PDF herunterladen
Drug Res (Stuttg) 2013; 63(07): 357-361
DOI: 10.1055/s-0033-1341424
Original Article
© Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Pharmacokinetics of Angiotensin II Receptor Blockers in the Dog Following a Single Oral Administration

I.-H. Baek
1   College of Pharmacy, Chungnam National University, Daejeon, South Korea
,
B.-Y. Lee
1   College of Pharmacy, Chungnam National University, Daejeon, South Korea
,
E.-S. Lee
1   College of Pharmacy, Chungnam National University, Daejeon, South Korea
,
K.-I. Kwon
1   College of Pharmacy, Chungnam National University, Daejeon, South Korea
› Institutsangaben
Weitere Informationen

Publikationsverlauf

received 22. Januar 2013

accepted 28. Februar 2013

Publikationsdatum:
28. März 2013 (online)

Auch verfügbar auf
    Lizenzen und Reprints

Abstract

Angiotensin II receptor blockers (ARBs) are effective and well-tolerated orally active anti-hypertensive agents. The purpose of this study was to investigate the pharmacokinetic properties of typical ARBs in the dog. 60 beagles were administered a single oral dose of Micardis® 80 mg (telmisartan), Cozaar® 50 mg (losartan), or Diovan® 80- and 160-mg (valsartan). The plasma concentrations of these ARBs were measured using liquid chromatography/tandem mass spectrometry and their pharmacokinetic properties were analyzed using both non-compartmental and compartmental approaches. The half-life and volume of distribution in dogs were in the order losartan>valsartan>telmisartan after oral administration. Systemic exposure was estimated by calculating the area under the plasma concentration-vs.-time curve from time zero to infinity (AUC inf ), and resulted in the order telmisartan>valsartan>losartan. The values of C max and AUC increased in proportion to the dose of valsartan. In compartmental analysis, the pharmacokinetics of telmisartan and losartan pharmacokinetics fit a 2-compartment model, while valsartan fit a 1-compartment model. These results provide detailed pharmacokinetic information of ARBs in the dog, and may aid in future development of improved formulations or fixed-dose combinations.

Key words

telmisartan - losartan - valsartan - pharmacokinetics - dog
 

  • References

  • 1 Dina R, Jafari M. Angiotensin II-receptor antagonists: an overview. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2000; 57: 1231-1241
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Schiffrin EL. Vascular and cardiac benefits of angiotensin receptor blockers. Am J Med 2002; 113: 409-418
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 White WB, Lacourciere Y, Davidai G. Effects of the angiotensin II receptor blockers telmisartan versus valsartan on the circadian variation of blood pressure: impact on the early morning period. Am J Hypertens 2004; 17: 347-353
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Xi GL, Cheng JW, Lu GC. Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing telmisartan with losartan in the treatment of patients with hypertension. Am J Hypertens 2008; 21: 546-552
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Sasaki T, Noda Y, Yasuoka Y et al. Comparison of the effects of telmisartan and olmesartan on home blood pressure, glucose, and lipid profiles in patients with hypertension, chronic heart failure, and metabolic syndrome. Hypertens Res 2008; 31: 921-929
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Manova MM, Stoimenova A, Clerfeuille F et al. Impact of generic competition on market share and prices of cardiovascular medicines on the Bulgarian pharmaceutical market. J Public Health 2011; 19: 91-100
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Israili ZH. Clinical pharmacokinetics of angiotensin II (AT1) receptor blockers in hypertension. J Hum Hypertens 2000; 14: 73-86
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Munger MA. Use of Angiotensin receptor blockers in cardiovascular protection: current evidence and future directions. PT 2011; 36: 22-40
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Claxton AJ, Cramer J, Pierce C. A systematic review of the associations between dose regimens and medication compliance. Clin Ther 2001; 23: 1296-1310
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Lentz KA. Current methods for predicting human food effect. AAPS J 2008; 10: 282-288
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Akaike HA. New Look at the Statistical Model Identification. IEEE Trans Automat Contr 1974; 19: 716-723
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 D’Argenio DZ, Schumitzky A. ADAPT II User’s Guide: Pharmacokinetic/ Pharmacodynamic Systems Analysis Software. Biomedical Simulations Resource, Los Angeles. 1997
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Kuentz M, Nick S, Parrott N et al. A strategy for preclinical formulation development using GastroPlus as pharmacokinetic simulation tool and a statistical screening design applied to a dog study. Eur J Pharm Sci 2006; 27: 91-99
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Patel B, Parikh RH, Swarnkar D. Enhancement of dissolution of Telmisartan through use of solid dispersion technique – surface solid dispersion. J Pharm Bioallied Sci 2012; 4: 64-68
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Volpe M, Tocci G. Rationale for triple fixed-dose combination therapy with an angiotensin II receptor blocker, a calcium channel blocker, and a thiazide diuretic. Vasc Health Risk Manag 2012; 8: 371-380
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Rizos CV, Milionis HJ, Kostapanos MS et al. Effects of rosuvastatin combined with olmesartan, irbesartan, or telmisartan on indices of glucose metabolism in Greek adults with impaired fasting glucose, hypertension, and mixed hyperlipidemia: a 24-week, randomized, open-label, prospective study. Clin Ther 2010; 32: 492-505
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Sutton SC. Companion animal physiology and dosage form performance. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2004; 56: 1383-1398
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Mitra A, Wu Y. Challenges and opportunities in achieving bioequivalence for fixed-dose combination products. AAPS J 2012; 14: 646-655
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar