Previous Article | Next Article 
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, March 1999, p. 699-701, Vol. 43, No. 3
0066-4804/99/$04.00+0
Copyright © 1999, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
Lack of Absorption of Didanosine after Rectal
Administration in Human Immunodeficiency Virus-Infected
Patients
Uwe
Wintergerst,1,*
B.
Rolinski,1
B.
Sölder,2
J. R.
Bogner,3
E.
Wolf,4
H.
Jäger,4
A. A.
Roscher,1 and
B.
H.
Belohradsky1
Children's Hospital, University of
Munich,1 and Kuratorium für
Immunschwächeerkrankungen,4 80337 Munich, and Medizinische Poliklinik, University of Munich,
80336 Munich,3 Germany, and
Children's Hospital, University of Innsbruck, 6020 Innsbruck,
Austria2
Received 8 May 1998/Returned for modification 25 August
1998/Accepted 27 December 1998
 |
ABSTRACT |
The feasibility of rectal administration of didanosine (DDI) was
studied in six human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients. After
oral intake of a DDI solution (100 mg/m2 of body surface
area) combined with an antacid (Maalox), pharmacokinetic parametric
values were in accordance with previously published data; the mean ± standard deviation for terminal half-life was 59.5 ± 15.0 min,
that for peak concentration was 5.2 ± 3.9 µmol/liter, and that
for the area under the time-concentration curve (AUC) was 494 ± 412 min · µmol/liter. After rectal administration of a
similarly prepared DDI solution (100 mg/m2 of body surface
area), plasma DDI levels were below the detection limit (0.1 µmol/liter) at all time points in five of the six patients, and in
the remaining patient the AUC after rectal application was only 5% of
that after oral administration. We conclude that oral administration of
DDI cannot be easily replaced by rectal application.
 |
TEXT |
Didanosine (DDI) is an important
component of antiretroviral therapy for human immunodeficiency virus
(HIV)-infected children (7) and adults (6). At
present only an oral formulation is available. DDI is rapidly degraded
by gastric juice (8, 13). To ensure sufficient oral
absorption it has to be administered together with an appropriate
buffer to a patient with an empty stomach. Despite these arrangements,
the average bioavailability is reported to be low (<40%
[13]) and highly variable (2 to 89%
[1]). In addition, drug intake is inconvenient and the neutralization of the gastric juice may interfere with the absorption of other drugs (14). Therefore, in order to avoid these
disadvantages it is desirable to evaluate other routes of
administration. In HIV-infected patients we have previously
demonstrated a substantial absorption of zidovudine after rectal
administration (16). In an animal model rectal application
of DDI resulted in a mean bioavailability of about 15% (2).
The aim of the present study was to evaluate the pharmacokinetics of
DDI after rectal administration in HIV-infected patients.
Patients and methods.
Six HIV-infected male outpatients under
treatment with DDI (100 to 120 mg/m2 of body surface [BS]
twice daily) were studied after their informed consent was obtained.
The mean age of the patients was 30 years (range, 7 to 46 years), mean
weight was 55 kg (range, 25 to 66 kg), and mean BS was 1.56 m2 (range, 0.9 to 1.8 m2). The CD4 cell count
ranged from 105 to 393 cells/µl (mean, 220 cells/µl). Disease
stages according to the Centers for Disease Control classification
(5) were as follows: for one patient, A1; for two patients,
A2; and for three patients, C3. At the time of this study all patients
had a hemoglobin level of >80 g/liter, neutrophil count of
>1,000/µl, no evidence or prior history of pancreatitis or
neuropathy, and no apparent opportunistic infections and did not
manifest diarrhea or rectal ulcers.
Pharmacokinetic investigations were done in the morning. Patients
fasted overnight and DDI treatment was withheld for the last 12 h.
For drug administration DDI (Videx powder for children) was dissolved
in distilled water and mixed with an equal volume of magnesium
hydroxide-aluminum hydroxide (Maalox) to a final concentration of 10 mg/ml. This solution was administered at a dose of 100 mg/m2 of BS for both parts of the study (after oral
administration and rectal application). For rectal application DDI was
given via a lubricated nasogastric tube inserted about 8 to 10 cm
proximal to the external anus. Then, the tube was flushed with air.
There was no evidence of leakage of the DDI solution during the study period of 4 h. Blood samples were collected by a peripheral
indwelling catheter before and 30, 60, 90, 120, 150, 180, and 240 min
after drug administration. The investigations after rectal application were done 1 week subsequent to those after oral administration.
Drug assay.
Concentrations of DDI in plasma were determined by
high-performance liquid chromatography (10). In brief, 0.5 ml of plasma was extracted with methanol on a 500-mg
Si-C18 column (Bond Elut; ICT, Frankfurt, Germany). Samples
were run isocratically on a 250 mm by 4.6 mm (height by outside
diameter) Supersphere endcapped 5-µm RP-18 column (Merck, Darmstadt,
Germany). The mobile phase consisted of a 50 mM potassium hydrogen
phosphate solution, methanol, and triethanolamine (85/15/0.05
[vol/vol/vol]) adjusted to pH 4.0 with phosphoric acid.
Concentrations of DDI were calculated by measuring peak height and
referring to external standards and an internal standard
(didehydrothymidine [D4T]). Retention times for DDI and D4T were
about 5.35 and 6.40 min, respectively. The lower limit of detection
(defined as threefold signal/noise ratio) was 0.1 µmol/liter. The
method yielded linear results over the concentration range up to 50 µmol/liter (correlation coefficient [r2] was
0.9985, x-intercept was 0.15, and y-intercept
0.03). Intra- and interassay coefficients of variation were 4.9 and
6.7%, respectively.
All chemicals used were of analytical grade or better and purchased
from Merck. Pure DDI was a kind gift of the Bristol-Myers Squibb
Company, Syracuse, N.Y.
Pharmacokinetic analysis.
Maximum concentration
(Cmax), time to maximum concentration
(Tmax), terminal elimination half-life
(t1/2
), and area under the time-concentration
curve (AUC) were calculated by a noncompartmental model. In detail,
Cmax and Tmax were
determined by visual inspection of the time concentration curve, and
t1/2
was determined by least-squares
regression analysis. The AUC0-
was calculated by using
the linear-trapezoidal rule and extrapolated to infinity
(Clast/
) with approximation of the last data point. For calculations the pharmacokinetic software package Topfit 2.0 was used (9).
Results.
After oral application, the mean ± standard
deviation for Cmax was 5.2 ± 3.9 µmol/liter, the mean Tmax was 55.0 ± 23.0 min, and that for t1/2
was 59.5 ± 15.0 min. The mean AUC was 494 ± 412 min · µmol/l (Table
1). Rectal application of the DDI
solution was well tolerated by all patients, who showed no signs of
bowel irritation or stimulation of defecation. After rectal
application, in five of the six patients DDI concentrations were below
the lower limit of detection at all time points. In one patient small amounts of DDI were detected (0.43, 0.16, and 0.14 µmol/liter after
30, 60, and 90 min, respectively). The corresponding AUC after rectal
application in this patient was 5.3% of that after oral
administration.
Discussion.
In this study we attempted to compare the
pharmacokinetics of DDI after oral and rectal administration. After
oral application the pharmacokinetic parametric values in all
patients were in good agreement with previously published data (1,
8, 11). Surprisingly, after rectal application no measurable
absorption of DDI was detected in five of the six patients. In the
sixth patient only very low levels of DDI were found in comparison to those observed after oral administration. Overall, this indicates a
nearly complete presystemic elimination of DDI when it is applied rectally in humans.
In rats, however, rather similar bioavailabilities were demonstrated
after oral (16% [
15]) and rectal (15%
[
2]) administration.
In the latter investigation DDI
was infused in a manner such that
the drug was deposited in the rectum
and colon. The authors were
able to show a 39-fold higher absorption
rate in the rectum as
compared to the colon. In our study, we applied
DDI in a way that
should lead to drug deposition exclusively in the
rectum. Nevertheless,
we did not detect any significant absorption of
DDI.
In the present study, a single dose of 100 mg/m
2
(equivalent to approximately 2.5 to 5 mg/kg of body weight), which is
within
the range of a standard dose of a therapeutic regimen, was
applied.
In contrast, in rats Bramer et al. (
2) administered
a dose
of 200 mg/kg of body weight. Even if the body surface rule is
taken into consideration, this represents a strikingly higher
dose.
Assuming similar rectal bioavailabilities in humans and
in rats
(approximately 15%) we would have expected an average
AUC after rectal
application of about half of that observed after
oral administration
(approximately 30 to 40%) in humans. However,
rectal absorption may
not necessarily depend on the dose in a
linear manner. In rats, a
significant presystemic loss of DDI
after rectal application was
observed. This was mainly due to
degradation by enzymes in the
"intestinal contents" and to a smaller
extent to first-pass
metabolism in the intestinal epithelium or
in the liver (
3).
This presystemic loss may occur in humans
as well. Thus, a standard
"oral" dose applied rectally may be
rapidly degraded before
significant absorption occurs. In liver
homogenates, metabolism of DDI
was shown to be saturable (
3),
and this may be true for the
degradation capacity of the intestinal
contents, too. In the study in
rats the high dose of DDI may have
exceeded the saturability of the
degrading enzymes. Furthermore,
Bramer et al. (
2) supposedly
reduced these intestinal contents
by extensive enemas prior to drug
application. In addition, these
enemas might have caused mucosal damage
that facilitated absorption
of DDI in the
rats.
Finally, DDI was rectally applied in a solution containing Maalox,
which possibly may have impaired the absorption of the
drug. DDI has a
pKa of 9.12 (
4,
12). The DDI-Maalox solution
is supposed to
be neutral if instilled into the rectum and neutral
to slightly acidic
in the stomach. Thus, it is not likely that
the pH difference between
the stomach and the rectum may lead
to markedly different ionization
states of DDI. Furthermore, DDI
is quite soluble at neutral pH
(
12) and therefore probably does
not precipitate out of the
Maalox solution in the rectal environment.
Taken together, these
observations suggest that it is not likely
that rectal application of
DDI together with a buffered solution
accounts for the lack of
absorption in
humans.
We conclude that oral administration of DDI cannot be easily replaced
by rectal administration as suggested by the results
of an animal study
unless high-dose application or specific stabilizers
are
evaluated.
 |
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS |
We are indebted to the patients who participated in this study.
Furthermore, we thank Steffi Schlieben and Gabi Strotmann for excellent
technical help.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
Corresponding author. Mailing address: Children's
Hospital of the Ludwig-Maximilian's University, Lindwurmstrasse 4, 80337 Munich, Germany. Phone: 49-89-5160-3931. Fax: 49-89-5160-3964. E-mail:
uwe.wintergerst{at}KK-i.med.uni-muenchen.de.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Balis, F. M.,
P. A. Pizzo,
K. M. Butler,
M. E. Hawkins,
P. Brouwers,
R. N. Husson,
F. Jacobson,
S. M. Blaney,
J. Gress,
P. F. Jarosinski, and D. G. Poplack.
1992.
Clinical pharmacology of 2',3'-dideoxyinosine in human immunodeficiency virus-infected children.
J. Infect. Dis.
165:99-104[Medline].
|
| 2.
|
Bramer, S. L.,
M. G. Wientjes, and J. L. Au.
1993.
Absorption of 2',3'-dideoxyinosine from lower gastrointestinal tract in rats and kinetic evidence of different absorption rates in colon and rectum.
Pharmacol. Res.
10:763-770.
|
| 3.
|
Bramer, S. L.,
J. L. Au, and M. G. Wientjes.
1993.
Gastrointestinal and hepatic first-pass elimination of 2',3'-dideoxyinosine in rats.
J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther.
265:731-738[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 4.
| Bristol-Myers Squibb. Videx. Product
information for pharmacists. Bristol-Myers Squibb, Munich, Germany.
|
| 5.
|
Centers for Disease Control.
1992.
1993 revised classification system for HIV infection and expanded surveillance case definition for AIDS among adolescents and adults.
Morbid. Mortal. Weekly Rep.
41:1-19.
|
| 6.
|
Delta Coordinating Committee.
1996.
Delta: a randomised double-blind controlled trial comparing combinations of zidovudine plus didanosine or zalcitabine with zidovudine alone in HIV-infected individuals.
Lancet
348:283-291[Medline].
|
| 7.
|
Englund, J. A.,
J. C. Baker,
C. Raskino,
R. E. McKinney,
B. Petrie,
M. G. Fowler,
D. Pearson,
A. Gershon,
G. D. McSherry,
E. J. Abrams,
J. Schliozberg, and J. L. Sullivan.
1997.
Zidovudine, didanosine, or both as the initial treatment for symptomatic HIV-infected children.
N. Engl. J. Med.
336:1704-1712[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 8.
|
Hartmann, N. R.,
R. Y. Yarchoan,
J. M. Pluda,
R. V. Thomas,
K. M. Wyvill,
K. P. Flora,
S. Broder, and D. G. Johns.
1991.
Pharmacokinetics of 2',3'-dideoxyinosine in patients with severe human immunodeficiency infection. II. The effects of different oral formulations and the presence of other medications.
Clin. Pharmacol. Ther.
50:278-285[Medline].
|
| 9.
|
Heinzel, G.,
R. Woloszczak, and P. Thomann.
1993.
Topfit 2.0. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data analysis system for the PC, p. 2/6-2/26.
Gustav Fischer Verlag, Stuttgart, Germany.
|
| 10.
|
Knupp, C. A.,
F. A. Stancato,
E. A. Papp, and R. H. Barbhaiya.
1990.
Quantitation of didanosine in human plasma and urine by high-performance liquid chromatography.
J. Chromatogr.
533:282-290[Medline].
|
| 11.
|
Mueller, B. U.,
P. A. Pizzo,
M. Farley,
R. N. Husson,
J. Goldsmith,
A. Kovacs,
L. Woods,
J. Ono,
J. A. Church,
P. Brouwers,
P. F. Jarosinki,
D. Venzon, and F. Balis.
1994.
Pharmacokinetic evaluation of the combination of zidovudine and didanosine in children with human immunodeficiency virus infection.
J. Pediatr.
125:142-146[Medline].
|
| 12.
|
Nassar, M. N.
1993.
Didanosine, p. 185-227.
In
H. G. Brittain (ed.), Analytical profiles of drug substances and excipients. Academic Press, San Diego, Calif.
|
| 13.
|
Perry, C. M., and J. A. Balfour.
1996.
Didanosine.
Drugs
52:928-962[Medline].
|
| 14.
|
Shelton, M. J.,
A. M. O'Donell, and G. D. Morse.
1992.
Didanosine.
Ann. Pharmacother.
26:660-670[Abstract].
|
| 15.
|
Wientjes, M. G., and J. L.-S. Au.
1991.
Pharmacokinetics of oral 2',3'-dideoxyinosine in rats.
Pharmacol. Res.
9:822-825.
|
| 16.
|
Wintergerst, U.,
B. Rolinski,
J. R. Bogner,
G. Notheis,
F. D. Goebel,
A. A. Roscher, and B. H. Belohradsky.
1997.
Pharmacokinetics of zidovudine after rectal administration in human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients.
Antimicrob. Agents. Chemother.
41:1143-1145[Abstract].
|
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, March 1999, p. 699-701, Vol. 43, No. 3
0066-4804/99/$04.00+0
Copyright © 1999, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.