Previous Article | Next Article 
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, August 2000, p. 2149-2153, Vol. 44, No. 8
0066-4804/00/$04.00+0
Copyright © 2000, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.
Pharmacokinetics of Single-Dose Oral Stavudine in Subjects with
Renal Impairment and in Subjects Requiring Hemodialysis
Dennis M.
Grasela,1,*
Randall R.
Stoltz,2
Michael
Barry,3
Michael
Bone,4
Bernhard
Mangold,5
Padraig
O'Grady,5
Ralph
Raymond,1 and
Stephen J.
Haworth1
Bristol-Myers Squibb, Princeton, New
Jersey1; GFI Pharmaceutical Services,
Inc., Evansville, Indiana2;
University of Liverpool3 and
Royal Liverpool University Hospital
Trust,4 Liverpool, United Kingdom; and
Bristol-Myers Squibb, Waterloo, Belgium5
Received 20 April 2000/Accepted 10 May 2000
 |
ABSTRACT |
Two open-label studies assessed the pharmacokinetics of single
orally administered doses of 40 mg of stavudine in subjects with
renal impairment. In one study (study I), 15 subjects with selected
degrees of renal impairment, but not requiring hemodialysis, were stratified into three groups of five subjects each according to
creatinine clearance (CLCR) normalized by body surface area (ml/min/1.73 m2): mild (CLCR, 60 to 80),
moderate (30 to 50), and severe (
20) renal impairment. Five healthy
subjects (CLCR
90) were also enrolled. The
stavudine area under the curve from 0 h to infinity (AUC0-
) increased nonlinearly with declining renal function: 1,864, 2,215, 3,609, and 5,928 ng · h/ml for
normal renal function and for mild, moderate, and severe renal
impairment, respectively (P = 0.0001 between renal
impairment groups). The following stavudine dosage
recommendations for renal impairment were proposed for subjects
weighing
60 kg: CLCR of >50 ml/min/1.73 m2, 40 mg every 12 h; CLCR of 21 to
50 ml/min/1.73 m2, 20 mg every 12 h; and
CLCR of 10 to 20 ml/min/1.73 m2, 20 mg every
24 h. For subjects weighing <60 kg, the proposed doses were 30, 15, and 15 mg, respectively, with the same dosing intervals specified
above. In a second study (study II), 12 subjects with end-stage
renal disease requiring hemodialysis three times a week were
enrolled in a randomized, open-label crossover study (dialysis 2 h
after dosing and lasting 4 h or dosing without dialysis). There
were no statistically significant differences for
AUC0-
, AUC2-6, time to maximum
concentration of drug in serum, half-life, or apparent oral
clearance when the two treatment dosage regimens were
compared. As a result of study II, the recommended dosing rate for
subjects requiring hemodialysis was the same as that proposed
for those with severe renal impairment not requiring hemodialysis; however, dosing was recommended to follow
hemodialysis and to occur at the same time each day.
 |
INTRODUCTION |
Stavudine (ZERIT; d4T;
2',3'-didehydro-3'-deoxythymidine), a synthetic thymidine nucleoside
analogue, is indicated for use in the United States for the treatment
of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV)-infected patients who have
received prolonged prior zidovudine therapy and in the European Union
for the treatment of HIV-infected adults and children with progressive
or advanced immunodeficiency. The oral pharmacokinetics of stavudine
have been reported for both adult and pediatric patients with HIV
infection. In a pharmacokinetic study of HIV-infected patients with
AIDS or AIDS-related complex, the mean area under the
concentration-time curve from 0 h to infinity
(AUC0-
) following a single oral dose was 1,730, 2,320, 4,810, and 6,630 ng · h/ml for 0.67-, 1.33-, 2.67-, and 4-mg
doses/kg of body weight, respectively, with 34 to 41% of the oral dose
excreted as unchanged drug in the urine (3). Following oral
administration of stavudine to patients with HIV infection, the
bioavailability of stavudine at doses of 0.1 to 12 mg/kg has been
reported to range between 82 and 99% (3, 6, 8).
The relation of stavudine dose to AUC was confirmed in a study of
asymptomatic HIV-infected patients in whom 5-, 10-, 20-, and 40-mg
capsules of stavudine produced AUC0-
values of 250, 490, 980, and 1,950 ng · h/ml, respectively (8).
In children with HIV, the AUC0-
s were 628 and
1,629 ng · h/ml following administration of 1.0- and 2.0-mg/kg
doses of stavudine, respectively, and the absolute bioavailability
ranged from 61 to 78% (9). Pharmacokinetic parameters
are generally the same after single doses and repeated multiple
doses (3; S. Kaul, D. A. Dandekar,
and R. H. Barbhaiya, Abstr. VII Int. Conf. AIDS, abstr. B90,
1992). The extent of absorption of stavudine is not affected by food;
however, the rate of absorption is slightly decreased (10).
In vivo metabolism studies using 14C-labeled stavudine in
rhesus and cynomolgus monkeys have shown that fecal elimination
(biliary excretion) is negligible (1). Hepatic impairment
does not necessitate a change in stavudine dosage. When healthy human
controls were compared with HIV-negative volunteers with cirrhosis of
the liver, there were no significant differences in the pharmacokinetic
parameters (13).
Renal clearance is a major route of elimination for stavudine. Since
renal dysfunction occurs in patients with AIDS, secondary to HIV
disease or to intravenous drug abuse (5), an assessment of
the effect of renal impairment on the disposition of stavudine is
warranted. Two studies are reported here. The first study was performed
to assess the acute safety and pharmacokinetics of stavudine in
subjects with mild, moderate, or severe renal impairment. Based on these results, a second study was conducted to determine the effects of hemodialysis on stavudine pharmacokinetics.
 |
MATERIALS AND METHODS |
Study I: subjects with mild, moderate, or severe renal
impairment. (i) Subjects and study design.
In an open-label,
nonrandomized, single-center study, 20 male and female subjects were
enrolled and stratified according to their individual 24-h creatinine
clearance (CLCR) values. Each subject's CLCR
was determined on the basis of two 24-h urine collections obtained at
least 5 days apart and no more than 1 month before enrollment. The body
surface area, in square meters, for each subject was calculated by the
equation proposed by Dubois and Dubois (2): body surface
area (m2) = (weight in
kilograms)0.425 · (height in
centimeters)0.725 · 71.84. Fifteen subjects with
renal impairment, none requiring hemodialysis, were stratified into
three groups of five subjects each: mild (CLCR of 60 to 80 ml/min/1.73 m2), moderate (CLCR of 30 to 50 ml/min/1.73 m2), or severe (CLCR
20 ml/min/1.73 m2). Five subjects with normal renal function
(CLCR
90 ml/min/1.73 m2) were also
enrolled. Following an overnight fast, each subject received a single
40-mg oral dose of stavudine administered as two 20-mg capsules. The
subjects were
18 years of age, with body weights of
60 kg and no
more than 15 below or 40% above ideal body weight. Except for renal
disease, they were in good health. Subjects were excluded from the
trial if they had renal impairment requiring hemodialysis. Also
excluded were nursing or pregnant females or females of childbearing
potential, unless an acceptable contraceptive method was being used. In
addition, subjects could not be enrolled if they required concomitant
medication known to affect renal tubular function (e.g., probenicol,
beta-lactam antibiotic, or trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole) or hepatic
metabolism (e.g., cimetidine, fluconazole, phenytoin, phenobarbitol,
rifampin, or rifabutin) or if they had recent exposure to
investigational drugs. The protocol was approved by the investigator's
Institutional Review Board prior to study initiation; each subject
provided written informed consent for participation in the study prior to the performance of any study-related procedures.
(ii) Pharmacokinetic methods.
Twenty-four-hour urine
collections were made beginning immediately before dosing. Blood
samples were then collected just before and 0.25, 0.5, 0.75, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6, 8, 10, 12, 16, and 24 h after stavudine administration.
Stavudine concentrations were measured in both plasma and urine samples
by a validated high-performance liquid chromatographic method
(7). Pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated from plasma
concentration-versus-time and urinary-excretion data using
noncompartmental methods (4, 11).
The maximum observed plasma drug concentration was defined as
Cmax, which occurred at time
Tmax. A least-squares linear regression analysis
without weighting was used to determine the best-fit log-linear portion
of the concentration-versus-time data. The log-linear portion was
defined as the portion yielding the smallest mean-square error; the
slope was used to calculate the terminal elimination rate constant
(k), and the terminal elimination half-life (t1/2) was defined as 0.693/k. The
AUC0-
was determined using a combination of linear and
log-trapezoidal summations, where the log-trapezoidal summation was
applied to the log-linear portion of the plasma
concentration-versus-time profile and the linear-trapezoidal summation
was applied elsewhere. Apparent oral clearance (CLT/F) was calculated
as dose/AUC0-
. Renal clearance (CLR) was
estimated by the equation CLR = UR0-T/AUC0-T, where UR
is urinary recovery estimated directly from urinary
concentration-versus-time data and T is a specified time
point after dosing. The apparent volume of distribution
(Vdarea/F) was calculated as Dose/k · AUC0-
.
(iii) Statistical analysis.
A one-way analysis of variance
(ANOVA) was used to test the effect of renal function on stavudine
pharmacokinetics. All statistical tests were performed at an
of
0.05 (two tailed). When the overall F test for group differences was
statistically significant, Fisher's least-significant-difference test
was performed for group comparisons. A test for linearity across groups
was performed for the AUC0-
values, and a linear
regression model [AUC0-
=
0 +
1(CLcr) +
, where
0
is the intercept,
1 is the slope of the line, and
is
the error term] and an exponential model [AUC0-
=
+
0 · exp (
1 · CLCR) +
, where
is the asymptote,
0 is the intercept,
1 is the slope of the
line, and
is the error term] were fitted to the individual
stavudine AUC0-
-versus-CLCR data.
Ninety-five percent confidence intervals about the model-predicted values were determined.
Safety data were summarized from clinical adverse events, clinical
laboratory tests (urine and blood samples collected before and during
the 24 h after dosing), vital signs measured predose and before
the 12- and 24-h blood draws, and physical examinations performed
predose and at 24 h after dosing prior to discharge. Clinical
adverse events were defined as any study staff-observed or
subject-reported (either spontaneously or solicited by study staff)
illnesses, signs, or symptoms that appeared or worsened during the
course of the study regardless of whether they were believed to be
related or unrelated to study drug administration.
Study II: subjects with severe renal impairment requiring
hemodialysis. (i) Subjects and study design.
Twelve male and
female subjects with severe renal impairment requiring maintenance
hemodialysis three times a week were enrolled in an open-label
crossover study. The subjects were randomized for a dialysis
day-no-dialysis day sequence. Subjects were not allowed to enter the
study if they were nursing or pregnant females or females of
childbearing potential (unless an acceptable contraceptive method was
being used). They were also excluded if they had a history of
peripheral neuropathy or significant liver disease (liver transaminases
of >2 times the normal upper limit, bilirubin at >30 µmol/liter, or
clinical evidence of ascites or hepatic encephalopathy) or evidence of
organ dysfunction other than renal impairment. In addition, subjects
could not be enrolled if they required concomitant medication known to
affect renal tubular function (e.g., cimetidine, penicillin, or
trimethoprim-sulfamethoxazole) or if they had recent exposure to
investigational drugs or medications which could cause peripheral
neuropathy. Although it was not required by the protocol, all subjects
were anuric, and none were taking concomitant medications known to have
an impact on drug metabolism. On 2 days (study days 1 and 2), separated
by a 7- to 28-day washout period, each subject received a single 40-mg
oral dose of stavudine administered as two 20-mg capsules following an
overnight fast.
(ii) Pharmacokinetic methods.
Blood and dialysate (for the
hemodialysis arm of the study) samples were collected before and during
the 24-h periods after dosing on study day 1 and/or 2. Blood samples
were taken just before and 0.25, 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 8, 12, and
24 h after stavudine dosing. Dialysate fluid was taken every 30 min during the 4-h dialysis. As all subjects were anuric, UR and
CLR were assumed to be zero. Stavudine levels in plasma and
dialysate were measured by validated high-performance liquid
chromatographic methods. The dialysis period began 2 h after
dosing and lasted 4 h. During hemodialysis, blood was pumped at
the rate of 250 ml/min through the extracorporeal circuit. The
molecular weight cutoff for the cellophane membrane was 1,000 Da. An
estimate of the amount of stavudine eliminated by hemodialysis was
obtained from the concentration of stavudine (in nanograms per
milliliter) at the midpoint of each 30-min period during hemodialysis
times the estimated volume of dialysis fluid (directly measured [in milliliters] from collected samples) used in the same period. In
addition to AUC0-
, Cmax,
Tmax, t1/2, and CLT/F, defined for study I above, other parameters were calculated in study
II. AUC2-6 was defined as the AUC in the period 2 to
6 h after dosing. %DIAL was defined as the percentage of the administered dose recovered as unchanged stavudine in the dialysate fluid. The clearance of unchanged stavudine during hemodialysis, CLHD, was determined as previously described:
CLHD = [QP · CA
(QP
QUF) · CV]/CA, where
CA and CV were the plasma
concentrations before and after dialysis, respectively;
QP was the plasma flow entering the dialyzer;
and QUF was the preset ultrafiltration rate of
the dialyzer (i.e., 10 ml/min).
(iii) Statistical analysis.
All statistical tests were
performed at an
of 0.05 (two tailed). For each pharmacokinetic
parameter, a two-way crossover design was analyzed by a mixed model,
including the period of study day 1 versus study day 2, treatment
(dialysis versus no dialysis) fixed effects, and a random subject
effect. AUC0-
, AUC2-6,
Cmax, and CLT/F were priori log transformed. For Tmax and t1/2, the
nonparametric Wilcoxon rank sum test was used.
Safety data were summarized from clinical adverse events, clinical
laboratory tests (blood samples collected before and during the 24 h after each dose), vital signs measured predose and before the 12- and
24-h blood draws, and electrocardiograms (ECGs) and physical
examinations performed predose and at 24 h after dosing.
 |
RESULTS |
Study I. (i) Demographics.
Twelve male and 8 female subjects
(18 white and 2 black) were enrolled and completed the study. The ages
of the subjects ranged from 18 to 84 years (mean, 51 years), heights
ranged from 133 to 198 cm (mean, 169 cm), and weights ranged from 61 to
120 kg (mean, 78 kg). Demographic characteristics are provided in Table 1.
(ii) Pharmacokinetics.
Systemic exposure to stavudine
increased in a nonlinear manner as CLCR decreased. As shown
in Table 2, the mean
AUC0-
values for the normal renal function group and
the mild, moderate, and severe renal impairment groups were 1,864, 2,215, 3,609, and 5,928 ng · h/ml, respectively. The overall
ANOVA demonstrated a statistically significant difference (P = 0.0001) between renal impairment groups; pairwise comparisons
showed statistically significant differences among the mild, moderate,
and severe groups but not between the normal renal function group and
the mild renal impairment group.
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
TABLE 2.
Mean pharmacokinetic parameter values in normal subjects
and subjects with renal impairment based on CLCR
normalized by body surface area in study I
|
|
Also as presented in Table 2, t1/2 also
increased significantly (P = 0.01) across groups with
decreasing CLCR (increasing severity of renal impairment).
In addition, there were significant overall differences for CLT/F,
CLR, and percent UR with decreasing values for
CLCR. There was no statistically significant overall group
mean difference for Cmax,
Tmax, or Vdarea/F.
The results of this study provide a basis for stavudine dosing
adjustments in individuals with renal impairment by establishing a
relation between CLCR and AUC. The relationship between
AUC0-
and CLCR is best described by the
model in Fig. 1, which shows both the
estimated exponential curves (see Materials and Methods) and observed
data. Based on estimated data, a set of dosing guidelines were proposed
for the administration of stavudine in subjects with renal impairment
(Table 3). These recommendations set
treatment criteria according to CLCR normalized by body
surface area (>50, 21 to 50, and 10 to 20 ml/min/1.73 m2).
These adjustments should provide exposure to stavudine, as reflected by
AUC, for individuals with renal impairment which matches that for
patients with normal renal function.

View larger version (20K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
FIG. 1.
Relationship between AUC0- and
CLCR normalized for body surface area (these values were
used in the regression analysis) and a Jitter plot for end-stage renal
disease subjects centered around a mean creatinine clearance of 5 ml/min/1.73m2 and superimposed on the original graph. The
predicted regression equation and respective confidence bounds did not
include subjects with end-stage renal disease from study II.
|
|
(iii) Safety data.
There were no deaths, other serious adverse
events, or discontinuations in this study. Twelve clinical adverse
events were reported by 8 (40%) of 20 subjects. The incidence of
adverse events was not related to CLCR, and all adverse
events resolved. Two subjects with severe renal impairment had adverse
events possibly related to treatment. One subject had severe pedal
edema and liver enlargement, which resolved following treatment with
diuretics; the second subject had mild stomach discomfort, mild
headache, and moderate emesis. All other adverse events were determined by the investigator to be unrelated to stavudine. There were no clinically significant laboratory abnormalities and no clinically significant deviations in vital signs or ECGs.
Study II. (i) Demographics.
Nine male and three female white
subjects were enrolled and completed the study. Of the 12 subjects, 9 had hemodialysis on study day 1, and the remaining 3 had hemodialysis
on study day 2. Their ages ranged from 20 to 52 years (mean, 34 years),
their heights ranged from 165 to 185 cm (mean, 174 cm), and their
weights ranged from 48 to 90 kg (mean, 68 kg) (Table 1). There were no statistically significant differences in these demographic parameters between the subjects who had hemodialysis on study day 1 and those who
had hemodialysis on study day 2.
(ii) Pharmacokinetics.
As shown in Table
4, the ratios of geometric mean values
for the day with hemodialysis and those for the day without
hemodialysis were not statistically significant for either
AUC0-
or AUC2-6. The geometric mean values
with and without hemodialysis were 5,365 and 6,326 ng · h/ml,
respectively, for AUC0-
and 1,934 and 2,184 ng · h/ml, respectively, for AUC2-6. There was a statistically
significant ratio of geometric means for Cmax
with and without hemodialysis (ratio, 0.821; means, 822.8 and 1,002 ng/ml, respectively; P = 0.04). There was no
statistically significant ratio of geometric means for CLT/F with and
without hemodialysis, and there were no statistically significant
differences in median Tmax or
t1/2. The CLHD was 7.19 liters/h
(range, 4.84 to 8.48 liters/h), and %DIAL was 30.5% (range, 21.2 to
40.1%).
There were technical problems in the plasma assay for one subject on
the day without hemodialysis; therefore, n = 12 for the day with hemodialysis and n = 11 for the day without
hemodialysis. Another subject had unexpectedly higher
Cmax, AUC0-
, and
AUC2-6 values with hemodialysis than without, differing from all of the other subjects. However, as there was no reason to
question the integrity of this subject's pharmacokinetic parameters, his data were included for both days. However, a summary of
pharmacokinetic parameters excluding results from this subject is
provided in Table 5.
View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
|
TABLE 5.
Mean pharmacokinetic parameter values in end-stage renal
disease subjects with and without hemodialysis excluding subjects with
unexpected stavudine levels
|
|
The results of this study led to the following proposal: the dosage
schedules for subjects with severe renal impairment requiring hemodialysis should be the same as those recommended in study I for
subjects with severe renal impairment not requiring hemodialysis (20 mg
every 24 h for subjects with body weights of
60 kg and 15 mg
every 24 h for subjects with body weights of <60 kg). However, doses should be administered after scheduled hemodialysis and at the
same time each day.
(iii) Safety.
There were no serious clinical adverse events
and no discontinuations. Only one adverse event was reported: moderate
hypotension in a subject during hemodialysis. Dialysis was discontinued
after 3.25 h of the 4.0-h dialysis session, and the hypotension
quickly resolved. The subject was not dropped from the study, and the event was not considered to be related to stavudine. In general, vital
signs in individual subjects were essentially unchanged during the
study. No unusual pattern of out-of-range clinical laboratory
parameters was seen. As expected, hemoglobin, erythrocyte, and
hematocrit levels were consistently low and creatinine values were
consistently high for all subjects. There were no clinically significant changes in ECGs.
 |
DISCUSSION |
The results of study I suggest that as creatinine clearance
declines, exposure to stavudine increases for a given dose. After a
single 40-mg dose, mean AUC0-
values ranged from 1,864 ng · h/ml in subjects with normal renal function to 5,928 ng · h/ml in subjects with severe renal impairment, representing a 3.2-fold increase in AUC0-
with decreasing renal function. Stavudine exposure in the subjects in this study with normal
renal function is consistent with previous data from HIV-infected subjects, where AUC0-
was 1,950 ng · h/ml at 40 mg of stavudine (8) and 1,730 ng · h/ml at 0.67 mg/kg
(3).
In study I, there was a statistically significant difference for mean
AUC0-
values among the CLCR groups and a
nonlinear relationship between AUC0-
and
CLCR. In order to develop dosing guidelines based on these
results, the following steps were taken: (i) an exponential model was
used to predict the stavudine AUC0-
for
CLCRs from 150 to 5 ml/min/1.73 m2 (note that
these guidelines are based on CLCR normalized for body
surface); (ii) doses of stavudine were estimated that would yield an
AUC0-
value equal to 1,864 ng · h/ml (the geometric mean value for the normal CLCR group), assuming
linear pharmacokinetics and consistent bioavailability for stavudine; and (iii) the predicted doses were then utilized to modify dose levels
and intervals so that subjects with differing degrees of renal
impairment could be consistently exposed to the drug.
In study II, there were no statistically significant differences
between treatments with and without hemodialysis for
AUC0-
, AUC2-6, CLT/F, and
t1/2. In addition, it should be noted that the
values for AUC0-
in study II (5,365 and 6,326 ng
· h/ml, with and without dialysis, respectively) are similar to the
arithmetic mean value for AUC0-
of subjects with severe
renal impairment in study I (5,928 ng · h/ml). This similarity
is further supported in Fig. 1, where the individual AUC0-
values for the end-stage renal disease subjects on a nondialysis interval were included on the plot of the original analysis (for graphing purposes, a Jitter subroutine within SAS was
used about a mean creatinine clearance of 5 ml/min/1.73
m2). These results suggest that the stavudine dosing
guideline for subjects with severe renal impairment is appropriate for
subjects who require hemodialysis.
Study II was important because the removal of drugs and their
metabolites during hemodialysis would necessitate adjustment of the
dose or the schedule of dosing in relation to hemodialysis. Drug
clearance during hemodialysis is related to the molecular weight,
protein binding, and volume of distribution of the drug (12). During hemodialysis, CLHD was 7.19 liters/h and %DIAL was estimated as 30.5% of the stavudine dose.
This degree of stavudine elimination was not unexpected because
stavudine has a relatively low molecular weight (224.22), is nonionized
at physiological pH, and is only 20% protein bound. While dialysis did
not significantly change the AUC0-
or
AUC2-6 when results for all subjects were considered, it
is important to note that if more than 30% of a dose or hemodialysis
clearance equals or exceeds systemic clearance, extracorporeal removal
of the drug may be considered significant, and dosing of the drug
should occur following the hemodialysis session. Based on the findings
in these two studies, a set of guidelines was recommended for stavudine
dosing in renally impaired subjects, including those who require hemodialysis.
 |
ACKNOWLEDGMENT |
The work in these two studies was supported by grants from the
Bristol-Myers Squibb Pharmaceutical Research Institute.
 |
FOOTNOTES |
*
Corresponding author. Mailing address: Department of
Clinical Pharmacology/Experimental Medicine, Bristol-Myers Squibb
Pharmaceutical Research Institute, P.O. Box 4000, Princeton, NJ 08543. Phone: (609) 252-5487. Fax: (609) 252-6816. E-mail:
dennis.grasela{at}bms.com.
 |
REFERENCES |
| 1.
|
Cretton, E. M.,
Z. Zhou,
L. B. Kidd,
H. M. McClure,
S. Kaul,
M. J. M. Hitchcock, and J.-P. Sommadossi.
1993.
In vitro and in vivo disposition and metabolism of 3"deoxy-2',3'-didehydrothymidine.
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.
37:1816-1825[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 2.
|
Dubois, D., and E. F. Dubois.
1916.
A formula to estimate the approximate surface area if height and weight be known.
Arch. Intern. Med.
17:863-871.
|
| 3.
|
Dudley, M. N.,
K. K. Graham,
S. Kaul,
S. Galetko,
L. Dunkle,
M. Browne, and K. Mayer.
1992.
Pharmacokinetics of stavudine in patients with AIDS or AIDS-related complex.
J. Infect. Dis.
166:480-485[Medline].
|
| 4.
|
Gibaldi, M., and D. Perrier.
1982.
Pharmacokinetics, 2nd ed., p. 409-417.
Marcel Dekker, Inc., New York, N.Y.
|
| 5.
|
Glassock, R. J.,
A. H. Cohen,
G. Danovitch, and K. P. Parsa.
1990.
Human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection and the kidney.
Ann. Intern. Med.
112:35-49.
|
| 6.
|
Horton, C. M.,
M. N. Dudley,
S. Kaul,
K. H. Mayer,
K. Squires,
L. Dunkle, and R. Anderson.
1995.
Population pharmacokinetics of stavudine (d4T) in patients with AIDS or advanced AIDS-related complex.
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.
39:2309-2315[Abstract].
|
| 7.
|
Janiszewski, S.,
D. E. Mulnava,
S. Kaul,
K. A. Dandekar, and R. H. Barbhaiya.
1992.
High-performance liquid chromatographic determination of 2',3'-didehydro-3'-deoxythymidine, a new anti-human immunodeficiency virus agent, in human plasma and urine.
J. Chromatogr.
577:151-156[Medline].
|
| 8.
|
Kaul, S.,
V. Mummanemi, and R. H. Barbhaiya.
1995.
Dose proportionality of stavudine in HIV seropositive asymptomatic subjects: application to bioequivalence assessment of various capsule formulations.
Biopharm. Drug Dispos.
16:125-136[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 9.
|
Kline, M. W.,
L. M. Dunkle,
J. A. Church,
J. C. Goldsmith,
A. T. Harris,
M. E. Federici,
M. E. Schultze,
L. Woods,
D. F. Loewen,
S. Kaul,
A. Cross,
V. L. Rutkiewicz,
H. W. Rosenblatt,
I. C. Hansen, and W. T. Shearer.
1995.
A phase I/I evaluation of stavudine (d4T) in children with human immunodeficiency virus infection.
Pediatrics
96:247-252[Abstract/Free Full Text].
|
| 10.
|
Macleod, C. M.,
E. A. Bartley, and S. K. Paul.
1994.
Effect of food on oral absorption of stavudine.
J. Clin. Pharmacol.
34:1025. (Abstract.)
|
| 11.
|
Riegelman, S., and P. Collier.
1980.
The application of statistical moment theory to the evaluation of in vivo dissolution time and absorption time.
J. Pharmacokinet. Biopharm.
8:509-534[CrossRef][Medline].
|
| 12.
|
Rowland, M., and T. N. Tozer.
1995.
Clinical pharmacokinetics: concepts and applications, 3rd ed., p. 443-462.
Williams and Wilkins, Baltimore, Md.
|
| 13.
|
Schaad, H. J.,
B. G. Petty,
D. M. Grasela,
B. Christofalo,
R. Raymond, and M. Stewart.
1997.
Pharmacokinetics and safety of a single dose of stavudine (d4T) in patients with severe hepatic impairment.
Antimicrob. Agents Chemother.
41:2793-2796[Abstract].
|
Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy, August 2000, p. 2149-2153, Vol. 44, No. 8
0066-4804/00/$04.00+0
Copyright © 2000, American Society for Microbiology. All rights reserved.