Comparing pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profiles in female rats orally exposed to lovastatin by gavage versus diet.

The objective of this study was to assess how the dosing method (i.e., gavage versus diet) affects the absorption and disposition of lovastatin, as well as its effect on two biological markers of exposure, such as serum levels of cholesterol and triglycerides. In preclinical safety studies the test agent is normally administered by gavage, but in chemoprevention efficacy studies the test agent is usually administered with the diet. Therefore, extrapolation of safety and efficacy data from laboratory animals to humans should consider the influence of the method of administration on the absorption, disposition and effect of the drug. Lovastatin, a blood cholesterol-lowering drug with a short elimination half-life in humans, was used to assess the influence of two different dosing methods on the drug pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Plasma and liver concentrations of lovastatin and its active metabolite lovastatin-Na were measured in female rats at sequential times after administration. Serum concentrations of triglycerides and cholesterol were measured at similar times and used as biomarkers of effect. Significant differences in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics were observed after administration of lovastatin by the two oral dosing paradigms. In general, oral gavage resulted in higher peak and lower trough concentrations of lovastatin and lovastatin-Na in plasma and liver, lower area under the concentration-time curve of lovastatin-Na in plasma and liver, and less of an effect on the serum concentrations of triglycerides and cholesterol than the corresponding diet dosing. Although no inverse linear relationship was observed between pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic markers, in the case of serum cholesterol a visual trend could be observed which might have proven significant had data from a larger number of dose levels been available. As in our previous study with sulindac, this study illustrates potential limitations in trying to extrapolate from data obtained using different dosing schemes to potential safety and efficacy in humans.