This study investigated the effect of varying degrees of renal insufficiency on the pharmacokinetics of rosiglitazone. Subjects were stratified by estimated creatinine clearance: normal (> 80 mL/min; n = 12), mild renal insufficiency (60-80 mL/min; n = 15), moderate renal insufficiency (30-59 mL/min; n = 18), and severe renal insufficiency not requiring dialysis (< or = 29 mL/min; n = 12). Plasma rosiglitazone concentrations and protein binding were determined after a single oral 8-mg dose of rosiglitazone. Total and unbound pharmacokinetic parameters were generated using noncompartmental methods. AUC, Cmax, and t1/2 data were analyzed separately by ANOVA to provide point estimates and corresponding 95% confidence intervals. The pharmacokinetics of rosiglitazone was not markedly affected by mild, moderate, or severe renal insufficiency. Slight increases (approximately 10%-20%) in mean unbound AUC0-infinity values were observed for each insufficiency group compared to the normal group but were not considered to be clinically relevant. Patients with severe insufficiency exhibited a 38% increase in mean fraction unbound, leading to an increase in total clearance, which resulted in a 19% to 24% lower mean total AUC0-infinity and Cmax values relative to the normal group. The rates of mild or moderate adverse events were similar for all groups; there were no severe adverse events. Impaired renal function does not markedly alter the pharmacokinetics of total or unbound rosiglitazone following a single dose of rosiglitazone. Therefore, the starting dose of rosiglitazone does not need to be adjusted in patients with renal impairment. Subsequent dose adjustments should be based on individual patient response.

This was an open-label, parallel group study to compare the pharmacokinetics of multiple oral doses of eprosartan in subjects with normal renal function (Clcr > 80 mL/min; n = 8) and patients with mild (Clcr 60-80 mL/min; n = 8), moderate (Clcr 30-59 mL/min; n = 15), or severe (Clcr < 30 mL/min; n = 3) renal insufficiency. Each subject received oral eprosartan 200 mg twice daily for 6 days and a single dose on day 7. Mean total maximum concentration (Cmax) and area under the concentration-time curve from 0 to 12 hours (AUC0-12) were similar for healthy subjects and those with mild renal impairment, but were an average of 25% to 35% and 51% to 55% greater for patients with moderate and severe renal impairment, respectively, compared with healthy subjects. Mean renal clearance (Clr), which was similar for healthy subjects and patients with mild renal impairment, was decreased an average of 41% and 95% in the groups with moderate and severe renal impairment, respectively, compared with normal subjects. Eprosartan was highly bound to plasma proteins in all groups; however, the unbound fraction was increased approximately two-fold in the group with severe renal impairment. Mean unbound Cmax and AUC0-12 were an average of 53% to 61% and 185% to 210% greater for the patients with moderate and severe renal impairment, respectively, compared with healthy subjects. Headache was the most common adverse experience reported in all subgroups. Eprosartan was safe and well tolerated regardless of degree of renal impairment. Cmax and AUC were increased and renal clearance decreased in patients with moderate to severe renal impairment in comparison to healthy subjects and patients with mild renal impairment. However, based on the moderate renal clearance and known safety profile of eprosartan, it is not necessary to adjust the dose of eprosartan in patients with renal insufficiency.

The present study investigated the proportionality of exposure after single oral doses of 100, 200, 400, and 800 mg of eprosartan, a nonpeptide, nonbiphenyl angiotensin II receptor antagonist, in 23 healthy young men. Eprosartan was safe and well tolerated. Exposure to eprosartan increased with dose but in a less than proportional manner. For each two-fold dose increase, area under the concentration--time curve (AUC) increased an average of 1.6 to 1.8 times and maximum plasma drug concentration (Cmax) increased an average of 1.5 to 1.8 times. For both parameters, the greatest difference from the dose multiple was observed between the 400- and 800-mg doses. Dose proportionality of eprosartan, as assessed by an equivalence-type approach using the 100-mg dose as the reference and a 30% acceptance region (0.70, 1.43), was achieved for the 200- and 400-mg doses for AUC and the 200-mg dose for Cmax. The observed changes in the pharmacokinetics of eprosartan suggest slight saturation of absorption of eprosartan over the 100- to 800-mg dose range, most likely due to the physicochemical properties of the drug (pH-dependent aqueous solubility and lipophilicity).

This study assessed the potential nephrotoxicity of clarithromycin in comparison with gentamicin and placebo. Increased urinary excretion of alanine aminopeptidase (AAP) and N-acetyl-beta-D-glucosaminidase (NAG) served as markers of renal tubular injury. The study utilised a multiple-dose, double-blind, randomised, parallel group design. 14 healthy male subjects received 1 of 3 treatment regimens: (a) clarithromycin 500 mg orally every 12h for 13 doses and intravenous placebo every 8h (n = 5); (b) oral placebo every 12h and intravenous placebo every 8h (n = 4); and (c) intravenous gentamicin 1.7 mg/kg every 8h for 19 doses and oral placebo every 12h (n = 5). 24h urine collections were obtained daily for determinations of AAP and NAG activities. Gentamicin produced statistically significant increases (p less than 0.0001) in AAP and NAG excretion, with increases as early as the first and second day of dosing. Clarithromycin, when compared with placebo, did not produce significant elevations in AAP or NAG activity. On the basis of these data, it is unlikely that usual doses of clarithromycin have significant potential for causing nephrotoxicity.

Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics (1999) 65, 185–185; doi: