4.4 Article

Effect of meal and antisecretory agents on the pharmacokinetics of danoprevir/ritonavir in healthy volunteers

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHARMACY AND PHARMACOLOGY
卷 66, 期 1, 页码 23-31

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1111/jphp.12151

关键词

food; omeprazole; pharmacokinetics; ranitidine; ritonavir-boosted danoprevir

资金

  1. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd, Basel, Switzerland
  2. F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.

向作者/读者索取更多资源

ObjectivesTo evaluate the effect of a low- and high-fat meal and co-administration of ranitidine or omeprazole on the pharmacokinetics of ritonavir-boosted danoprevir (DNVr). MethodsIn this randomised, open-label, cross-over study, healthy subjects received a single dose of DNVr. In group 1, DNVr was administered while fasting or with a low-fat or high-fat meal. In group 2, DNVr was administered alone or with ranitidine 150mg (single dose) or omeprazole 40mg (multiple doses). Key findingsGroup 1 (n=16): relative to fasting conditions, food slightly prolonged absorption but did not alter the extent of absorption. DNV area under the plasma concentration-time curve extrapolated to infinity (AUC(0-)), maximum plasma concentration (C-max), and plasma concentration 12h after administration (C-12h) geometric mean ratios (GMR%) (90% confidence interval (CI)) with a low-fat meal were 92.3 (80.2-106), 61.8 (51.0-74.9) and 95.2 (80.9-112), versus fasting conditions, and with a high-fat meal 99.5 (86.4-115), 58.9 (48.5-71.6) and 101 (86.0-119). Group 2 (n=13): ranitidine or omeprazole had no clinically significant effect on DNV pharmacokinetics. DNV AUC(0-), C-max and C-12h GMR% (90% CI) with ranitidine: 81.9 (68.3-98.1), 104 (86.9-123) and 87.5 (69.3-111), and with omeprazole: 83.0 (67.4-102), 92.7 (70.6-122) and 93.3 (65.6-133). ConclusionsThe absence of clinically relevant effects of food, ranitidine or omeprazole on DNVr pharmacokinetics suggests that DNVr can be administered without regard to meals and in combination with H-2 antagonists or proton pump inhibitors.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.4
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据