Valenzuela Belén, Gisleskog Per Olsson, Cirillo Iolanda, Coenen Erwin, Ariyawansa Jay, Ali Saberi Rana, Takhtoukh Samiha, Pérez-Ruixo Juan José, Ackaert Oliver
Janssen-Cilag Spain, Part of Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies of Johnson and Johnson, Madrid, Spain.
POG Pharmacometrics, London, UK.
Clin Transl Sci. 2025 Feb;18(2):e70114. doi: 10.1111/cts.70114.
This analysis assessed the relationship between the plasma concentrations of loperamide and its N-desmethyl loperamide meta- bolite (M1) and the potential QT interval prolongation at therapeutic and supratherapeutic doses. The exposure-response analysis was performed using the data from healthy adults participating in a randomized, double-blind, single-dose, four-way (placebo; loperamide 8 mg [therapeutic]; loperamide 48 mg [supratherapeutic]; moxifloxacin 400 mg [positive control]) crossover study. The electrocardiographic measurements extracted from 12-lead digital Holter recordings were time-matched to pharmacokinetic sampling of loperamide/M1. The primary response variable was placebo-adjusted change from baseline in Fridericia-corrected QT interval (ΔΔQTcF); the exposure variable was loperamide and/or M1 concentration. A total of 53 participants with 1408 time-matched pharmacokinetic and ΔΔQTcF measurements was analyzed. Hysteresis between both loperamide and M1 concentrations and ΔΔQTcF was observed with supratherapeutic dose. The pre-specified linear concentration-ΔΔQTcF relationship was driven by M1 concentrations in the effect compartment. The model-predicted mean ΔΔQTcF at the geometric mean of the maximum concentration in the effect compartment was -0.526 msec (90% CI, -1.51 to 0.462) following 8-mg dose (2.1 ng/mL) and 6.06 msec (90% CI, 3.86-8.27) following 48-mg dose (14.2 ng/mL). The upper bound of two-sided 90% CI was < 10 msec for both doses. The sensitivity analysis considering loperamide concentrations in the effect compartment instead of M1 as input for the concentration-ΔΔQTcF analysis confirmed these findings. The data showed that loperamide or M1 does not have an effect on cardiac repolarization that exceeds the threshold of regulatory concern in healthy participants at doses of 8 and 48 mg.
本分析评估了洛哌丁胺及其N-去甲基洛哌丁胺代谢物(M1)的血浆浓度与治疗剂量和超治疗剂量下潜在的QT间期延长之间的关系。使用来自参与一项随机、双盲、单剂量、四组(安慰剂;洛哌丁胺8毫克[治疗剂量];洛哌丁胺48毫克[超治疗剂量];莫西沙星400毫克[阳性对照])交叉研究的健康成年人的数据进行暴露-反应分析。从12导联数字动态心电图记录中提取的心电图测量值与洛哌丁胺/M1的药代动力学采样进行时间匹配。主要反应变量是经弗里德里西亚校正的QT间期相对于基线的安慰剂校正变化(ΔΔQTcF);暴露变量是洛哌丁胺和/或M1浓度。对53名参与者的1408次时间匹配的药代动力学和ΔΔQTcF测量值进行了分析。在超治疗剂量下观察到洛哌丁胺和M1浓度与ΔΔQTcF之间存在滞后现象。预先设定的线性浓度-ΔΔQTcF关系由效应室中的M1浓度驱动。在效应室中最大浓度的几何平均值处,模型预测的8毫克剂量(2.1纳克/毫升)后的平均ΔΔQTcF为-0.526毫秒(90%置信区间,-1.51至0.462),48毫克剂量(14.2纳克/毫升)后的平均ΔΔQTcF为6.06毫秒(90%置信区间,3.86 - 8.27)。两种剂量的双侧90%置信区间上限均<10毫秒。将效应室中的洛哌丁胺浓度而非M1作为浓度-ΔΔQTcF分析的输入进行的敏感性分析证实了这些发现。数据表明,在8毫克和48毫克剂量下,洛哌丁胺或M1对健康参与者心脏复极化的影响未超过监管关注阈值。