BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that age may affect the pharmacokinetics of lansoprazole in pediatric patients, but little information is available in neonates and infants. OBJECTIVE: To determine the pharmacokinetics of lansoprazole in neonates and infants <1 year of age with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD)-associated symptoms. METHODS: Two single- and repeated-dose, randomized, open-label, multicenter studies were conducted. Studies involved a pretreatment period of 7 or 14 days, a dose administration period of 5 days, and a follow-up period of 30 days for adverse events collection. The studies were conducted in both hospital and private clinic settings. The studies were performed in 24 neonates (aged <or=28 days) and 24 infants (aged >28 days, but <1 year) with GERD-associated symptoms diagnosed by medical history and the clinical judgment of the treating physician. Participants received lansoprazole 0.5 or 1.0 mg/kg/day (neonates) or 1.0 or 2.0 mg/kg/day (infants) for 5 days. Plasma pharmacokinetic parameters on dose administration day 1 were calculated, and plasma concentrations on day 5 were obtained. RESULTS: The pharmacokinetics of lansoprazole were approximately dose proportional. After a single dose in neonates, the mean maximum plasma concentrations (C(max)) were 831 and 1672 ng/mL, and the mean area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) values were 5086 and 9372 ng . h/mL for lansoprazole doses of 0.5 and 1.0 mg/kg, respectively. The time to C(max) (t(max)) [3.1 hours] and harmonic mean terminal elimination half-life (t((1/2))) [2.8 hours] were slightly longer in neonates receiving 0.5 mg/kg than the t(max) (2.6 hours) and t((1/2)) (2.0 hours) values observed in neonates receiving 1.0 mg/kg. Mean oral clearance (CL/F) was identical for the two doses (0.16 L/h/kg). After a single 1.0 or 2.0 mg/kg dose in infants, the lansoprazole C(max) values were 959 and 2087 ng/mL and the mean AUC values were approximately 2203 and 5794 ng . h/mL, respectively. The mean t(max) and mean t((1/2)) were 1.8 hours and 0.8 hours, respectively, for both doses (1.0 or 2.0 mg/kg), while mean CL/F was 0.71 and 0.61 L/h/kg, respectively. In both patient groups, mean plasma concentrations on day 5 were similar to day 1 concentrations. No clinically meaningful accumulation was observed following 5 days' dose administration. Plots of lansoprazole pharmacokinetics against chronologic age showed that dose-normalized C(max), t((1/2)), and AUC were two, three, and five times higher, respectively, in study participants aged <or=10 weeks than in study participants aged >10 weeks-1 year. Lansoprazole was well tolerated in all patients. CONCLUSIONS: The pharmacokinetics of lansoprazole in pediatric patients are age dependent, with those aged <or=10 weeks showing higher plasma exposure and lower plasma clearance than those aged >10 weeks-1 year. Thus, pediatric patients aged <or=10 weeks require a lower dose of lansoprazole than pediatric patients aged >10 weeks to achieve similar plasma exposure.
RCT Entities:
BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that age may affect the pharmacokinetics of lansoprazole in pediatric patients, but little information is available in neonates and infants. OBJECTIVE: To determine the pharmacokinetics of lansoprazole in neonates and infants <1 year of age with gastroesophageal reflux disease (GERD)-associated symptoms. METHODS: Two single- and repeated-dose, randomized, open-label, multicenter studies were conducted. Studies involved a pretreatment period of 7 or 14 days, a dose administration period of 5 days, and a follow-up period of 30 days for adverse events collection. The studies were conducted in both hospital and private clinic settings. The studies were performed in 24 neonates (aged <or=28 days) and 24 infants (aged >28 days, but <1 year) with GERD-associated symptoms diagnosed by medical history and the clinical judgment of the treating physician. Participants received lansoprazole 0.5 or 1.0 mg/kg/day (neonates) or 1.0 or 2.0 mg/kg/day (infants) for 5 days. Plasma pharmacokinetic parameters on dose administration day 1 were calculated, and plasma concentrations on day 5 were obtained. RESULTS: The pharmacokinetics of lansoprazole were approximately dose proportional. After a single dose in neonates, the mean maximum plasma concentrations (C(max)) were 831 and 1672 ng/mL, and the mean area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) values were 5086 and 9372 ng . h/mL for lansoprazole doses of 0.5 and 1.0 mg/kg, respectively. The time to C(max) (t(max)) [3.1 hours] and harmonic mean terminal elimination half-life (t((1/2))) [2.8 hours] were slightly longer in neonates receiving 0.5 mg/kg than the t(max) (2.6 hours) and t((1/2)) (2.0 hours) values observed in neonates receiving 1.0 mg/kg. Mean oral clearance (CL/F) was identical for the two doses (0.16 L/h/kg). After a single 1.0 or 2.0 mg/kg dose in infants, the lansoprazole C(max) values were 959 and 2087 ng/mL and the mean AUC values were approximately 2203 and 5794 ng . h/mL, respectively. The mean t(max) and mean t((1/2)) were 1.8 hours and 0.8 hours, respectively, for both doses (1.0 or 2.0 mg/kg), while mean CL/F was 0.71 and 0.61 L/h/kg, respectively. In both patient groups, mean plasma concentrations on day 5 were similar to day 1 concentrations. No clinically meaningful accumulation was observed following 5 days' dose administration. Plots of lansoprazole pharmacokinetics against chronologic age showed that dose-normalized C(max), t((1/2)), and AUC were two, three, and five times higher, respectively, in study participants aged <or=10 weeks than in study participants aged >10 weeks-1 year. Lansoprazole was well tolerated in all patients. CONCLUSIONS: The pharmacokinetics of lansoprazole in pediatric patients are age dependent, with those aged <or=10 weeks showing higher plasma exposure and lower plasma clearance than those aged >10 weeks-1 year. Thus, pediatric patients aged <or=10 weeks require a lower dose of lansoprazole than pediatric patients aged >10 weeks to achieve similar plasma exposure.
Authors: C D Rudolph; L J Mazur; G S Liptak; R D Baker; J T Boyle; R B Colletti; W T Gerson; S L Werlin Journal: J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr Date: 2001 Impact factor: 2.839
Authors: Gregory L Kearns; Tommy Andersson; Laura P James; Andrea Gaedigk; Rebecca A Kraynak; Susan M Abdel-Rahman; Krishnaswami Ramabadran; John N van den Anker Journal: J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2003-08 Impact factor: 3.126
Authors: Jaroslaw Kierkus; Wanda Furmaga-Jablonska; Janice E Sullivan; Elmer S David; Dan L Stewart; Natalie Rath; Caifeng Fu; Wenjin Wang; Mary K Maguire; Gail M Comer Journal: Dig Dis Sci Date: 2010-07-07 Impact factor: 3.199
Authors: Robert M Ward; Brinda Tammara; Sandra E Sullivan; Dan L Stewart; Natalie Rath; Xu Meng; Mary K Maguire; Gail M Comer Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2010-03-20 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Matthew M Laughon; Debbie Avant; Nidhi Tripathi; Christoph P Hornik; Michael Cohen-Wolkowiez; Reese H Clark; P Brian Smith; William Rodriguez Journal: JAMA Pediatr Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 16.193
Authors: Jaroslaw Kierkus; Grzegorz Oracz; Bartosz Korczowski; Edyta Szymanska; Anna Wiernicka; Marek Woynarowski Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2014-05 Impact factor: 5.606