No abstract

This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the approach of using diclofenac acid (DA) prodrugs for enhancing transdermal delivery. Methanol diclofenac ester (MD), ethylene glycol diclofenac ester (ED), glycerol diclofenac ester (GD), and 1,3-propylene glycol diclofenac ester (PD) were synthesized and evaluated for their physicochemical properties such as solubilities, octanol/water partition coefficients, stratum corneum/water partition coefficients, hydrolysis rates, and bioconversion rates. In vitro fluxes across human epidermal membrane (HEM) in Franz diffusion cell were determined on DA, MD, ED, GD, and PD saturated aqueous solutions. The formation of GD and ED led to the prodrugs with higher aqueous solubilities and lower partition coefficients than those of the parent drug. Prodrugs with improved aqueous solubility showed better fluxes across HEM in aqueous solution than that of the parent drug, with GD showing the highest aqueous solubility and also the highest flux. There is a linear relationship between the aqueous solubility and flux for DA, ED and PD, but GD and MD deviated from the linear line. Overall, diclofenac prodrugs with improved hydrophilicity than the parent drug could be utilized for enhancing transdermal diclofenac delivery.

The objective of this research was to evaluate the impact of changes in the formulation of metoprolol extended‐release (ER) tablets on dissolution, pharmacokinetic, and exercise‐induced heart rate (EIHR) using a combined physiologically based absorption pharmacokinetic, and population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling and simulation approach. Using a previously developed physiologically based absorption pharmacokinetic model in DDDPlus and GastroPlus, we simulated the changes in drug release and exposure as the result of quantitative changes in the release‐controlling excipient, hydroxylpropylmethylcellulose, for 50 and 200 mg. The similarity of dissolution profiles was assessed using the f2 test, and bioequivalence was tested on the simulated pharmacokinetic profiles. We used the simulated concentration‐time profiles following formulation changes as pharmacokinetic input into a population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model newly developed in NONMEM to determine if changes in pharmacokinetics lead to clinically significant changes in pharmacodynamics. Pharmacodynamic assessment was based on the percentage reduction in the EIHR from baseline. Therapeutic effect was considered similar when the model‐predicted EIHR was within 50% to 85% of the average maximum EIHR of healthy 30‐year‐old subjects. A 40% or more increase in the release rate constant resulted in dissimilarity in dissolution profiles and bioINequivalence in pharmacokinetics for both 50 and 200 mg. Formulation‐related differences in drug release of metoprolol ER tablets can lead to differences in pharmacokinetics. However, the evaluated pharmacokinetic differences do not lead to clinically meaningful differences in EIHR, suggesting that EIHR may not be sensitive enough to detect changes in pharmacokinetics of metoprolol ER products.

Drug–drug interactions (DDIs) between dabigatran and ritonavir/cobicistat are of major concern in people living with HIV, particularly in those with impaired renal function, because they can result in increased dabigatran exposure and thus an increased risk of major bleeding events. However, the extent of this interaction and subsequent need for dose adjustment in subjects with varying degrees of renal function is currently not yet fully understood. To close this knowledge gap, we conducted an integrated population physiologically‐based pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analysis linking changes in dabigatran exposure due to DDIs and varying degrees of renal function to the probability of experiencing an ischemic stroke or major bleeding event within 1 year. The results of our analysis suggest that coadministration of dabigatran etexilate (dabigatran prodrug) and ritonavir/cobicistat should be avoided in subjects with severe renal impairment. A 2‐hour dose separation or dabigatran etexilate dose reduction to 110 mg b.i.d. (twice daily) should be considered in subjects with moderate renal impairment when coadministered with ritonavir, while the dabigatran etexilate dose should be further reduced to 75 mg b.i.d. when coadministered with cobicistat. No dabigatran etexilate dose adjustment is needed in subjects with normal renal function receiving ritonavir, but dabigatran etexilate dose reduction to 110 mg b.i.d. should be considered when coadministered with cobicistat.