| Literature DB >> 28914344 |
Dorota Danielak1, Marta Karaźniewicz-Łada2, Anna Komosa3, Paweł Burchardt4,5, Maciej Lesiak3, Łukasz Kruszyna6, Agnieszka Graczyk-Szuster3, Franciszek Główka2.
Abstract
PURPOSE: A high interindividual variability is observed in the pharmacokinetics of clopidogrel, a widely used antiplatelet drug. In the present study, a joint parent-metabolite population pharmacokinetic model was developed to adequately describe observed concentrations of clopidogrel and its active thiol metabolite (H4).Entities:
Keywords: Clinical pharmacokinetics; Pharmacogenetics; Population pharmacokinetics; Prodrugs; Single nucleotide polymorphism
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2017 PMID: 28914344 PMCID: PMC5684285 DOI: 10.1007/s00228-017-2334-z
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol ISSN: 0031-6970 Impact factor: 2.953
Patients’ demographics and genotype distribution (n = 63). Age, weight, and BMI are presented as mean with standard deviation. Categorical data are presented as quantities with frequencies
| Parameter | Value |
| Age [years] | 65.4 ± 10.5 |
| Weight [kg] ( | 79.1 ± 14.0 |
| BMI [kg/m2] ( | 28.40 ± 4.89 |
| BMI ≥ 30 | 37 (67.3%) |
| Sex (male/female) | 42 (66.7%)/21 (33.3%) |
| DM | 22 (34.9%) |
| Statins | 60 (95.2%) |
| PPI | 46 (73.0%) |
| Pantoprazole | 43 (93.5%)a |
| Omeprazole | 2 (4.3%)a |
| Esomeprazole | 1 (2.2%)a |
| Allele | Number of carriers |
|
| 20 (31.7%) |
|
| 34 (54.0%) |
|
| 10 (15.8%) |
|
| 22 (34.9%) |
| Phenotype | Number of patients |
| UM ( | 25 (39.7%) |
| EM ( | 18 (28.6%) |
| IM ( | 20 (31.7%) |
BMI body mass index, DM diabetes mellitus, PPI proton pump inhibitors, UM ultrarapid metabolizers, EM extensive metabolizers, IM intermediate metabolizers
a The frequency of patients treated with PPI
Fig. 1Final structural model for clopidogrel and H4
Estimates of CLP and H4 pharmacokinetic parameters obtained from the final pharmacokinetic model with residual standard errors (RSE) and bootstrap results with 95% confidence intervals (CI)
| Parameter | Final model | Bootstrap results | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Estimate (RSE, %) | Mean | 95% CI | |
| k12 [1/h] | 0.592 (3.53) | 0.592 | 0.556–0.626 |
| V2/F [L] | 7660 (4.3) | 7700 | 7310–8240 |
| CL/F [L/h] | 14,500 (3.9) | 14,400 | 13,250–14,970 |
| FM | 0.045 (3.6) | 0.045 | 0.044–0.048 |
| V3/F [L] | 4.89 (4.5) | 4.90 | 4.65–5.15 |
| Q2/F [L/h] | 252 (4.2) | 251 | 232–264 |
| IIVa for k12 | 25.3 (7.3) | 24.9 | 23.7–26.9 |
| IIVa for V2/F | 63.7 (19.6) | 63.7 | 51.8–76.0 |
| IIVa for CL/F | 49.8 (8.3) | 47.1 | 45.9–53.5 |
| IIVa for FM | 71.4 (7.9) | 71.3 | 65.0–76.4 |
| Effect of | |||
| on FM (COV)b | −0.45 (8.4) | −0.45 | −0.48–−0.41 |
| Covariance between | |||
| k12 and V2/F | −0.087 (49.3) | −0.076 | −0.116–0.011 |
| Proportional residual error for CLP | −0.45 (4.5) | −0.45 | −0.49–−0.42 |
| Proportional residual error for H4 | −0.66 (5.4) | −0.65 | −0.68–−0.58 |
a%CV = (SQRT(EXP(OMEGA(N))-1))*100%
bFM = TVFM*(1 + CYP2C19*COV)
Fig. 2Diagnostic goodness-of-fit plots for clopidogrel and H4. a Observed concentrations versus population-predicted concentrations. b Observed concentrations versus individual-predicted concentrations
Fig. 3VPC plots for clopidogrel and H4 stratified upon the presence of CYP2C19*2 allele. Observed concentrations are presented as circles, bold line as median of the observed concentrations, and dashed lines as 95% confidence intervals of the observed concentrations. Dark gray areas are 50% prediction intervals of the simulated data and light gray areas are 90% prediction intervals of the simulated data
Fig. 4Comparison of the area-under-time-concentration curves (AUC) of clopidogrel and H4 in wild-type homozygotes (wt/wt) and CYP2C19*2 carriers. Data are presented as medians with boxed interquartile range and minimum-maximum as whiskers