining 21 days. Chronic treatment with perindopril produced no significant effect on mean (+/- standard deviation) digoxin serum area under the curve for 24 hours (17.9 +/- 7.4 versus 16.3 +/- 4.4 ng/mL.h), peak digoxin concentration (1.3 +/- 0.54 versus 1.2 +/- 0.36 ng/mL), time to peak concentration (3 versus 4 hours), and apparent oral clearance of digoxin (237.7 +/- 109.6 versus 237.4 +/- 79.5 mL/min). Clinical and biologic tolerance of perindopril was good throughout the study. Chronic administration of perindopril did not alter steady-state digoxin kinetics in patients with mild chronic heart failure and normal renal function, indicating that no adaptation of the digoxin dose is required during co-prescription with perindopril in such patients.

Digoxin pharmacokinetics and spirapril, a new ace inhibitor

As concurrent use of digoxin with the novel ACE inhibitor spirapril should be common, potential for spirapril to affect steady-state digoxin kinetics was studied. Fifteen healthy white male volunteers aged 22-42 and weighing 135-225 lbs took digoxin tablets 0.25 mg every 12 hours for 5 weeks. In crossover design, each also received spirapril or matching placebo capsules during weeks 1 and 2, or 4 and 5. Dosage of spirapril was increased from 12 mg to 48 mg once daily. Spirapril produced no significant effect on mean (+/- SD) serum digoxin concentration in the steady state, area under curve for 12 hours, peak digoxin level, time to peak, or urinary digoxin excretion over 12 hours. No change in renal or whole body digoxin clearance was seen. Unlike some other cardiovascular drugs, spirapril does not alter steady-state digoxin kinetics in healthy adults.

Clinical pharmacokinetics of the newer ACE inhibitors. A review

The orally active angiotensin-converting inhibitors (ACE inhibitors) such as captopril and enalapril represent a significant therapeutic advance in the treatment of hypertension and congestive heart failure. Enalapril differs from captopril in several respects. It is a prodrug converted by hepatic esterolysis to the active (but more poorly absorbed) diacid, enalaprilat. Enalaprilat is more potent than captopril, more slowly eliminated and does not possess a sulfhydryl (SH) group. Enalapril was rapidly followed by a number of newer ACE inhibitors, the majority of which are similar to enalapril in that they are prodrugs, converted by hepatic esterolysis to a major active but poorly absorbed diacid metabolite. In one case (delapril) there are 2 active metabolites; in another (alacepril) the prodrug is converted in vivo to captopril. Lisinopril is an exception in that it is an enalaprilat-like diacid but with acceptable oral bioavailability, so that the prodrug route is not employed. The newer ACE inhibitors are at widely different stages of development, and it is not yet clear how many will reach regular clinical use. Of these newer drugs, lisinopril is the longest established and is the subject of the widest published literature. For a number there is as yet little published pharmacokinetic information. A variety of assay methods have been employed to characterise the pharmacokinetics of the ACE inhibitors, including enzymatic techniques, radioimmunoassay and chromatography. The peak plasma concentrations of the prodrugs are generally observed at around 1 hour and those of the diacid metabolites at about 2 to 4 hours. However, there is considerable variation within and between drugs, with benazepril and benazeprilat reaching peak concentrations early and enalapril and enalaprilat typical of later times to peak. Absorption of the active diacids is generally poor, and moderate (typically 30 to 70%) for the prodrugs. The bioavailability of lisinopril is about 25%. It is difficult to talk meaningfully about half-lives of the active drugs. The declines in their plasma concentrations are polyphasic and, if analytical sensitivity allows, active drug may be found at 48 hours or more following administration. This may reflect binding to ACE in plasma. Half-lives of accumulation are of the order of 12 hours; protein binding varies from little (lisinopril) to 90% (benazeprilat). Elimination is mostly renal but there may be biliary elimination for some, such as benazeprilat and fosinopril. The half-lives of the prodrugs are short. Impaired renal function decreases the elimination rate of the diacids.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)