4.5 Article

Tadalafil pharmacokinetics in healthy subjects

期刊

BRITISH JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
卷 61, 期 3, 页码 280-288

出版社

BLACKWELL PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2005.02553.x

关键词

erectile dysfunction; pharmacokinetics; phosphodiesterase; tadalafil

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aims To characterize tadalafil plasma pharmacokinetics in healthy subjects following single and multiple doses. Methods Noncompartmental parameters were calculated for healthy subjects receiving a single 2.5-20-mg tadalafil dose in 13 clinical pharmacology studies. An integrated statistical analysis of results in 237 subjects provided global averages and an assessment of effects of body mass index (BMI), age, gender and smoking status. Diurnal variation, food effects and proportionality of exposure to dose were analysed in three studies. Multiple-dose pharmacokinetics were evaluated in a separate study in which parallel groups of 15 subjects received 10 or 20 mg tadalafil once daily for 10 days. Results Tadalafil was absorbed rapidly with mean C-max (378 mu g l(-1) for 20 mg) observed at 2 h; thereafter, concentrations declined nearly monoexponentially with a mean (5th, 95th percentiles) t(1/2) of 17.5 (11.5, 29.6) hours. Mean oral clearance (CL/F) was 2.48 (1.35, 4.35) l h(-1) and apparent volume of distribution (V-z/F) was 62.6 (39.5, 92.1) l. No clinically meaningful effect of BMI, age, gender or smoking was identified. Exposure was not substantially affected by time of dosing. Food had negligible effects on bioavailability as assessed by 90% confidence intervals for C-max and AUC mean ratios. Parameters were proportional to dose, indicating that doubling the dose doubled exposure. Steady state was attained by day 5 following once-daily administration, and accumulation (1.6-fold) was consistent with the t1/2. Conclusions Tadalafil pharmacokinetics are linear with respect to dose and time, and are not affected by food. Systemic clearance is low relative to other phosphodiesterase 5 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

4.5
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