Allongement du temps QT
Événements indésirables médicamenteux
|Gain de poids|
Variantes ✨Pour une évaluation intensive des variantes par ordinateur, veuillez choisir l'abonnement standard payant.
Explications concernant les substances pour les patients
Nous n'avons pas de mise en garde supplémentaire concernant l'association de asénapine et de pipéracilline. Veuillez également consulter les informations pertinentes des spécialistes.
Les changements d'exposition rapportés correspondent aux changements de la courbe concentration-temps plasmatique [ AUC ]. Nous ne prévoyons aucun changement dans l'exposition à la asénapine, lorsqu'il est associé à la pipéracilline (100%). Nous ne prévoyons aucun changement dans l'exposition à la pipéracilline, lorsqu'il est associé à la asénapine (100%).
Les paramètres pharmacocinétiques de la population moyenne sont utilisés comme point de départ pour calculer les changements individuels d'exposition dus aux interactions.
La asénapine a une faible biodisponibilité orale [ F ] de 100 %, c'est pourquoi la concentration plasmatique maximale [Cmax] a tendance à changer fortement avec une interaction. La demi-vie terminale [ t12 ] est de 24 heures et des taux plasmatiques constants [ Css ] sont atteints après environ 96 heures. La liaison aux protéines [ Pb ] est modérément forte à 95% et le volume de distribution [ Vd ] est très grand à 1700 litres. Le métabolisme se fait principalement via CYP1A2 et le transport actif s'effectue notamment via UGT1A4.
La pipéracilline a une faible biodisponibilité orale [ F ] de 100 %, c'est pourquoi la concentration plasmatique maximale [Cmax] a tendance à changer fortement avec une interaction. La demi-vie terminale [ t12 ] est assez courte (0.9 heures) et des taux plasmatiques constants [ Css ] sont rapidement atteints. La liaison aux protéines [ Pb ] est très faible à 30%. Environ 20 % d'une dose administrée sont excrétés sous forme inchangée par les reins et cette proportion est rarement modifiée par les interactions. Le métabolisme ne se fait pas via les cytochromes communs et le transport actif s'effectue notamment via MRP4.
|Effets sérotoninergiques a||0||Ø||Ø|
Note: À notre connaissance, ni la asénapine ni la pipéracilline n'augmentent l'activité sérotoninergique.
|Kiesel & Durán b||1||+||Ø|
Recommandation: Par mesure de précaution, une attention particulière doit être portée aux symptômes anticholinergiques, en particulier après augmentation de la dose et à de celles situées dans la marge thérapeutique supérieure.
Notation: La asénapine n'a qu'un effet modéré sur le système anticholinergique. Le risque de syndrome anticholinergique avec ce médicament est plutôt faible si la dosage est respecté. L'effet anticholinergique de la pipéracilline n'est pas pertinent.
Allongement du temps QT
Note: En association, la asénapine et la pipéracilline peuvent potentiellement déclencher des arythmies ventriculaires de type torsades de pointes.
Effets indésirables généraux
|Effets secondaires||∑ fréquence||asé||pip|
|Gain de poids||11.5 %||11.5||n.a.|
|Hypotension orthostatique||1.5 %||1.5||n.a.|
|Crise d'épilepsie||0.3 %||0.3||0.01|
L'anémie hémolytique: pipéracilline
Réaction d'hypersensibilité: asénapine, pipéracilline
Syndrome malin des neuroleptiques: asénapine
Érythème polymorphe: pipéracilline
Syndrome de Stevens-Johnson: pipéracilline
Nécrolyse épidermique toxique: pipéracilline
Insuffisance rénale: pipéracilline
Sur la base de vos réponses et des informations scientifiques, nous évaluons le risque individuel d'effets secondaires indésirables. Ces recommandations sont destinées à conseiller les professionnels et ne se substituent pas à la consultation d'un médecin. Dans la version d'essai (alpha), le risque de toutes les substances n'a pas encore été évalué de manière concluante.
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Drug-induced torsades de pointes (TdP) is a complex regulatory and clinical problem due to the rarity of this sometimes fatal adverse event. In this context, the US FDA Adverse Event Reporting System (AERS) is an important source of information, which can be applied to the analysis of TdP liability of marketed drugs. OBJECTIVE: To critically evaluate the risk of antimicrobial-induced TdP by detecting alert signals in the AERS, on the basis of both quantitative and qualitative analyses. METHODS: Reports of TdP from January 2004 through December 2008 were retrieved from the public version of the AERS. The absolute number of cases and reporting odds ratio as a measure of disproportionality were evaluated for each antimicrobial drug (quantitative approach). A list of drugs with suspected TdP liability (provided by the Arizona Centre of Education and Research on Therapeutics [CERT]) was used as a reference to define signals. In a further analysis, to refine signal detection, we identified TdP cases without co-medications listed by Arizona CERT (qualitative approach). RESULTS: Over the 5-year period, 374 reports of TdP were retrieved: 28 antibacterials, 8 antifungals, 1 antileprosy and 26 antivirals were involved. Antimicrobials more frequently reported were levofloxacin (55) and moxifloxacin (37) among the antibacterials, fluconazole (47) and voriconazole (17) among the antifungals, and lamivudine (8) and nelfinavir (6) among the antivirals. A significant disproportionality was observed for 17 compounds, including several macrolides, fluoroquinolones, linezolid, triazole antifungals, caspofungin, indinavir and nelfinavir. With the qualitative approach, we identified the following additional drugs or fixed dose combinations, characterized by at least two TdP cases without co-medications listed by Arizona CERT: ceftriaxone, piperacillin/tazobactam, cotrimoxazole, metronidazole, ribavirin, lamivudine and lopinavir/ritonavir. DISCUSSION: Disproportionality for macrolides, fluoroquinolones and most of the azole antifungals should be viewed as 'expected' according to Arizona CERT list. By contrast, signals were generated by linezolid, caspofungin, posaconazole, indinavir and nelfinavir. Drugs detected only by the qualitative approach should be further investigated by increasing the sensitivity of the method, e.g. by searching also for the TdP surrogate marker, prolongation of the QT interval. CONCLUSIONS: The freely available version of the FDA AERS database represents an important source to detect signals of TdP. In particular, our analysis generated five signals among antimicrobials for which further investigations and active surveillance are warranted. These signals should be considered in evaluating the benefit-risk profile of these drugs.
Abstract: An assessment of the effects of asenapine on QTc interval in patients with schizophrenia revealed a discrepancy between the results obtained by two different methods: an intersection-union test (IUT) (as recommended in the International Conference on Harmonisation E14 guidance) and an exposure-response (E-R) analysis. Simulations were performed in order to understand and reconcile this discrepancy. Although estimates of the time-matched, placebo-corrected mean change in QTc from baseline (ddQTc) at peak plasma concentrations from the E-R analysis ranged from 2 to 5 ms per dose level, the IUT applied to simulated data from the E-R model yielded maximum ddQTc estimates of 7-10 ms for the various doses of asenapine. These results indicate that the IUT can produce biased estimates that may induce a high false-positive rate in individual thorough QTc trials. In such cases, simulations from an E-R model can aid in reconciling the results from the two methods and may support the use of E-R results as a basis for labeling.
Abstract: The metabolism and excretion of asenapine [(3aRS,12bRS)-5-chloro-2-methyl-2,3,3a,12b-tetrahydro-1H-dibenzo[2,3:6,7]-oxepino [4,5-c]pyrrole (2Z)-2-butenedioate (1:1)] were studied after sublingual administration of [(14)C]-asenapine to healthy male volunteers. Mean total excretion on the basis of the percent recovery of the total radioactive dose was ∼90%, with ∼50% appearing in urine and ∼40% excreted in feces; asenapine itself was detected only in feces. Metabolic profiles were determined in plasma, urine, and feces using high-performance liquid chromatography with radioactivity detection. Approximately 50% of drug-related material in human plasma was identified or quantified. The remaining circulating radioactivity corresponded to at least 15 very polar, minor peaks (mostly phase II products). Overall, >70% of circulating radioactivity was associated with conjugated metabolites. Major metabolic routes were direct glucuronidation and N-demethylation. The principal circulating metabolite was asenapine N(+)-glucuronide; other circulating metabolites were N-desmethylasenapine-N-carbamoyl-glucuronide, N-desmethylasenapine, and asenapine 11-O-sulfate. In addition to the parent compound, asenapine, the principal excretory metabolite was asenapine N(+)-glucuronide. Other excretory metabolites were N-desmethylasenapine-N-carbamoylglucuronide, 11-hydroxyasenapine followed by conjugation, 10,11-dihydroxy-N-desmethylasenapine, 10,11-dihydroxyasenapine followed by conjugation (several combinations of these routes were found) and N-formylasenapine in combination with several hydroxylations, and most probably asenapine N-oxide in combination with 10,11-hydroxylations followed by conjugations. In conclusion, asenapine was extensively and rapidly metabolized, resulting in several regio-isomeric hydroxylated and conjugated metabolites.
Abstract: BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The effects of hepatic or renal impairment on the pharmacokinetics of atypical antipsychotics are not well understood. Drug exposure may increase in patients with hepatic disease, owing to a reduction of certain metabolic enzymes. The objective of the present study was to study the effects of hepatic or renal impairment on the pharmacokinetics of asenapine and its N-desmethyl and N⁺-glucuronide metabolites. METHODS: Two clinical studies were performed to assess exposure to asenapine, desmethylasenapine and asenapine N⁺-glucuronide in subjects with hepatic or renal impairment. Pharmacokinetic parameters were determined from plasma concentration-time data, using standard noncompartmental methods. The pharmacokinetic variables that were studied included the maximum plasma concentration (C(max)) and the time to reach the maximum plasma concentration (t(max)). Eligible subjects, from inpatient and outpatient clinics, were aged ≥18 years with a body mass index of ≥18 kg/m² and ≤32 kg/m². Sublingual asenapine (Saphris®) was administered as a single 5 mg dose. RESULTS: Thirty subjects participated in the hepatic impairment study (normal hepatic function, n = 8; mild hepatic impairment [Child-Pugh class A], n = 8; moderate hepatic impairment [Child-Pugh class B], n = 8; severe hepatic impairment [Child-Pugh class C], n = 6). Thirty-three subjects were enrolled in the renal impairment study (normal renal function, n = 9; mild renal impairment, n = 8; moderate renal impairment, n = 8; severe renal impairment, n = 8). Asenapine and N-desmethylasenapine exposures were unaltered in subjects with mild or moderate hepatic impairment, compared with healthy controls. Severe hepatic impairment was associated with increased area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to infinity (AUC(∞)) values for total asenapine, N-desmethylasenapine and asenapine N⁺-glucuronide (5-, 3-, and 2-fold, respectively), with slight increases in the C(max) of asenapine but 3- and 2-fold decreases in the C(max) values for N-desmethylasenapine and asenapine N⁺-glucuronide, respectively, compared with healthy controls. The mean AUC(∞) of unbound asenapine was more than 7-fold higher in subjects with severe hepatic impairment than in healthy controls. Mild renal impairment was associated with slight elevations in the AUC(∞) of asenapine compared with healthy controls; alterations observed with moderate and severe renal impairment were marginal. N-desmethylasenapine exposure was only slightly altered by renal impairment. No correlations were observed between exposure and creatinine clearance. CONCLUSION: Severe hepatic impairment (Child-Pugh class C) was associated with pronounced increases in asenapine exposure, but significant increases were not seen with mild (Child-Pugh class A) or moderate (Child-Pugh class B) hepatic impairment, or with any degree of renal impairment. Asenapine is not recommended in patients with severe hepatic impairment; no dose adjustment is needed in patients with mild or moderate hepatic impairment, or in patients with renal impairment.
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Anticholinergic drugs are often involved in explicit criteria for inappropriate prescribing in older adults. Several scales were developed for screening of anticholinergic drugs and estimation of the anticholinergic burden. However, variation exists in scale development, in the selection of anticholinergic drugs, and the evaluation of their anticholinergic load. This study aims to systematically review existing anticholinergic risk scales, and to develop a uniform list of anticholinergic drugs differentiating for anticholinergic potency. METHODS: We performed a systematic search in MEDLINE. Studies were included if provided (1) a finite list of anticholinergic drugs; (2) a grading score of anticholinergic potency and, (3) a validation in a clinical or experimental setting. We listed anticholinergic drugs for which there was agreement in the different scales. In case of discrepancies between scores we used a reputed reference source (Martindale: The Complete Drug Reference®) to take a final decision about the anticholinergic activity of the drug. RESULTS: We included seven risk scales, and evaluated 225 different drugs. Hundred drugs were listed as having clinically relevant anticholinergic properties (47 high potency and 53 low potency), to be included in screening software for anticholinergic burden. CONCLUSION: Considerable variation exists among anticholinergic risk scales, in terms of selection of specific drugs, as well as of grading of anticholinergic potency. Our selection of 100 drugs with clinically relevant anticholinergic properties needs to be supplemented with validated information on dosing and route of administration for a full estimation of the anticholinergic burden in poly-medicated older adults.
Abstract: No Abstract available
Abstract: Transporters in proximal renal tubules contribute to the disposition of numerous drugs. Furthermore, the molecular mechanisms of tubular secretion have been progressively elucidated during the past decades. Organic anions tend to be secreted by the transport proteins OAT1, OAT3 and OATP4C1 on the basolateral side of tubular cells, and multidrug resistance protein (MRP) 2, MRP4, OATP1A2 and breast cancer resistance protein (BCRP) on the apical side. Organic cations are secreted by organic cation transporter (OCT) 2 on the basolateral side, and multidrug and toxic compound extrusion (MATE) proteins MATE1, MATE2/2-K, P-glycoprotein, organic cation and carnitine transporter (OCTN) 1 and OCTN2 on the apical side. Significant drug-drug interactions (DDIs) may affect any of these transporters, altering the clearance and, consequently, the efficacy and/or toxicity of substrate drugs. Interactions at the level of basolateral transporters typically decrease the clearance of the victim drug, causing higher systemic exposure. Interactions at the apical level can also lower drug clearance, but may be associated with higher renal toxicity, due to intracellular accumulation. Whereas the importance of glomerular filtration in drug disposition is largely appreciated among clinicians, DDIs involving renal transporters are less well recognized. This review summarizes current knowledge on the roles, quantitative importance and clinical relevance of these transporters in drug therapy. It proposes an approach based on substrate-inhibitor associations for predicting potential tubular-based DDIs and preventing their adverse consequences. We provide a comprehensive list of known drug interactions with renally-expressed transporters. While many of these interactions have limited clinical consequences, some involving high-risk drugs (e.g. methotrexate) definitely deserve the attention of prescribers.
Abstract: Asenapine is one of the newer atypical antipsychotics on the market. It is a sublingually administered drug that is indicated for the treatment of both schizophrenia and bipolar disorder, and is considered to be safe and well tolerated. Herein, we report a 71-year-old female with a history of bipolar disorder who had ventricular trigemini and experienced a large increase in her QTc interval after starting treatment with asenapine. These changes ceased following withdrawal of asenapine. In this case report, we discuss the importance of cardiac monitoring when switching antipsychotics, even to those that are considered to have low cardiac risk.
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Anticholinergic drugs put elderly patients at a higher risk for falls, cognitive decline, and delirium as well as peripheral adverse reactions like dry mouth or constipation. Prescribers are often unaware of the drug-based anticholinergic burden (ACB) of their patients. This study aimed to develop an anticholinergic burden score for drugs licensed in Germany to be used by clinicians at prescribing level. METHODS: A systematic literature search in pubmed assessed previously published ACB tools. Quantitative grading scores were extracted, reduced to drugs available in Germany, and reevaluated by expert discussion. Drugs were scored as having no, weak, moderate, or strong anticholinergic effects. Further drugs were identified in clinical routine and included as well. RESULTS: The literature search identified 692 different drugs, with 548 drugs available in Germany. After exclusion of drugs due to no systemic effect or scoring of drug combinations (n = 67) and evaluation of 26 additional identified drugs in clinical routine, 504 drugs were scored. Of those, 356 drugs were categorised as having no, 104 drugs were scored as weak, 18 as moderate and 29 as having strong anticholinergic effects. CONCLUSIONS: The newly created ACB score for drugs authorized in Germany can be used in daily clinical practice to reduce potentially inappropriate medications for elderly patients. Further clinical studies investigating its effect on reducing anticholinergic side effects are necessary for validation.
Abstract: A highly selective and sensitive liquid chromatography-tandem mass spectrometry (LC-MS/MS) assay has been described for the determination of asenapine (ASE) in presence of its inactive metabolites-desmethyl asenapine (DMA) and asenapine--glucuronide (ASG). ASE, and ASE 13C-d3, used as internal standard (IS), were extracted from 300 µL human plasma by a simple and precise liquid-liquid extraction procedure using methyl-butyl ether. Baseline separation of ASE from its inactive metabolites was achieved on Chromolith Performance RP(100 mm × 4.6 mm) column using acetonitrile-5.0 mM ammonium acetate-10% formic acid (90:10:0.1, v/v/v) within 4.5 min. Quantitation of ASE was done on a triple quadrupole mass spectrometer equipped with electrospray ionization in the positive mode. The protonated precursor to product ion transitions monitored for ASE and ASE 13C-d3 were286.1 → 166.0 and290.0 → 166.1, respectively. The limit of detection (LOD) and limit of quantitation (LOQ) of the method were 0.0025 ng/mL and 0.050 ng/mL respectively in a linear concentration range of 0.050-20.0 ng/mL for ASE. The intra-batch and inter-batch precision (% CV) and mean relative recovery across quality control levels were ≤ 5.8% and 87.3%, respectively. Matrix effect, evaluated as IS-normalized matrix factor, ranged from 1.03 to 1.05. The stability of ASE under different storage conditions was ascertained in presence of the metabolites. The developed method is much simpler, matrix free, rapid and economical compared to the existing methods. The method was successfully used for a bioequivalence study of asenapine in healthy Indian subjects for the first time.