4.3 Article

Population pharmacokinetic analysis of letrozole in Japanese postmenopausal women

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY
卷 67, 期 10, 页码 1017-1025

出版社

SPRINGER HEIDELBERG
DOI: 10.1007/s00228-011-1042-3

关键词

CYP2A6; Letrozole; NONMEM; Pharmacogenomics; Population pharmacokinetic analysis

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Letrozole is an orally active aromatase inhibitor for the treatment of breast cancer. The objectives of this study were to examine the pharmacokinetic profile of letrozole in Japanese subjects and to identify factors that influence variability in the pharmacokinetics of letrozole using population pharmacokinetic (PPK) analysis. Twenty-five healthy postmenopausal Japanese women were enrolled in the study and received 2.5 mg letrozole once daily for 14 or 28 days. A PPK model was developed using NONMEM software. Age, body weight (WT), AST, ALT, total bilirubin, serum creatinine (CRE), and genotype of CYP2A6 were studied as covariates. Estrone, estrone sulfate, and estradiol in plasma were measured as pharmacodynamic markers. CYP2A6 genotype, CRE, and AST were significant covariates for apparent systemic clearance (CL/F), and WT was a significant covariate for apparent distribution volume (Vd/F). Population mean estimates of CL/F and Vd/F in subjects without CYP2A6 mutation were 1.03 x (CRE/0.70)(-1.27) x (AST/17.5)(-0.793) L/h and 94.2 x (WT/51.1)(1.12) L respectively. CL/F in subjects possessing 1 and 2 CYP2A6 mutation alleles were 84.3% and 44.8% of the value in the subjects without mutation respectively. Estrogen levels fell to below detection limits in most subjects after letrozole administration. Three mild and transient adverse events (upper respiratory tract inflammation, arthralgia, and vomiting) were reported in the study. CYP2A6 genotype largely influences CL/F of letrozole. Genetic polymorphism of CYP2A6 and body weight will be causes of ethnic difference in PK. However, dose adjustment is not necessary, because of the wide therapeutic range.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据