Ina Gesquiere1, Adam S Darwich2, Bart Van der Schueren3, Jan de Hoon4, Matthias Lannoo5, Christophe Matthys3, Amin Rostami2, Veerle Foulon1, Patrick Augustijns1. 1. Department of Pharmaceutical and Pharmacological Sciences, KU Leuven, Leuven, Belgium. 2. Centre for Applied Pharmacokinetic Research, School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, UK. 3. Clinical and Experimental Endocrinology, KU Leuven and Department of Endocrinology, University Hospitals Leuven/KU Leuven, Campus Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium. 4. Center for Clinical Pharmacology, University Hospitals Leuven/KU Leuven, Campus Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium. 5. Department of Abdominal Surgery, University Hospitals Leuven/KU Leuven, Campus Gasthuisberg, Leuven, Belgium.
Abstract
AIMS: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the disposition of metoprolol after oral administration of an immediate and controlled-release formulation before and after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) surgery in the same individuals and to validate a physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model for predicting oral bioavailability following RYGB. METHODS: A single-dose pharmacokinetic study of metoprolol tartrate 200 mg immediate release and controlled release was performed in 14 volunteers before and 6-8 months after RYGB. The observed data were compared with predicted results from the PBPK modelling and simulation of metoprolol tartrate immediate and controlled-release formulation before and after RYGB. RESULTS: After administration of metoprolol immediate and controlled release, no statistically significant difference in the observed area under the curve (AUC(0-24 h)) was shown, although a tendency towards an increased oral exposure could be observed as the AUC(0-24 h) was 32.4% [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.36, 63.5] and 55.9% (95% CI 5.73, 106) higher following RYGB for the immediate and controlled-release formulation, respectively. This could be explained by surgery-related weight loss and a reduced presystemic biotransformation in the proximal gastrointestinal tract. The PBPK values predicted by modelling and simulation were similar to the observed data, confirming its validity. CONCLUSIONS: The disposition of metoprolol from an immediate-release and a controlled-release formulation was not significantly altered after RYGB; there was a tendency to an increase, which was also predicted by PBPK modelling and simulation.
AIMS: The aim of the present study was to evaluate the disposition of metoprolol after oral administration of an immediate and controlled-release formulation before and after Roux-en-Y gastric bypass (RYGB) surgery in the same individuals and to validate a physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model for predicting oral bioavailability following RYGB. METHODS: A single-dose pharmacokinetic study of metoprolol tartrate 200 mg immediate release and controlled release was performed in 14 volunteers before and 6-8 months after RYGB. The observed data were compared with predicted results from the PBPK modelling and simulation of metoprolol tartrate immediate and controlled-release formulation before and after RYGB. RESULTS: After administration of metoprolol immediate and controlled release, no statistically significant difference in the observed area under the curve (AUC(0-24 h)) was shown, although a tendency towards an increased oral exposure could be observed as the AUC(0-24 h) was 32.4% [95% confidence interval (CI) 1.36, 63.5] and 55.9% (95% CI 5.73, 106) higher following RYGB for the immediate and controlled-release formulation, respectively. This could be explained by surgery-related weight loss and a reduced presystemic biotransformation in the proximal gastrointestinal tract. The PBPK values predicted by modelling and simulation were similar to the observed data, confirming its validity. CONCLUSIONS: The disposition of metoprolol from an immediate-release and a controlled-release formulation was not significantly altered after RYGB; there was a tendency to an increase, which was also predicted by PBPK modelling and simulation.
Authors: I B Skottheim; K Stormark; H Christensen; G S Jakobsen; J Hjelmesaeth; T Jenssen; J L E Reubsaet; R Sandbu; A Asberg Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2009-06-03 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: C Dirksen; M Damgaard; K N Bojsen-Møller; N B Jørgensen; U Kielgast; S H Jacobsen; L S Naver; D Worm; J J Holst; S Madsbad; D L Hansen; J L Madsen Journal: Neurogastroenterol Motil Date: 2013-01-29 Impact factor: 3.598
Authors: J Picot; J Jones; J L Colquitt; E Gospodarevskaya; E Loveman; L Baxter; A J Clegg Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2009-09 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: I S Hamadeh; T Y Langaee; R Dwivedi; S Garcia; B M Burkley; T C Skaar; A B Chapman; J G Gums; S T Turner; Y Gong; R M Cooper-DeHoff; J A Johnson Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2014-03-17 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Jan Peter Yska; Jacquelien T M Wanders; Blessing Odigie; Jan A Apers; Marloes Emous; Erik R E Totté; E Christiaan Boerma; Froukje L Ubels; Herman J Woerdenbag; Henderik W Frijlink; Bob Wilffert; Eric N van Roon Journal: Eur J Hosp Pharm Date: 2019-02-15
Authors: Jurjen S Kingma; Desirée M T Burgers; Valerie M Monpellier; Marinus J Wiezer; Heleen J Blussé van Oud-Alblas; Janelle D Vaughns; Catherine M T Sherwin; Catherijne A J Knibbe Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2021-06-03 Impact factor: 3.716
Authors: Philip Carlo Angeles; Ida Robertsen; Lars Thomas Seeberg; Veronica Krogstad; Julie Skattebu; Rune Sandbu; Anders Åsberg; Jøran Hjelmesaeth Journal: Obes Rev Date: 2019-06-24 Impact factor: 9.213
Authors: Charlotte Ginstman; Helena Kopp Kallner; Johanna Fagerberg-Silwer; Björn Carlsson; Andreas Ärlemalm; Ylva Böttiger; Jan Brynhildsen Journal: Obes Surg Date: 2020-06 Impact factor: 4.129