S L Bramer1, W P Forbes. 1. Department of Clinical Pharmacokinetics/Pharmacodynamics & Metabolism, Otsuka America Pharmaceutical, Inc., Rockville, MD 20850, USA. steveb@mocr.oapi.com
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The pharmacokinetic profiles of cilostazol and its metabolites following a single oral dose of cilostazol 100 mg were compared between individuals with impaired and normal liver function. DESIGN: The study was conducted as a single-centre, open-label, single dose pharmacokinetic and tolerability trial. STUDY PARTICIPANTS: 12 patients with impaired and compensated liver function were compared with 12 volunteers with normal liver function. Participants in each group were matched for gender, age and weight. Of the 12 patients with hepatic impairment examined in this study, 10 had mild impairment (Child-Pugh class A) and 2 had moderate impairment (Child-Pugh class B). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Blood and urine were collected up to 144 hours after drug administration. Pharmacokinetics were determined by noncompartmental methods. RESULTS: Protein binding did not differ between the groups (95.2% healthy volunteers, 94.6% hepatically impaired patients). Mean +/- SD unbound oral clearance of cilostazol decreased by 8.6% because of hepatic impairment (3380 +/- 1400 ml/min in healthy volunteers, 3260 +/- 2030 ml/min in hepatically impaired patients). Total urinary excretion of metabolites was significantly higher in healthy volunteers (26 vs 17% of dose). Overall, the pharmacokinetics of cilostazol and its metabolites, OPC-13213 and OPC-13015, were not substantially different in those with mild and moderate hepatic disease compared with values in healthy volunteers. Except for terminal-phase disposition half-life and apparent terminal-phase volume of distribution for cilostazol, the ratios of geometric means of pharmacokinetic parameters for plasma cilostazol, OPC-13213 and OPC-13015 in those with hepatic impairment versus healthy volunteers were close to 100%. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of the pharmacokinetic analysis, dose adjustment in patients with mild hepatic impairment is not necessary. However, caution should be exercised when cilostazol is administered to patients with moderate or severe hepatic impairment.
OBJECTIVE: The pharmacokinetic profiles of cilostazol and its metabolites following a single oral dose of cilostazol 100 mg were compared between individuals with impaired and normal liver function. DESIGN: The study was conducted as a single-centre, open-label, single dose pharmacokinetic and tolerability trial. STUDY PARTICIPANTS: 12 patients with impaired and compensated liver function were compared with 12 volunteers with normal liver function. Participants in each group were matched for gender, age and weight. Of the 12 patients with hepatic impairment examined in this study, 10 had mild impairment (Child-Pugh class A) and 2 had moderate impairment (Child-Pugh class B). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Blood and urine were collected up to 144 hours after drug administration. Pharmacokinetics were determined by noncompartmental methods. RESULTS: Protein binding did not differ between the groups (95.2% healthy volunteers, 94.6% hepatically impairedpatients). Mean +/- SD unbound oral clearance of cilostazol decreased by 8.6% because of hepatic impairment (3380 +/- 1400 ml/min in healthy volunteers, 3260 +/- 2030 ml/min in hepatically impairedpatients). Total urinary excretion of metabolites was significantly higher in healthy volunteers (26 vs 17% of dose). Overall, the pharmacokinetics of cilostazol and its metabolites, OPC-13213 and OPC-13015, were not substantially different in those with mild and moderate hepatic disease compared with values in healthy volunteers. Except for terminal-phase disposition half-life and apparent terminal-phase volume of distribution for cilostazol, the ratios of geometric means of pharmacokinetic parameters for plasma cilostazol, OPC-13213 and OPC-13015 in those with hepatic impairment versus healthy volunteers were close to 100%. CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of the pharmacokinetic analysis, dose adjustment in patients with mild hepatic impairment is not necessary. However, caution should be exercised when cilostazol is administered to patients with moderate or severe hepatic impairment.
Authors: R Abbas; C P Chow; N J Browder; D Thacker; S L Bramer; C J Fu; W Forbes; M Odomi; D A Flockhart Journal: Hum Exp Toxicol Date: 2000-03 Impact factor: 2.903
Authors: M B Elam; J Heckman; J R Crouse; D B Hunninghake; J A Herd; M Davidson; I L Gordon; E B Bortey; W P Forbes Journal: Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol Date: 1998-12 Impact factor: 8.311