BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Two studies were conducted to investigate whether the pharmacokinetics of the atypical antipsychotic aripiprazole were altered in individuals with hepatic or renal impairment compared with those with normal hepatic or renal function. STUDY DESIGN: Two open-label, single-dose studies. STUDY SETTING: Clinical research unit. PATIENTS: Study 1: Subjects with normal hepatic function (n = 6) and subjects with hepatic impairment (Child-Pugh class A [mild, n = 8], B [moderate, n = 8] or C [severe, n = 3]). Study 2: Subjects with normal renal function (creatinine clearance >80 mL/min; n = 7) and subjects with severe renal impairment (creatinine clearance <30 mL/min; n = 6). TREATMENT: Single oral dose of aripiprazole 15 mg. PHARMACOKINETIC ANALYSES: Noncompartmental pharmacokinetic analysis was performed using plasma aripiprazole and dehydro-aripiprazole concentration-time data. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Study 1 (hepatic impairment study): apparent oral clearance of unbound drug (CL/Fu) and the maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) of aripiprazole; Study 2 (renal impairment study): CL/Fu, Cmax and renal clearance (CL(R)). Safety assessments included 12-lead ECGs, vital sign monitoring, clinical laboratory measurements and assessment of adverse events.f RESULTS: In the hepatic impairment study, the mean total Cmax of aripiprazole was significantly lower in subjects with severe hepatic impairment compared with those with normal hepatic function (p = 0.04). The fraction of aripiprazole unbound (fu) was significantly greater for subjects with mild (p = 0.02) or severe hepatic impairment (p < 0.01) but not for those with moderate hepatic impairment (p = 0.09) compared with healthy controls. There were no meaningful differences in either the Cmax of unbound aripiprazole or CL/Fu between groups. The mean CL(R) of aripiprazole was negligible (0.04 mL/h/kg in controls and 0.19 mL/h/kg in patients with severe hepatic impairment). In the renal impairment study, the mean total Cmax values were numerically higher (approximately 40%) and the area under the plasma aripiprazole concentration-time curve from time zero to infinity was lower (approximately 19%) in renally impaired subjects versus those with normal renal function; the fu was comparable between groups. Aripiprazole CL(R) was approximately 3-fold higher in renally impaired subjects, but this difference was not statistically significant. No deaths or serious adverse events were reported during either study. CONCLUSION: A single aripiprazole 15-mg dose was well tolerated. There were no meaningful differences in aripiprazole pharmacokinetics between groups of subjects with normal hepatic or renal function and those with either hepatic or renal impairment. Adjustment of the aripiprazole dose does not appear to be required in populations with hepatic or renal impairment.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Two studies were conducted to investigate whether the pharmacokinetics of the atypical antipsychotic aripiprazole were altered in individuals with hepatic or renal impairment compared with those with normal hepatic or renal function. STUDY DESIGN: Two open-label, single-dose studies. STUDY SETTING: Clinical research unit. PATIENTS: Study 1: Subjects with normal hepatic function (n = 6) and subjects with hepatic impairment (Child-Pugh class A [mild, n = 8], B [moderate, n = 8] or C [severe, n = 3]). Study 2: Subjects with normal renal function (creatinine clearance >80 mL/min; n = 7) and subjects with severe renal impairment (creatinine clearance <30 mL/min; n = 6). TREATMENT: Single oral dose of aripiprazole 15 mg. PHARMACOKINETIC ANALYSES: Noncompartmental pharmacokinetic analysis was performed using plasma aripiprazole and dehydro-aripiprazole concentration-time data. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Study 1 (hepatic impairment study): apparent oral clearance of unbound drug (CL/Fu) and the maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) of aripiprazole; Study 2 (renal impairment study): CL/Fu, Cmax and renal clearance (CL(R)). Safety assessments included 12-lead ECGs, vital sign monitoring, clinical laboratory measurements and assessment of adverse events.f RESULTS: In the hepatic impairment study, the mean total Cmax of aripiprazole was significantly lower in subjects with severe hepatic impairment compared with those with normal hepatic function (p = 0.04). The fraction of aripiprazole unbound (fu) was significantly greater for subjects with mild (p = 0.02) or severe hepatic impairment (p < 0.01) but not for those with moderate hepatic impairment (p = 0.09) compared with healthy controls. There were no meaningful differences in either the Cmax of unbound aripiprazole or CL/Fu between groups. The mean CL(R) of aripiprazole was negligible (0.04 mL/h/kg in controls and 0.19 mL/h/kg in patients with severe hepatic impairment). In the renal impairment study, the mean total Cmax values were numerically higher (approximately 40%) and the area under the plasma aripiprazole concentration-time curve from time zero to infinity was lower (approximately 19%) in renally impaired subjects versus those with normal renal function; the fu was comparable between groups. Aripiprazole CL(R) was approximately 3-fold higher in renally impaired subjects, but this difference was not statistically significant. No deaths or serious adverse events were reported during either study. CONCLUSION: A single aripiprazole 15-mg dose was well tolerated. There were no meaningful differences in aripiprazole pharmacokinetics between groups of subjects with normal hepatic or renal function and those with either hepatic or renal impairment. Adjustment of the aripiprazole dose does not appear to be required in populations with hepatic or renal impairment.
Authors: Eduard Vieta; Michel Bourin; Raymond Sanchez; Ronald Marcus; Elyse Stock; Robert McQuade; William Carson; Neveen Abou-Gharbia; Rene Swanink; Taro Iwamoto Journal: Br J Psychiatry Date: 2005-09 Impact factor: 9.319
Authors: Gary Sachs; Raymond Sanchez; Ronald Marcus; Elyse Stock; Robert McQuade; William Carson; Neveen Abou-Gharbia; Cheryl Impellizzeri; Stephen Kaplita; Linda Rollin; Taro Iwamoto Journal: J Psychopharmacol Date: 2006-01-09 Impact factor: 4.153
Authors: Steven G Potkin; Anutosh R Saha; Mary J Kujawa; William H Carson; Mirza Ali; Elyse Stock; Joseph Stringfellow; Gary Ingenito; Stephen R Marder Journal: Arch Gen Psychiatry Date: 2003-07
Authors: Stephen R Marder; Robert D McQuade; Elyse Stock; Stephen Kaplita; Ronald Marcus; Allan Z Safferman; Anutosh Saha; Mirza Ali; Taro Iwamoto Journal: Schizophr Res Date: 2003-06-01 Impact factor: 4.939
Authors: Paul E Keck; Ronald Marcus; Stavros Tourkodimitris; Mirza Ali; Amy Liebeskind; Anutosh Saha; Gary Ingenito Journal: Am J Psychiatry Date: 2003-09 Impact factor: 18.112
Authors: Siegfried Kasper; Mark N Lerman; Robert D McQuade; Anutosh Saha; William H Carson; Mirza Ali; Donald Archibald; Gary Ingenito; Ronald Marcus; Teresa Pigott Journal: Int J Neuropsychopharmacol Date: 2003-12 Impact factor: 5.176
Authors: Rachael W Taylor; Lindsey Marwood; Emanuella Oprea; Valeria DeAngel; Sarah Mather; Beatrice Valentini; Roland Zahn; Allan H Young; Anthony J Cleare Journal: Int J Neuropsychopharmacol Date: 2020-12-03 Impact factor: 5.176
Authors: Pierre Peeters; Howard Bockbrader; Edwin Spaans; Peter Dogterom; Kenneth Lasseter; Thomas Marbury; Gordon L Gibson; Rik de Greef Journal: Clin Pharmacokinet Date: 2011-07 Impact factor: 6.447
Authors: Joseph McEvoy; Robert A Millet; Kenneth Dretchen; Ayodele A Morris; Michael J Corwin; Peter Buckley Journal: Psychopharmacology (Berl) Date: 2014-10-28 Impact factor: 4.530
Authors: Lisa Alina Kneller; Pablo Zubiaur; Dora Koller; Francisco Abad-Santos; Georg Hempel Journal: Clin Pharmacokinet Date: 2021-06-14 Impact factor: 6.447
Authors: Steven J Kovacs; Lillian Ting; Jens Praestgaard; Gangadhar Sunkara; Haiying Sun; Daniel S Stein; S Ken Tanaka; Stephen Villano Journal: Antimicrob Agents Chemother Date: 2020-10-20 Impact factor: 5.191