SwePub
Sök i SwePub databas

  Extended search

Träfflista för sökning "WFRF:(Lindegardh Niklas) srt2:(2012)"

Search: WFRF:(Lindegardh Niklas) > (2012)

  • Result 1-2 of 2
Sort/group result
   
EnumerationReferenceCoverFind
1.
  • Byakika-Kibwika, Pauline, et al. (author)
  • Lopinavir/ritonavir significantly influences pharmacokinetic exposure of artemether/lumefantrine in HIV-infected Ugandan adults.
  • 2012
  • In: Journal of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. - : Oxford University Press (OUP). - 0305-7453 .- 1460-2091. ; 67:5, s. 1217-23
  • Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
    • BACKGROUND: Treatment of HIV/malaria-coinfected patients with antiretroviral therapy (ART) and artemisinin-based combination therapy has potential for drug interactions. We investigated the pharmacokinetics of artemether, dihydroartemisinin and lumefantrine after administration of a single dose of 80/480 mg of artemether/lumefantrine to HIV-infected adults, taken with and without lopinavir/ritonavir.METHODS: A two-arm parallel study of 13 HIV-infected ART-naive adults and 16 HIV-infected adults stable on 400/100 mg of lopinavir/ritonavir plus two nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT 00619944). Each participant received a single dose of 80/480 mg of artemether/lumefantrine under continuous cardiac function monitoring. Plasma concentrations of artemether, dihydroartemisinin and lumefantrine were measured.RESULTS: Co-administration of artemether/lumefantrine with lopinavir/ritonavir significantly reduced artemether maximum concentration (C(max)) and area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) [median (range): 112 (20-362) versus 56 (17-236) ng/mL, P = 0.03; and 264 (92-1129) versus 151 (38-606) ng · h/mL, P < 0.01]. Dihydroartemisinin C(max) and AUC were not affected [66 (10-111) versus 73 (31-224) ng/mL, P = 0.55; and 213 (68-343) versus 175 (118-262) ng · h/mL P = 0.27]. Lumefantrine C(max) and AUC increased during co-administration [2532 (1071-5957) versus 7097 (2396-9462) ng/mL, P < 0.01; and 41,119 (12,850-125,200) versus 199,678 (71,205-251,015) ng · h/mL, P < 0.01].CONCLUSIONS: Co-administration of artemether/lumefantrine with lopinavir/ritonavir significantly increases lumefantrine exposure, but decreases artemether exposure. Population pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic trials will be highly valuable in evaluating the clinical significance of this interaction and determining whether dosage modifications are indicated.
  •  
2.
  • Höglund, Richard, 1984, et al. (author)
  • A population pharmacokinetic model of piperaquine in pregnant and non-pregnant women with uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria in Sudan.
  • 2012
  • In: Malaria journal. - : Springer Science and Business Media LLC. - 1475-2875. ; 11
  • Journal article (peer-reviewed)abstract
    • ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Pregnancy is associated with an increased risk of developing a malaria infection and a higher risk of developing severe malaria. The pharmacokinetic properties of many anti-malarials are also altered during pregnancy, often resulting in a decreased drug exposure. Piperaquine is a promising anti-malarial partner drug used in a fixed-dose combination with dihydroartemisinin. The aim of this study was to investigate the population pharmacokinetics of piperaquine in pregnant and non-pregnant Sudanese women with uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria. METHOD: Symptomatic patients received a standard dose regimen of the fixed dose oral piperaquine-dihydroartemisinin combination treatment. Densely sampled plasma aliquots were collected and analysed using a previously described LC-MS/MS method. Data from 12 pregnant and 12 non-pregnant women were analysed using nonlinear mixed-effects modelling. A Monte Carlo Mapped Power (MCMP) analysis was conducted based on a previously published study to evaluate the power of detecting covariates in this relatively small study. RESULTS: A three-compartment disposition model with a transit-absorption model described the observed data well. Body weight was added as an allometric function on all clearance and volume parameters. A statistically significant decrease in estimated terminal piperaquine half-life in pregnant compared with non-pregnant women was found, but there were no differences in post-hoc estimates of total piperaquine exposure. The MCMP analysis indicated a minimum of 13 pregnant and 13 non-pregnant women were required to identify pregnancy as a covariate on relevant pharmacokinetic parameters (80% power and p=0.05). Pregnancy was, therefore, evaluated as a categorical and continuous covariate (i.e. estimate gestational age) in a full covariate approach. Using this approach pregnancy was not associated with any major change in piperaquine elimination clearance. However, a trend of increasing elimination clearance with increasing gestational age could be seen. CONCLUSIONS: The population pharmacokinetic properties of piperaquine were well described by a three-compartment disposition model in pregnant and non-pregnant women with uncomplicated malaria. The modelling approach showed no major difference in piperaquine exposure between the two groups and data presented here do not warrant a dose adjustment in pregnancy in this vulnerable population.
  •  
Skapa referenser, mejla, bekava och länka
  • Result 1-2 of 2

Kungliga biblioteket hanterar dina personuppgifter i enlighet med EU:s dataskyddsförordning (2018), GDPR. Läs mer om hur det funkar här.
Så här hanterar KB dina uppgifter vid användning av denna tjänst.

 
pil uppåt Close

Copy and save the link in order to return to this view