John P. Savaryn, Richard L. Smith, Matthew Rosebraugh, Melina Neenan, Richard Burton, Kennan Marsh, David Wagner
{"title":"通过 LC-HRMS 对健康人血浆中的磷左旋多巴/磷卡比多巴进行代谢物分析表明,与服用左旋多巴/卡比多巴肠道凝胶相比没有重大差异","authors":"John P. Savaryn, Richard L. Smith, Matthew Rosebraugh, Melina Neenan, Richard Burton, Kennan Marsh, David Wagner","doi":"10.1002/prp2.1190","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Analysis was conducted to compare levodopa/carbidopa pharmacokinetics and drug‐related material in plasma of healthy participants after receiving a continuous infusion of Levodopa/Carbidopa Intestinal Gel (LCIG) to a continuous subcutaneous infusion of foslevodopa/foscarbidopa. Study samples were from a randomized, open‐label, 2‐period crossover study in 20 healthy participants. Participants received either 24‐h foslevodopa/foscarbidopa SC infusion to the abdomen or LCIG delivered for 24 h to the jejunum through a nasogastric tube with jejunal extension. Serial blood samples were collected for PK. Comparability of the LD PK parameters between the two treatment regimens was determined. Selected plasma samples were pooled per treatment group and per time point for metabolite profiling. LC–MS<jats:sup>n</jats:sup> was performed using high‐resolution mass spectrometry to identify drug‐related material across the dosing regimens and time points. The LD PK parameter central values and 90% confidence intervals following the foslevodopa/foscarbidopa subcutaneous infusion were between 0.8 and 1.25 relative to the LCIG infusion. With LCIG administration, LD, CD, 3‐OMD, DHPA, DOPAC, and vanillacetic acid were identified in plasma at early and late time points (0.75 and 24 h); the metabolic profile after administration of foslevodopa/foscarbidopa demonstrated the same drug‐related compounds with the exception of the administered foslevodopa. 3‐OMD and vanillacetic acid levels increased over time in both treatment regimens. Relative quantification of LC–MS peak areas showed no major differences in the metabolite profiles. These results indicate that neither the addition of monophosphate prodrug moieties nor SC administration affects the circulating metabolite profile of foslevodopa/foscarbidopa compared to LCIG.","PeriodicalId":19948,"journal":{"name":"Pharmacology Research & Perspectives","volume":"14 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-04-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Metabolite profiling of foslevodopa/foscarbidopa in plasma of healthy human participants by LC‐HRMS indicates no major differences compared to administration of levodopa/carbidopa intestinal gel\",\"authors\":\"John P. Savaryn, Richard L. Smith, Matthew Rosebraugh, Melina Neenan, Richard Burton, Kennan Marsh, David Wagner\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/prp2.1190\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Analysis was conducted to compare levodopa/carbidopa pharmacokinetics and drug‐related material in plasma of healthy participants after receiving a continuous infusion of Levodopa/Carbidopa Intestinal Gel (LCIG) to a continuous subcutaneous infusion of foslevodopa/foscarbidopa. Study samples were from a randomized, open‐label, 2‐period crossover study in 20 healthy participants. Participants received either 24‐h foslevodopa/foscarbidopa SC infusion to the abdomen or LCIG delivered for 24 h to the jejunum through a nasogastric tube with jejunal extension. Serial blood samples were collected for PK. Comparability of the LD PK parameters between the two treatment regimens was determined. Selected plasma samples were pooled per treatment group and per time point for metabolite profiling. LC–MS<jats:sup>n</jats:sup> was performed using high‐resolution mass spectrometry to identify drug‐related material across the dosing regimens and time points. The LD PK parameter central values and 90% confidence intervals following the foslevodopa/foscarbidopa subcutaneous infusion were between 0.8 and 1.25 relative to the LCIG infusion. With LCIG administration, LD, CD, 3‐OMD, DHPA, DOPAC, and vanillacetic acid were identified in plasma at early and late time points (0.75 and 24 h); the metabolic profile after administration of foslevodopa/foscarbidopa demonstrated the same drug‐related compounds with the exception of the administered foslevodopa. 3‐OMD and vanillacetic acid levels increased over time in both treatment regimens. Relative quantification of LC–MS peak areas showed no major differences in the metabolite profiles. These results indicate that neither the addition of monophosphate prodrug moieties nor SC administration affects the circulating metabolite profile of foslevodopa/foscarbidopa compared to LCIG.\",\"PeriodicalId\":19948,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Pharmacology Research & Perspectives\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":2.9000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-04-10\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Pharmacology Research & Perspectives\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1002/prp2.1190\",\"RegionNum\":4,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q2\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Pharmacology Research & Perspectives","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1002/prp2.1190","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Metabolite profiling of foslevodopa/foscarbidopa in plasma of healthy human participants by LC‐HRMS indicates no major differences compared to administration of levodopa/carbidopa intestinal gel
Analysis was conducted to compare levodopa/carbidopa pharmacokinetics and drug‐related material in plasma of healthy participants after receiving a continuous infusion of Levodopa/Carbidopa Intestinal Gel (LCIG) to a continuous subcutaneous infusion of foslevodopa/foscarbidopa. Study samples were from a randomized, open‐label, 2‐period crossover study in 20 healthy participants. Participants received either 24‐h foslevodopa/foscarbidopa SC infusion to the abdomen or LCIG delivered for 24 h to the jejunum through a nasogastric tube with jejunal extension. Serial blood samples were collected for PK. Comparability of the LD PK parameters between the two treatment regimens was determined. Selected plasma samples were pooled per treatment group and per time point for metabolite profiling. LC–MSn was performed using high‐resolution mass spectrometry to identify drug‐related material across the dosing regimens and time points. The LD PK parameter central values and 90% confidence intervals following the foslevodopa/foscarbidopa subcutaneous infusion were between 0.8 and 1.25 relative to the LCIG infusion. With LCIG administration, LD, CD, 3‐OMD, DHPA, DOPAC, and vanillacetic acid were identified in plasma at early and late time points (0.75 and 24 h); the metabolic profile after administration of foslevodopa/foscarbidopa demonstrated the same drug‐related compounds with the exception of the administered foslevodopa. 3‐OMD and vanillacetic acid levels increased over time in both treatment regimens. Relative quantification of LC–MS peak areas showed no major differences in the metabolite profiles. These results indicate that neither the addition of monophosphate prodrug moieties nor SC administration affects the circulating metabolite profile of foslevodopa/foscarbidopa compared to LCIG.
期刊介绍:
PR&P is jointly published by the American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics (ASPET), the British Pharmacological Society (BPS), and Wiley. PR&P is a bi-monthly open access journal that publishes a range of article types, including: target validation (preclinical papers that show a hypothesis is incorrect or papers on drugs that have failed in early clinical development); drug discovery reviews (strategy, hypotheses, and data resulting in a successful therapeutic drug); frontiers in translational medicine (drug and target validation for an unmet therapeutic need); pharmacological hypotheses (reviews that are oriented to inform a novel hypothesis); and replication studies (work that refutes key findings [failed replication] and work that validates key findings). PR&P publishes papers submitted directly to the journal and those referred from the journals of ASPET and the BPS