The pharmacokinetics of ziprasidone in subjects with normal and impaired renal function.

AIMS: To assess whether renal impairment influences the pharmacokinetics of ziprasidone, and to determine whether ziprasidone is cleared via haemodialysis.
METHODS: Thirty-nine subjects with varying degrees of renal impairment were enrolled into an open-label, multicentre, multiple-dose study and assigned to four groups according to their renal function: normal (group 1, creatinine clearance > 70 ml min(-1); mildly impaired (group 2, creatinine clearance 30-60 ml min(-1); moderately impaired (group 3, creatinine clearance 10-29 ml min(-1), and severely impaired (group 4, requiring haemodialysis three times-a-week). Subjects received ziprasidone 40 mg day(-1), given orally with food, as two divided daily doses for 7 days and a single 20 mg dose on the morning of day 8. Pharmacokinetic variables were determined from multiple venous blood samples collected on days 1 and 8 (haemodialysis day for subjects with severe renal impairment). Additional samples were collected from subjects with severe renal impairment on day 7 (nonhaemodialysis day).
RESULTS: On day 1 there were no statistically significant differences in the pharmacokinetics (AUC(0, 12 h), Cmax, tmax) of ziprasidone among subjects with normal renal function and those with mild, moderate and severe renal impairment. The AUC(0,12 h) and Cmax in subjects with mildly impaired renal function were statistically significantly greater than in those with moderately impaired renal function (P = 0.0163-0.0385). The mean AUC(0,12 h) was 272, 370, 250 and 297 ng ml(-1) h in groups 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively. Corresponding mean Cmax values were 47, 61, 41 and 50 ng ml(-1) and corresponding mean tmax values were 5, 6, 5 and 5 h. On day 8 there were no statistically significant differences in the pharmacokinetics (AUC(0,12 h), Cmax, tmax, lambda(z), Fb) of ziprasidone among subjects with normal renal function and those with moderate or severe renal impairment. The AUC(0,12 h) in subjects with mild renal impairment was statistically significantly greater than those in the other three groups (P = 0.0025-0.0221), but this was not considered clinically significant. The mean AUC(0,12 h) were 446, 650, 389 and 427 ng ml(-1) h in groups 1, 2, 3 and 4, respectively. Corresponding mean Cmax values were 68, 93, 54 and 70 ng ml(-1), corresponding mean tmax values were 4, 5, 4 and 5 h and corresponding mean lambda(z) were 0.14, 0.11, 0.14 and 0.17 h(-1). The mean percentage Fb was 99.84-99.88% across all groups and the mean t(1/2),z ranged from 4.2 to 6.4 h. Comparison of the mean AUC(0,12 h) and Cmax values in subjects with severe renal impairment on day 7 with those on day 8 suggested that haemodialysis does not have a clinically significant effect on the pharmacokinetics of ziprasidone.
CONCLUSIONS: The findings of this study indicate that mild-to-moderate impairment of renal function does not result in clinically significant alteration of ziprasidone pharmacokinetics and therefore does not necessitate dose adjustment.

RCT Entities:   Population Interventions Outcomes