Intervallo QT lungo
Reazione avversa da farmaco (ADR)
|Aumento di peso|
Varianti ✨Per l'analisi computazionale dettagliata delle varianti, si prega di selezionare l'abbonamento standard a pagamento.
Informazioni dei farmaci per i pazienti
Non abbiamo ulteriori avvertenze per la co-somministrazione di asenapina e sitagliptin. Si prega di consultare le informazioni specialistiche pertinenti.
I cambiamenti riportati in seguito all'esposizione corrispondono ai cambiamenti nell'area sottesa alla curva concentrazione plasmatica-tempo [ AUC ]. Non ci aspettiamo nessun cambiamento nell'esposizione alla asenapina, quando è co-somministrata con la sitagliptin (100%). Non ci aspettiamo nessun cambiamento nell'esposizione alla sitagliptin, quando è co-somministrata con la asenapina (100%).
I parametri farmacocinetici della popolazione media sono utilizzati come punto di partenza per calcolare i cambiamenti del singolo individuo esposto alle interazioni farmacologiche
La asenapina ha una bassa biodisponibilità orale [ F ] del 2%, motivo per cui il livello plasmatico massimo [Cmax] tende a cambiare fortemente con un'interazione. L'emivita [ t12 ] del farmaco è di 24 ore e la concentrazione allo stato stazionario [Css] si raggiunge dopo circa 96 ore. Il legame proteico [ Pb ] è moderatamente forte al 95% e il volume di distribuzione [ Vd ] è molto grande in 1700 litri. Il metabolismo avviene principalmente attraverso l'enzima CYP1A2 e il trasporto attivo avviene in particolare attraverso i trasportatori UGT1A4 e TRA8X8.
La sitagliptin ha un elevata biodisponibilità [ F ] orale pari al 87%, perciò nel corso di un'interazione farmacologica la concentrazione plasmatica massima [Cmax] tende a cambiare di poco. L'emivita [ t12 ] del farmaco è di 11 ore e la concentrazione allo stato stazionario [Css] si raggiunge dopo circa 44 ore. Il legame proteico [ Pb ] è piuttosto debole al 38%. Poiché la sostanza ha un basso tasso di estrazione epatica di 0.04, lo spostamento dal legame proteico [Pb] nel contesto di un'interazione può portare a un aumento dell'esposizione. Circa il 79.0% della dose somministrata è escreta inalterata attraverso le urine e in seguito alle varie interazioni farmacologiche questo valore raramente cambia. Tra l'altro, il metabolismo avviene rispettivamente attraverso gli enzimi CYP2C8 e CYP3A4. e il trasporto attivo avviene parzialmente attraverso i trasportatori OATP4C1 e PGP.
|Effetti serotoninergici a||0||Ø||Ø|
Valutazione: Sulla base dei dati a nostra disposizione, né la asenapina né la sitagliptin potenziano l'attività serotoninergica.
|Kiesel & Durán b||1||+||Ø|
Avvertenze e precauzioni: Per precauzione, si dovrebbe porre attenzione ai sintomi di tipo anticolinergico, soprattutto se il dosaggio è stato aumentato oppure se è al di sopra dell'intervallo terapeutico.
Valutazione: Somministrata unicamente, la Asenapina possiede lievi effetti anticolinergici. Il rischio di sindrome anticolinergica è molto basso se si rispettano i dosaggi abituali. Sulla base dei dati a nostra disposizione, la sitagliptin non causa un aumento dell'attività anticolinergica.
Intervallo QT lungo
La asenapina potrebbe causare un aumento dell'intervallo QT, ma non è noto se sia in grado di causare aritmie a torsione di punta. Non è noto se la sitagliptin sia potenzialmente in grado di prolungare l'intervallo QT
Effetti collaterali generali
|Effetti collaterali||∑ frequenza||ase||sit|
|Aumento di peso||11.5 %||11.5||n.a.|
|Infezione delle vie respiratorie superiori||5.4 %||n.a.||5.4|
|Mal di testa||3.5 %||n.a.||3.5|
Ipotensione ortostatica (1.5%): asenapina
Sindrome neurolettica maligna: asenapina
Sindrome di Stevens Johnson: sitagliptin
Angioedema: sitagliptin, asenapina
Reazione di ipersensibilità: sitagliptin, asenapina
Abbiamo valutato il rischio individuale di effetti indesiderati in base alle risposte fornite ed alle informazioni scientifiche disponibili. Le informazioni contenute nel sito hanno esclusivamente scopo informativo e non sostituiscono il parere del medico. Si accomanda pertanto di chiedere sempre il parere del proprio medico curante e/o di specialisti riguardo qualsiasi indicazione riportata. Nella versione alpha test, il rischio di tutti i farmaci non è stato ancora completamente valutato.
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Sitagliptin (MK-0431 [(2R)-4-oxo-4-(3-[trifluoromethyl]-5,6-dihydro[1,2,4]triazolo[4,3-a]pyrazin-7[8H]-yl)-1-(2,4,5-trifluorophenyl)butan-2-amine]) is an orally active, potent, and selective inhibitor of dipeptidyl peptidase IV (DPP-IV) currently in phase III development for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. METHODS: Two double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, alternating-panel studies evaluated the safety, tolerability, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics of single oral doses of sitagliptin (1.5-600 mg) in healthy male volunteers. RESULTS: Sitagliptin was well absorbed (approximately 80% excreted unchanged in the urine) with an apparent terminal half-life ranging from 8 to 14 hours. Renal clearance of sitagliptin averaged 388 mL/min and was largely uninfluenced by the dose administered. The area under the plasma concentration-time curve for sitagliptin increased in an approximately dose-dependent manner and was not meaningfully influenced by food. Single doses of sitagliptin markedly and dose-dependently inhibited plasma DPP-IV activity, with approximately 80% or greater inhibition of DPP-IV activity occurring at 50 mg or greater over a 12-hour period and at 100 mg or greater over a 24-hour period. Compared with placebo, sitagliptin produced an approximately 2-fold increase in postmeal active glucagon-like peptide 1 levels. Sitagliptin was well tolerated and was not associated with hypoglycemia. CONCLUSIONS: This study provides proof of pharmacologic characteristics for sitagliptin in humans. By inhibiting plasma DPP-IV activity, sitagliptin increases the postprandial rise in active glucagon-like peptide 1 concentrations without causing hypoglycemia in normoglycemic healthy male volunteers. Sitagliptin possesses pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics that support a once-daily dosing regimen.
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: PURPOSE: To study the impact of gemfibrozil co-administration on the pharmacokinetics of sitagliptin in healthy Indian male volunteers. METHODS: A randomized open label two-period crossover study involving 12 healthy Indian male volunteers was conducted at a single center. In each phase, the volunteers were administered sitagliptin as 100 mg tablets, either alone or co-administered with gemfibrozil as 600 mg tablets twice daily for 3 days. There was a 2-week washout period between phases. The venous blood samples were serially collected at 0-12 h post-dose, and plasma concentrations of the study drugs were estimated by a validated high-performance liquid chromatography-ultraviolet method. RESULTS: Relative to the administration of sitagliptin alone, co-administration with gemfibrozil increased the AUC₀₋₁₂ (2,167 ± 82.9 vs. 2,970 ± 76.4 ng h/ml; p < 0.0001), AUC(0-∞) (3,621 ± 222.5 vs. 5,574 ± 249.6 ng h/ml; p < 0.0002), C(max) (282.9 ± 7.7 vs. 344.1 ± 5.9 ng/ml; p < 0.0001), and t(½) (7.4 ± 0.6 vs. 10 ± 0.6 h; p = 0.0076) to statistically significant levels. The interindividual differences in the pharmacokinetic parameters of sitagliptin were found to be within acceptable limits (coefficient of variation <20%). No adverse drug events associated with sitagliptin occurred in the subjects during the study period. CONCLUSION: Although the bioavailability of sitagliptin was increased by 54% when co-administered with gemfibrozil, this interaction may not have any clinical significance as sitagliptin has a wide therapeutic index. Hence, in clinical practice, sitagliptin as 100 mg tablets and gemfibrozil as 600 mg tablets may be co-prescribed without much threat of sitagliptin toxicity. However, these results may not hold if the dose of sitagliptin is increased or if is co-prescribed with other antidiabetic drugs and/or cytochrome P450 2C8/human organic anion transporter-3 inhibitors. Further studies are needed to confirm these results in patients.
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: Altered pharmacokinetics (PK) in subjects with chronic kidney disease (CKD) may lead to dosing adjustment of certain drugs in subjects with CKD. It can be valuable to quantitatively predict PK in CKD for the management of drug dosing in these subjects. We developed physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models of seven renally eliminated drugs: adefovir, avibactam, entecavir, famotidine, ganciclovir, oseltamivir carboxylate, and sitagliptin. These drugs are all substrates of renal organic anion transporters (OATs). Drug models verified using PK data from healthy subjects (HS) were coupled with physiological models representing CKD that incorporated prior knowledge of effects of CKD on hepatic and renal elimination. The models reasonably described clinically observed PK changes in subjects with CKD (compared to subjects with normal renal function), with predicted AUC changes within 50% of the observed changes. PBPK models can be used to prospectively predict PK of renally eliminated OAT substrates in subjects with CKD.
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.