BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Since little is known regarding the pharmacokinetics of voriconazole in renally impaired patients, two prospective, open-label, parallel-group volunteer studies were conducted to estimate the effect of renal impairment on the pharmacokinetics of oral voriconazole and intravenous voriconazole solubilized with sulphobutylether-beta-cyclodextrin (SBECD), respectively. METHODS: In study A, male subjects with no (n = 6), mild (n = 6), moderate (n = 6) or severe (n = 6) renal impairment received one 200 mg dose oforal voriconazole. Voriconazole plasma levels were periodically assessed until 48 hours post-dose. In study B, male subjects with no (n = 6) or moderate (n = 7) renal impairment received multiple doses ofintravenous voriconazole solubilized with SBECD (6 mg/kg twice daily [day 1] then 3 mg/kg twice daily [days 2-6] followed by a final dose of 3 mg/kg on the morning of day 7) at an infusion rate of 3 mg/kg/h. Voriconazole plasma levels were periodically assessed until 36 hours following the final dose. Pharmacokinetics were determined by non-compartmental methods. RESULTS: The pharmacokinetics of voriconazole were unaffected in subjects with any degree of renal impairment in both studies. In study B, clearance of SBECD was proportional to creatinine clearance (r2 = 0.857). Although two subjects had >30% increase in serum creatinine from baseline, these changes did not correlate with SBECD trough levels (r2 = 0.053). The majority of subjects with moderate renal insufficiency were able to tolerate 7 days of intravenous voriconazole solubilized with SBECD. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that renal impairment does not affect the pharmacokinetics of voriconazole. Furthermore, in subjects with moderate renal impairment, there is a strong linear correlation between SBECD clearance and creatinine clearance, and elevated SBECD levels do not necessarily correlate with increased serum creatinine levels (an indicator of worsening renal function).
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Since little is known regarding the pharmacokinetics of voriconazole in renally impaired patients, two prospective, open-label, parallel-group volunteer studies were conducted to estimate the effect of renal impairment on the pharmacokinetics of oral voriconazole and intravenous voriconazole solubilized with sulphobutylether-beta-cyclodextrin (SBECD), respectively. METHODS: In study A, male subjects with no (n = 6), mild (n = 6), moderate (n = 6) or severe (n = 6) renal impairment received one 200 mg dose of oral voriconazole. Voriconazole plasma levels were periodically assessed until 48 hours post-dose. In study B, male subjects with no (n = 6) or moderate (n = 7) renal impairment received multiple doses of intravenous voriconazole solubilized with SBECD (6 mg/kg twice daily [day 1] then 3 mg/kg twice daily [days 2-6] followed by a final dose of 3 mg/kg on the morning of day 7) at an infusion rate of 3 mg/kg/h. Voriconazole plasma levels were periodically assessed until 36 hours following the final dose. Pharmacokinetics were determined by non-compartmental methods. RESULTS: The pharmacokinetics of voriconazole were unaffected in subjects with any degree of renal impairment in both studies. In study B, clearance of SBECD was proportional to creatinine clearance (r2 = 0.857). Although two subjects had >30% increase in serum creatinine from baseline, these changes did not correlate with SBECD trough levels (r2 = 0.053). The majority of subjects with moderate renal insufficiency were able to tolerate 7 days of intravenous voriconazole solubilized with SBECD. CONCLUSION: These data suggest that renal impairment does not affect the pharmacokinetics of voriconazole. Furthermore, in subjects with moderate renal impairment, there is a strong linear correlation between SBECD clearance and creatinine clearance, and elevated SBECD levels do not necessarily correlate with increased serum creatinine levels (an indicator of worsening renal function).
Authors: B J Kullberg; J D Sobel; M Ruhnke; P G Pappas; C Viscoli; J H Rex; J D Cleary; E Rubinstein; L W P Church; J M Brown; H T Schlamm; I T Oborska; F Hilton; M R Hodges Journal: Lancet Date: 2005 Oct 22-28 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: F Alvarez-Lerma; J M Nicolás-Arfelis; J C Rodríguez-Borregán; J Díaz-Regañón; M Sa-Borges; F García-López; A Allepuz-Palau Journal: J Chemother Date: 2005-08 Impact factor: 1.714
Authors: M Cuenca-Estrella; J L Rodríguez-Tudela; E Mellado; J V Martínez-Suárez; A Monzón Journal: J Antimicrob Chemother Date: 1998-10 Impact factor: 5.790
Authors: Verena Hafner; David Czock; Jürgen Burhenne; Klaus-Dieter Riedel; Jürgen Bommer; Gerd Mikus; Christoph Machleidt; Thomas Weinreich; Walter E Haefeli Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2010-04-05 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: A M L Oude Lashof; J D Sobel; M Ruhnke; P G Pappas; C Viscoli; H T Schlamm; J H Rex; B J Kullberg Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2012-03-26 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Amanda A Morris; Scott W Mueller; Joseph E Rower; Taylor Washburn; Tyree H Kiser Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2015-08-10 Impact factor: 5.191
Authors: Craig M Lilly; Verna L Welch; Thomas Mayer; Paul Ranauro; Joanne Meisner; David R Luke Journal: BMC Infect Dis Date: 2013-01-16 Impact factor: 3.090