4.4 Article

Single-dose pharmacokinetics and safety of iptakalim hydrochloride in Chinese healthy volunteers

Journal

JOURNAL OF PHARMACY AND PHARMACOLOGY
Volume 64, Issue 3, Pages 337-343

Publisher

WILEY-BLACKWELL
DOI: 10.1111/j.2042-7158.2011.01411.x

Keywords

food effect; iptakalim; pharmacokinetics; phase I; safety

Funding

  1. major national science and technology special projects for new drug [2008ZX09101-006]
  2. major projects of Beijing science and technology [D0204003040721]
  3. national technical innovation projects [02C26213200052]

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives To investigate the safety, pharmacokinetics and food effect of iptakalim in healthy adult Han Chinese volunteers. Methods Study 1 was a randomized open-label, Latin square designed, single-dose, three-period, self-control crossover study. Six men and six women received 5, 10 and 20 mg of iptakalim orally. Study 2 was a randomized, open-label, single-dose, two-period, self-control crossover study. Ten men were included and each subject received 5 mg iptakalim orally, fasting and nonfasting. Key findings No adverse effects were reported and no clinically meaningful changes in vital signs were found. Cmax, AUC(0-t) and AUC(0-infinity) were proportional over the dose levels of 5, 10 and 20 mg. Tmax, t1/2 and CL/F were similarly independent of dose level. In the 5 mg and 20 mg group, the Cmax, AUC0-t and AUC(0-infinity) in women were significantly higher than in men, although they showed no difference after correction by mg/kg doses in the 5 mg group. At the 5-mg dose level, no significant difference in pharmacokinetics was found in nonfasting and fasting subjects. Conclusions Single-dose pharmacokinetics of iptakalim showed dose proportionality over the dose levels of 5-20 mg. The pharmacokinetics showed gender differences in the 5 and 20 mg groups. Food had almost no impact on the pharmacokinetics at the 5 mg level.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.4
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available