Premium
Disopyramide pharmacokinetics and metabolism: effect of inducers.
Author(s) -
Kapil RP,
Axelson JE,
Mansfield IL,
Edwards DJ,
McErlane B,
Mason MA,
Lalka D,
Kerr CR
Publication year - 1987
Publication title -
british journal of clinical pharmacology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.216
H-Index - 146
eISSN - 1365-2125
pISSN - 0306-5251
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-2125.1987.tb03246.x
Subject(s) - disopyramide , metabolite , pharmacokinetics , metabolism , chemistry , active metabolite , population , medicine , free fraction , endocrinology , pharmacology , environmental health
1. The disposition of orally administered disopyramide was studied in a population of smokers (n = 6) and non‐smokers (n = 8) before and during phenobarbitone treatment (100 mg daily for 21 days; Cp 21st day = 13.9 +/− 2.0 micrograms ml‐1). The comparative inducibility of these populations by phenobarbitone was assessed as was the inductive effect of cigarette smoking, per se. Furthermore, the determinants of the intensity of the inductive effect were examined, as well as the effect of the barbiturate on the binding of disopyramide to alpha 1‐acid glycoprotein (AGP). 2. Smokers and non‐smokers exhibited similar half‐ lives (6.48 +/− 1.49 vs 6.66 +/− 1.02 h), apparent total body clearances (0.100 +/− 0.020 vs 0.117 +/− 0.034 l h‐1 kg‐1), mean renal clearances (0.043 +/− 0.0093 vs 0.057 +/− 0.013 l h‐1 kg‐1) and apparent intrinsic metabolic clearances (0.057 +/− 0.015 vs 0.060 +/− 0.024 l h‐1 kg‐1) before phenobarbitone treatment. 3. Both populations responded comparably to barbiturate exposure in that apparent intrinsic metabolic clearance more than doubled. Interestingly, the magnitude of this increase was highly dependent on the observed baseline apparent intrinsic metabolic clearance, (r' = 0.81; P less than 0.001). 4. Phenobarbitone treatment of non‐smokers resulted in an increase in the AUC of the active metabolite N‐despropyl disopyramide (MND), but not significantly (3.8 +/− 1.6 vs 4.1 +/− 2.3 micrograms ml‐1 h). Similar results were observed in smokers (3.5 +/− 1.4 vs 3.9 +/− 2.0 micrograms ml‐1 h, respectively). 5. The percent of administered dose recovered in urine as disopyramide in non‐smokers was significantly decreased upon phenobarbitone treatment (43 +/− 6% vs 25 +/− 5%), whereas the percent of dose recovered as MND increased significantly in this group (25 +/− 6% vs 31 +/− 5%). The population of smokers responded similarly. 6. At doses typically used to achieve hepatic microsomal enzyme induction in man, phenobarbitone treatment caused no significant change or trend towards a change in serum AGP concentrations as measured using the radial immunodiffusion method in nonsmokers (67.4 +/− 19.9 mg dl‐1 vs 68.0 +/− 40.7 mg dl‐1) or smokers (64.5 +/− 15.7 vs 67.9 +/− 14.9). Similarly, when AGP concentration was estimated in serum from non‐ smokers using a nephelometric method no effect attributable to phenobarbitone was observed (47.9 +/− 1.3 vs 47.9 +/− 16.8 mg dl‐1). Consistent with this observation, disopyramide free fraction was not affected by barbiturate treatment.