throbber
Influence of CYP2D6 polymorphism on the
`pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics
`of tolterodine
`
`is involved in the metabolism of toltero-
`OCjectiPe: To determine whether cytochrome P450 2D6 (CYP2D6)
`dine by investigating potential differences in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics
`(heart rate, accom-
`modation, and salivation) of tolterodine and its 5-hydroxymethyl metabolite between poor metabolizers
`and extensive metabolizers of debrisoquin
`(INN, debrisoquine).
`received 4 mg
`Methods: Sixteen male subjects (eight extensive metabolizers and eight poor metabolizers)
`tolterodine by mouth
`twice a day for 8 days followed by a single intravenous
`infusion of 1.8 mg toltero-
`dine for 30 minutes after a washout period. Doses were given as the tartrate salt. The pharmacokinetics of
`tolterodine and 5-hydroxymethyl metabolite were determined, and the pharmacodynamics were measured.
`Results: The mean systemic clearance of tolterodine was significantly
`lower (p < 0.001) among poor metab-
`olizers (9.0 + 2.1 L/hr)
`compared with extensive metabolizers
`(44 * 13 L/hr),
`resulting
`in a fourfold
`longer elimination half-life
`(p < 0.001). The terminal half-life of the 5-hydroxymethyl metabolite
`(2.9 =
`0.4 hours) was slightly longer than that of the parent compound
`(2.3 * 0.6 hours) among extensive metab-
`olizers, but the 5-hydroxymethyl metabolite was undetectable
`in the serum of poor metabolizers. Only
`minor differences in pharmacodynamic effects after tolterodine dosage were observed between the groups.
`Tolterodine
`caused a similar decrease in salivation
`in both panels. The decrease occurred when the con-
`centration of unbound
`tolterodine and 5-hydroxymethyl metabolite among extensive metabolizers was
`comparable with that of tolterodine among poor metabolizers.
`Conclusions: Tolterodine
`is extensively metabolized by CYP2D6 with high specificity. Despite the effect
`on pharmacokinetics,
`the CYl?2D6 polymorphism
`does not appear to be of great importance
`in the
`antimuscarinic effect, probably because of the additive action of parent drug and active metabolite.
`(Clin
`Pharmacol Ther 1998;63:529-39.)
`
`Al&n, MD,
`BSc, Per Dal&, MD, Gunnar
`Niclas Brynne,
`Johan Gabrielsson,
`PhD Uppsula and Huddinge Sweden
`
`Leif Bert&son,
`
`PhD, and
`
`Large interindividual variation in drug response and
`therapeutic outcome
`is not uncommon, and a leading
`contributing
`factor is a corresponding variation in the
`
`at
`
`and
`Pharmacia
`Pharmacology,
`of Clinical
`the Department
`From
`and
`the Department
`of Medical
`Laboratory
`Upjohn
`AB, Uppsala,
`Sciences
`and Technology,
`Division
`of Clinical
`Pharmacology
`the Karolinska
`Institute,
`Huddinge
`University
`Hospital,
`Huddinge.
`Supported
`by Pharmacia
`& Upjohn
`AB, Sweden.
`of
`Presented
`in part at the Sixth European Meeting
`Society
`for
`the Study
`of Xenobiotics,
`Gothenburg,
`30-July
`3, 1997.
`Oct. 7, 1997; accepted
`Received
`for publication
`Brynne,
`Department
`Reprint
`requests:
`Niclas
`ogy, Pharmacia
`& Upjohn
`AB,
`SE-751
`E-mail:
`niclas.brynne@eu.pnu.com
`Copyright
`0 1998 by Mosby,
`Inc.
`0009-9236/98/$5.00 + 0 13/l/87981
`
`the
`
`International
`Sweden,
`June
`
`Dec. 4, 1997.
`of Clinical
`Pharmacol-
`82 Uppsala,
`Sweden.
`
`is
`drugs. One example
`to metabolize
`capability
`(CYP2D6)
`polymorphism
`cytochrome P450 2D6
`(debrisoquin
`[INN, debrisoquinel-sparteine
`hydroxy-
`lase), which exhibits an incidence of poor metabolism
`of about 7% among white persons.1 A large number of
`drugs, such as antidepressants, neuroleptic agents,
`antiarrhythmic
`agents, several P-adrenergic
`receptor
`antagonists and some opioids, have been shown to be
`metabolized by the CYF’2D6 enzyme.233 Individualiza-
`tion of dosage is necessary for some of these drugs.4
`Moreover,
`if a drug is metabolized by CYP2D6
`to an
`active metabolite, the activity of the enzyme may be an
`important determinant of the effectiveness of treatment.
`Certain drugs, such as codeine5 and encainide,h are
`activated by CYP2D6. Therefore poor metabolizers
`may be nonresponders
`to such therapy. Conversely,
`with drugs
`that are inactivated by CYP2D6, poor
`
`529
`
`Petitioner Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited - Exhibit 1011 - Page 1
`
`

`
`530
`
`Brynne et al.
`
`CLINICAL
`
`PHARMACOLOGY
`
`& THERAPEUTICS
`MAY 1998
`
`Tolterodine
`
`N-dealkylated tolterodine
`[5-HM]
`tolterodine
`5-hydroxymethyl
`Fig. 1. Tolterodine, (R)-N,N-diisopropyl-3-(2-hydroxy-5-methylphenyl)-3-phenylpropanamine and
`the primary metabolites of tolterodine.
`
`metabolizers may accumulate the drug and experience
`adverse effects at “normal” dosages.
`Tolterodine is a new antimuscarinic drug for the man-
`agement of overactive bladder with symptoms of fre-
`quency or urge incontinence.7 Preclinical studies have
`shown that tolterodine has high antimuscarinic potency
`in guinea pig and human detrusor muscle and displays
`favorable selectivity for the urinary bladder over sali-
`vary glands
`in vivo.8 Studies have suggested
`that
`tolterodine exerts a marked inhibitory effect on blad-
`der function
`among both healthy volunteers9 and
`patients with urinary urge
`incontinence.lO Among
`healthy volunteers,
`tolterodine was rapidly absorbed,
`with a high first-pass metabolism. This led to consid-
`erable interindividual
`variation
`in serum concentra-
`tion.” Two hepatic oxidative metabolic pathways for
`tolterodine have been identified-hydroxylation
`and
`N-dealkylation
`(Fig. 1)” The concentration-effect rela-
`tion suggests a pharmacologically active metabolite. Pre-
`clinical studies have shown that the 5-hydroxymethyl
`metabolite (5HM) of tolterodine (PNU-200577) is phar-
`macologically active and equipotent compared with
`tolterodine
`in vitro.12 Stahl et al.9 reported results for a
`healthy volunteer with a half-life of tolterodine of 15
`hours, which is six times longer than average. This per-
`son subsequently was phenotyped with debrisoquin and
`found to be a poor metabolizer (data on file). This find-
`ing, along with a number of unpublished observations,
`
`indicates that CYP2D6 may be involved in the metab-
`olism of tolterodine. The aim of this study was to inves-
`tigate potential differences
`in pharmacokinetics and
`pharmacodynamics
`(effect on heart rate, accommoda-
`tion, and salivation) of
`tolterodine
`and
`its 5-HM
`between poor metabolizers and extensive metabolizers
`of debrisoquin.
`
`METHODS
`Subjects. Sixteen healthy male volunteers were
`recruited
`for the study from more than 1000 healthy
`Swedish
`subjects
`previously
`phenotyped
`with
`debrisoquin.13 Eight volunteers were classified as
`poor metabolizers of debrisoquin
`(metabolic
`ratio
`>12.6) and eight were extensive metabolizers
`(meta-
`bolic ratio ~1.0). The lower metabolic
`ratio of less
`than 1.0 was chosen arbitrarily
`to exclude intermedi-
`ate metabolizers. The mean (*SD) demographic char-
`acteristics for the extensive metabolizers were as fol-
`lows: age, 29 + 7 years; body weight, 76 f 7 kg; and
`height, 1.79 f 0.06 m. The mean characteristics for the
`poor metabolizers were as follows: age, 30 + 8 years;
`body weight, 76 f 8 kg; and height, 1.81 + 0.04 m. The
`two panels were matched for age (-c2 years) and body
`weight (220%). The study was approved by the ethics
`committee of Huddinge University Hospital, and each
`volunteer gave witnessed verbal
`informed
`consent
`before the study.
`
`Petitioner Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited - Exhibit 1011 - Page 2
`
`

`
`CLINICAL
`VOLUME
`
`P HARMACOLOGY
`63, NUMBER 5
`
`& THERAPEUTICS
`
`Brynne et al.
`
`531
`
`Study design. Volunteers received 4 mg oral tolterodine
`twice a day for 8 days, followed by a single intravenous
`infusion of 1.8 mg tolterodine
`for 30 minutes after a
`washout period (at least 7 days). Doses of tolterodine are
`given as the tartrate salt. Each volunteer fasted overnight
`before the tirst (day 1) and last (day 8) days of oral admin-
`istration of tolterodine and before the intravenous infu-
`sion. Smoking and consumption of alcohol and caffeine-
`containing beverages were prohibited the day before dos-
`ing and for 24 hours afterward.
`Assessment. On days 1 and 8, venous blood samples
`were taken before administration of tolterodine; at 10,20,
`30, and 45 minutes; and at 1, l%, 2,4,6, 8, 10, 12, and 24
`hours (24 hours on day 8 only) after administration.
`Among poor metabolizers, the 6- and lo-hour samples
`were changed to 32 and 48 hours on day 8. Blood sam-
`ples were obtained before the start of the intravenous infu-
`sion; at 5, 10,20, and 30 minutes during the infusion; and
`at 5, 10,20,30 minutes and 1,2,4,6, 8, 10, and 12 hours
`after termination of the infusion. The 6- and lo-hour sam-
`ples were replaced by samples at 24 and 26 hours among
`poor metabolizers. Urine was collected during the last
`interval of oral administration (0 to 12 hours) and after the
`intravenous infusion.
`One day before drug administration, baseline record-
`ings of pharmacodynamic measurements
`(heart rate,
`supine blood pressure, visual accommodation, and sali-
`vation) were performed
`for 8 hours. Heart rate and
`blood pressure were measured twice before tolterodine
`administration and repeated in connection with blood
`sampling. Recordings were performed simultaneously
`with an automatic, noninvasive, digital blood pressure
`meter (UA-751; A & D Company Ltd., Tokyo, Japan).
`An electrocardiogram was obtained, and near point of
`vision and salivation were measured
`twice before
`tolterodine administration
`on days 1 and 8 and at 10
`and 30 minutes and 1, 2, 4, 8, and 12 hours after drug
`administration. Recordings also were obtained before
`infusion; at 30 minutes during infusion; and at %, 4, 8,
`and 12 hours after cessation of the infusion.
`Electrophysiologic measurements were obtained with
`a computerized 12-lead electrocardiograph
`(Megacart;
`Siemens Elema, Solna, Sweden), and QT, QT,, PQ, and
`QRS duration were calculated automatically. Near point
`of vision was determined according to the Royal Air Force
`neat-point rule by means of a convergence meter (Clement
`Clarke, International Ltd., Harlow, England). Basal whole-
`mouth salivation was measured by means of absorption
`into three preweighed cotton rollsI
`(Celluron; Hartmann,
`Heidenheim-Brentz, Germany).
`Adverse events were assessed by means of sponta-
`neous reports,observation,
`and questioning at regular
`
`intervals. The intensity of the adverse event was rated
`on a three-point scale (mild, moderate, or severe) by a
`research clinician. Laboratory values were assessed
`before and at the end of the study, and vital signs data
`were screened for trends.
`Analytical method. Determination
`of tolterodine
`and 5-HM
`levels in blood, serum, and urine was per-
`formed with a specific and sensitive capillary gas
`chromatography-mass
`spectrometry assay.15 Extrac-
`tion of
`the analytes was performed with
`liquid-
`liquid or solid-phase extraction before derivation
`with a silyl-reagent. The derivatives were quantified
`by means of selected ion-monitoring mass spectrom-
`etry with deuterium-labeled
`internal standards and a
`single-level calibration
`curve. With
`this technique
`the accuracy (interday and intraday)
`for both ana-
`lytes was within 87% to 110% over the range from
`0.90 to 210 nmol/L. Precision was better
`than 9%.
`Urinary concentrations of tolterodine and 5-HM also
`were assessed after
`incubation
`of samples with
`P-glucuronidase
`(Boehringer Mannheim,
`GmbH,
`Mannheim, Germany).
`Data analysis. All data are expressed as mean + SD,
`except when
`indicated otherwise.
`In the regression
`analysis of tolterodine data (performed with PCNON-
`LIN
`[version 4.1]‘6), equations 1 and 217 were fitted
`simultaneously to intravenous and oral data, as follows:
`
`c, = Rinf
`‘C
`
`i
`i=l
`
`[ -~.[l-e~;?.e-i;tf]
`1
`
`(1)
`
`k, . F . Dose
`c,, = ~. ~
`~
`vc
`
`ci ~
`kahi
`
`. e-h,’
`
`t)
`
`(2)
`
`I
`
`in which Rinf is the infusion rate, V, is the apparent vol-
`ume of the central compartment, n is the number of
`exponential terms, Ci is the fractional intercept, & is the
`corresponding rate constant, t is time, and T is time dur-
`ing the infusion and then becomes a constant, tinf (dura-
`tion of infusion), after the cessation of the infusion, k,
`is the absorption rate constant, and F is the extent of
`bioavailability. A weighting scheme of l/8,
`in which a
`constant relative error is assumed, gave the overall best
`fit. The choice of model was made with respect to resid-
`ual plots and parameters precision. A lag-time (tlag) was
`included
`for oral data. The volume of distribution at
`steady state (V,,), systemic clearance (CL), bioavailabil-
`ity (F), and elimination half-life
`(txp) were estimated
`
`Petitioner Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited - Exhibit 1011 - Page 3
`
`

`
`532
`
`Brynne et al.
`
`CLINICAL
`
`PHARMACOLOGY
`
`& THERAPEUTICS
`MAY 1998
`
`Oral administration
`
`0
`
`2
`
`4
`
`6
`
`8
`
`12
`10
`Intravenous
`
`0
`infusion
`1000
`
`1
`
`2
`
`4
`
`6
`
`8
`
`10
`
`12
`
`0
`
`2
`
`4
`
`8
`
`10
`
`12
`
`6
`6
`Time
`(h)
`Time
`(h)
`Fig. 2. Serum concentration-time profiles of tolterodine and the S-hydroxymethyl metabolite
`(5HM) after oral administration of 4 mg tolterodine tartrate twice a day (top panel) and intra-
`venous infusion of 1.8 mg tolterodine tartrate (bottom panel)
`for extensive metabolizers (n = 8)
`and poor metaholizers (n = 8).
`
`0
`
`2
`
`4
`
`8
`
`10
`
`12
`
`according to standard equations.l7J* Noncompartmen-
`tal analysis of tolterodine and 5-HM data was performed
`to determine the metabolite-parent
`compound ratio for
`area under the serum concentration-time
`curve (AUC)
`and terminal half-life
`(tXZ) of 5-HM. The AUC was
`obtained by means of linear trapezoidal
`rule17 with
`extrapolation to infinity by means of division of the last
`calculated data point by the terminal slope (A,) derived
`from the 2- to 24-hour interval. Statistical analysis for
`pharmacokinetic variables was performed with the Stu-
`dent t test for unpaired data. Differences were consid-
`ered to be significant at p < 0.05.
`The pharmacologic effect of tolterodine on salivation
`was expressed as the area under the effect curve for the
`first 8 hours (.AUEC) and computed according to the lin-
`
`relation,
`ear trapezoidal rule. In the concentration-effect
`the effect was transformed by use of the relative change
`from the baseline values computed as follows:
`
`E _ Ei
`
`- EO,i
`
`EO,i
`
`in which Ei is the value of the salivary effect at time i,
`and Eo,i is the corresponding value at baseline.
`
`RESULTS
`Phmmucokinetics. The individual serum concentratio*
`time profiles of tolterodine and 5-HM at steady state
`(oral) and after intravenous infusion are shown in Fig 2.
`There was a distinct difference in serum tolterodine con-
`
`Petitioner Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited - Exhibit 1011 - Page 4
`
`

`
`CLINICAL
`VOLUME
`
`PHABMA COLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
`63, NUMBER 5
`
`Brynne et al. 533
`
`Table I. Pharmacokinetic parameters of tolterodine after simultaneous fit of oral multiple-dose data (4 mg twice
`daily) and intravenous infusion data (1.8 mg) after administration of tolterodine
`to extensive and poor metabolizers
`CL (Zh)
`Volunteer No.
`F f%)
`vss 69
`txp (W
`flag (hr)
`t,,,, (hr)
`Cm, WOW
`
`Extensive metabolizers
`1
`2
`3
`4
`11
`12
`15
`16
`Mean
`SD
`Poor metabolizers
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`13
`14
`Mean
`SD
`
`0.36
`0.63
`0.27
`1.0
`0.49
`0.72
`0.49
`0.10
`0.51
`0.28
`
`0.30
`0.30
`0.31
`0.30
`0.33
`0.75
`0.29
`0.74
`0.42
`0.20
`
`per liter.
`Values in parentheses are micrograms
`CL, systemic
`clearance;
`c max, peak serum concentration;
`distribution
`at steady state.
`*p < 0.001 versus extensive metabolizers.
`tp < 0.002 versus extensive metabolizers.
`
`1.0
`1.0
`0.5
`2.0
`1.5
`1.5
`1.0
`1.0
`1.2
`0.5
`
`2.0
`2.0
`4.0
`1.0
`1.0
`2.0
`1.0
`2.0
`1.9
`1.0
`
`18 (5.9)
`1.9 (0.63)
`43 (14)
`5.5 (1.8)
`8.3 (2.7)
`4.9 (1.6)
`43 (14)
`2.8 (0.90)
`16 (5.2)
`17 (5.7)
`
`71 (23)
`123 (40)
`89 (29)
`101 (33)
`212 (69)
`117 (38)
`141 (46)
`71 (23)
`116* (38)
`46 (15)
`
`21
`40
`58
`11
`13
`15
`40
`6.8
`26
`18
`
`89
`99
`48
`75
`170
`77
`120
`49
`91-t
`40
`
`89
`158
`135
`134
`101
`154
`90
`147
`126
`28
`
`181
`110
`102
`111
`104
`87
`118
`110
`115
`28
`
`35
`53
`33
`40
`41
`69
`31
`52
`44
`13
`
`13
`8.1
`9.7
`7.7
`8.9
`5.9
`10
`8.6
`9.0*
`2.1
`
`1.9
`2.1
`3.6
`2.4
`1.9
`1.8
`2.6
`2.4
`2.3
`0.6
`
`9.9
`10
`7.5
`10
`8.2
`11
`8.3
`9.0
`9.2*
`1.2
`
`F, absolute bioavailability;
`
`tlagr lag-time;
`
`t,,,=.
`
`time to reach C,,;
`
`tYzp. elimination half-life; Vss, volume of
`
`Table II. Pharmacokinetic values of 5-HM after oral administration
`tolterodine among extensive metabolizers
`
`(4 mg twice daily) and metabolic ratios of
`
`Volunteer No.
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`11
`12
`15
`16
`Mean
`SD
`
`tmnx W
`1.0
`1.5
`0.5
`2.0
`1.5
`1.5
`1.0
`0.5
`1.2
`0.5
`
`C,,
`
`(nmoWL)
`
`15 (5.2)
`7.3 (2.5)
`25 (8.6)
`9.1 (3.1)
`11 (3.7)
`12 (4.1)
`27 (9.1)
`7.0 (2.4)
`14 (4.8)
`7.7 (2.6)
`
`txz W
`3.0
`2.5
`3.0
`3.0
`2.7
`2.5
`3.7
`2.7
`2.9
`0.4
`
`Single
`dose
`
`0.84
`ND
`0.94
`0.51
`0.68
`0.50
`1.1
`0.16
`0.59
`0.38
`
`Steady
`state
`
`0.78
`0.24
`0.99
`0.49
`0.59
`0.37
`0.89
`0.32
`0.58
`0.28
`
`Infusion
`
`3.3
`3.4
`3.4
`ND
`4.4
`2.6
`2.3
`3.2
`3.3
`0.67
`
`per liter.
`in parentheses are micrograms
`Values
`time to reach C,,,; C,,
`curve; hax.
`AUC, Area under
`the serum concentration-time
`slope (&) of the semilogarithmic
`serum concentration-time
`curve; ND, not determined.
`
`peak serum concentration;
`
`tYIz, terminal half-life
`
`associated with
`
`the terminal
`
`centrations between the panels of the extensive metabo-
`lizers and those of the poor metabolizers. The 5-HM lev-
`els for extensive metabolizers were similar to those of
`tolterodine, but 5-HM was not quantifiable among poor
`
`metabolizers. The pharmacokinetic parameters of toltero-
`dine are given in Table I. Tolterodine was rapidly
`absorbed. Absorption half-life was 0.41 f 0.23 hour
`among extensive metabolizers and 0.53 + 0.40 hour
`
`Petitioner Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited - Exhibit 1011 - Page 5
`
`

`
`534
`
`Brynne et al.
`
`CLINICAL
`
`PHARMACOLOGY
`
`& THERAPEUTICS
`MAY 1998
`
`Extensive
`
`metabolizers
`
`Poor metabolizers
`
`01
`
`0
`
`2
`
`4
`
`6
`
`8
`
`10
`
`12
`
`0
`
`2
`
`! , , , , , , ,
`
`4
`
`6
`
`8
`
`10
`
`12
`
`Time(h)
`
`Time(h)
`
`Fig. 3. Mean + SEM heart rate, near point of vision, and salivation versus time profiles at base-
`line (open circles) and after oral administration of 4 mg
`twice a day (solid circles) and intravenous
`infusion of 1.8 mg tolterodine
`(squares) among eight extensive metabolizers
`(left panel) and eight
`poor metabolizers
`(right panel).
`*Five of eight poor metabolizers were accidentally given lunch
`before the measurement. The y-axes of heart rate and near point of vision have been cut off.
`
`among poor metabolizers. There was a slight tendency
`for increased time
`to maximum serum levels (t,,)
`among poor metabolizers. A significant sevenfold differ-
`ence (p < 0.001) in peak serum tolterodine concentration
`(C,,,) was observed between the two groups at steady
`state. The initial phase was rapid (tXcc < 0.2 hour) in all
`subjects, with the exception of volunteer 6 (0.8 hour).
`Three subjects (3, 9, and 13) exhibited very high F val-
`ues compared with the average. There was a highly sig-
`nificant difference (p < 0.001) in CL between the panels
`and therefore txp was fourfold longer among poor metab-
`olizers @ < 0.001). The blood/serum concentration ratio
`of tolterodine was similar for both groups (0.60 f 0.18
`and 0.57 + 0.05, respectively). Excretion of unchanged
`drug in urine (P-glucuronidase-treated samples) was less
`than 2.5% for all subjects.
`The pharmacokinetic values of 5-HM among exten-
`sive metabolizers are given in Table II. The C,,, of the
`metabolite was obtained at the same t,,, as the parent
`
`(t& was slightly
`compound, but the terminal half-life
`longer, 2.9 f 0.4 hours. Although serum levels of 5-HM
`were quantifiable after intravenous administration, half-
`life was difficult to estimate (because of the limit of quan-
`tification). The molar AUCtolterodine to AUC,-,
`oral ratio
`was time independent (single versus multiple dose) and
`one-sixth of the intravenous value. About 5% of the
`administered tolterodine dose was excreted as 5-HM in
`urine. Although
`the metabolite was quantifiable
`in the
`urine of poor metabolizers, the excreted fraction was less
`than 1% of the administered dose.
`relation. The
`Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic
`effect of tolterodine on heart rate, near point of vision,
`and salivation
`is shown in Fig. 3. Among extensive
`metabolizers, a slight increase in heart rate (10 f 8.4
`beats/mm) was seen at steady state compared with base-
`line. In contrast, no effect was evident among poor
`metabolizers except a decrease after the intravenous
`infusion. A slight increase in accommodation
`(41 mm)
`
`Petitioner Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited - Exhibit 1011 - Page 6
`
`

`
`CLINICAL
`VOLUME
`
`I’ HARMACOLOGY
`63, NUMBER 5
`
`& THERAPEUTICS
`
`Brynne et al.
`
`535
`
`18-
`l8 _ Extensive
`
`metabolizers
`
`Oral administration
`’
`18-
`,6 _ Poor metabolizers
`
`e+
`/’
`A,’
`I’
`
`I’
`
`I’
`
`I’
`
`,’
`
`/’
`
`14-
`
`12-
`
`lo-
`
`I’
`
`/’
`
`/’
`
`+x’
`
`q/’
`I
`
`0
`
`I’
`
`/’
`
`I’
`
`/’
`
`14-
`
`12-
`
`lo-
`
`8-
`
`8-
`
`18
`
`16
`
`0
`
`2
`
`4
`
`8
`
`8
`
`10
`
`12
`
`18
`18
`14
`Intravenous
`
`2
`0
`infusion
`
`4
`
`6
`
`8
`
`10
`
`12
`
`14
`
`16
`
`18
`
`0
`
`16
`
`18
`
`0
`
`14
`12
`10
`8
`6
`4
`2
`14
`12
`10
`8
`6
`4
`2
`(O-8 h) at baseline
`AUEC
`Salivation
`(O-8 h) at baseline
`AUEC
`Salivation
`Fig. 4. Relation between area under the effect curve (AUEC) for salivation (0 to 8 hours) at steady
`state versus baseline after 4 mg tolterodine tartrate twice a day (top panel) and during intravenous
`infusion versus baseline of 1.8 mg tolterodine tartrate (bottom panel) among extensive metaboliz-
`ers (left graphs) and poor metabolizers (right graphs).
`
`16
`
`18
`
`was evident among poor metabolizers, but the other
`volunteers remained unaffected. Basal salivation did
`not drift adversely in the two groups except for the 4-
`hour value among poor metabolizers, which was higher
`than expected because five of the eight subjects were
`accidentally given lunch before the measurement.
`Tolterodine caused a decrease in salivation among
`all subjects; a maximum effect was obtained within
`2 hours of administration. Because of the large differ-
`ence in pharmacokinetics
`between
`the groups,
`the
`effect of tolterodine on basal saliva secretion was ana-
`lyzed with respect to the dose given. Fig. 4 illustrates
`the relation between saliva AUEC(O-8) for oral steady
`state versus baseline and intravenous
`infusion versus
`
`the two phenotypes.
`baseline among subjects from
`There was pronounced
`interindividual
`variation,
`within and between
`the two groups, in basal saliva
`secretion. A distinct drug effect was nevertheless
`obtained for four of eight extensive metabolizers and
`most of the poor metabolizers after oral administra-
`tion. For extensive metabolizers the effect was equally
`pronounced
`after
`intravenous
`compared with oral
`administration, whereas salivation was less affected
`among poor metabolizers after the infusion.
`In previous studies, it was concluded that the effect
`on stimulated salivation after tolterodine administra-
`tion was mainly derived
`from an active unknown
`metabolite”
`and that there was a tenfold difference in
`
`Petitioner Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited - Exhibit 1011 - Page 7
`
`

`
`536 Brynne et al.
`
`CLINICAL
`
`PHARMA COLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
`MAY 1998
`
`A
`
`0.2,
`
`-0.6
`
`-0.6
`
`1
`/q
`
`Extensive
`
`metabolizers
`
`Extensive
`
`metabolizers
`
`B
`
`0.2
`
`l
`
`’ 0
`
`l
`CfOe
`
`0
`
`5
`
`l
`
`0
`
`0
`
`0
`
`-0.6
`
`-0.6 ~/q
`
`1
`1
`0.1
`(nM)
`concentration
`tolterodine
`Unbound
`(nM)
`concentration
`5-HM
`Unbound
`Fig. 5. Median salivation effect (0 to 8 hours) versus unbound serum tolterodine (A) and 5-HM
`(B) concentration after single and multiple oral doses (solid circles) and during intravenous infu-
`sion (open circles) of tolterodine among extensive metabolizers and poor metabolizers.
`
`10
`
`10
`
`serum protein binding between tolterodine and 5-HM
`(fraction unbound
`[f,,] of tolterodine, 3.7%, and f, of
`5-HM, 36%).*9 To explain the similarity
`in salivary
`effects between
`the
`two phenotypic
`groups,
`the
`unbound serum concentrations of tolterodine, 5-HM,
`and the combination of tolterodine and 5-HM were
`studied. The relation between salivary effect (0 to 8
`hours) and unbound serum concentrations of toltero-
`dine and 5-HM for extensive metabolizers is shown in
`Fig. 5, A. There was a weak correlation between toltero-
`dine concentration and effect on salivation. A stronger
`correlation was seen with 5-HM concentration and
`effect
`(Fig. 5, B). The strongest correlation was
`obtained when the concentrations of both tolterodine and
`5-HM were taken into account (assuming no competi-
`tive antagonistic
`interaction
`[slope = 1.03; r-2 = 0.621;
`Fig. 6, A). A correlation also was apparent between
`unbound serum tolterodine concentration and effect on
`salivation (Fig. 6, B) among poor metabolizers (slope =
`1.14; ~-2 = 0.50), irrespective of route of administration
`or duration of oral administration
`(i.e., single dose or
`steady state). No apparent hysteresis was observed for
`the serum concentration versus salivation data.
`All 16 volunteers completed
`the study. No severe
`adverse events were reported. The most frequently
`reported adverse events were headache (two extensive
`metabolizers and four poor metabolizers), dry mouth
`(four extensive metabolizers and two poor metaboliz-
`ers), abnormal visual accommodation (five poor metab-
`olizers), and tachycardia (four extensive metabolizers).
`
`Most events were judged as mild. There were no clini-
`cally significant changes in blood chemistry, blood
`pressure, or electrocardiographic values (QT, or mor-
`phology) among the volunteers during the study.
`
`DISCUSSION
`is extensively
`This study showed that tolterodine
`metabolized by CYP2D6. The high specificity is shown
`by the fivefold difference in CL between the two pan-
`els and the fact that poor metabolizers showed no quan-
`tifiable serum levels of 5-HM.
`If it is assumed that
`enzyme capacity is the only difference between the pan-
`els, the findings imply that at least 80% of a systemi-
`cally available dose of tolterodine
`is metabolized by
`CYP2D6
`to 5-HM
`in extensive metabolizers. The
`approximately
`sixfold higher AUC
`ratio (5-HM
`to
`tolterodine) between oral and intravenous administra-
`tion suggests that at least 85% of the biotransformation
`of tolterodine occurs during first pass. If the CL values
`are adjusted for the blood to serum concentration ratio
`and if a hepatic blood flow of 1.5 Wmin
`is assumed,
`tolterodine
`is a high-extraction drug (81%) for exten-
`sive metabolizers and a low-extraction drug (18%) for
`poor metabolizers. Compared with these estimates, the
`obtained values of F were higher in both panels. How-
`ever, three volunteers displayed very high F values of
`170%, 120% and 58%. Because tolterodine
`is highly
`bound to serum proteins (f,, 3.7%), primarily to al-acid
`glycoprotein,tg
`this can result in intraindividual vari-
`ability caused by fluctuations
`in al-acid glycoprotein
`
`Petitioner Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited - Exhibit 1011 - Page 8
`
`

`
`CLINICAL
`VOLUME
`
`P HARMACOLOGY
`63, NUMBER 5
`
`& THERAPEUTICS
`
`Brynne et al.
`
`537
`
`A
`
`0.2 1
`
`0.0
`
`Extensive
`metabolizers
`
`‘\
`
`‘\\
`
`“&
`
`‘\
`
`B
`
`0.2 1 Poor I metabolizes
`
`0.0
`
`-0.2
`
`-0.4
`
`-
`
`-0.6
`
`-
`
`1
`
`-0.6
`
`!
`
`10
`(nM)
`concentration
`tolterodine
`Unbound
`(nM)
`concentration
`toRerodine+SHM
`Unbound
`Fig. 6. Regression analysis and 95% confidence intervals of the median salivation effect (0 to 8
`hours) versus unbound serum tolterodine with 5-HM (A) and tolterodine (B) concentration after
`single and multiple oral doses (solid
`and during intravenous infusion (open
`of
`circles)
`circles)
`tolterodine among extensive metabolizers and poor metabolizers.
`
`‘\
`
`I
`1
`
`I
`10
`
`levels increased
`levels. Indeed, al-acid glycoprotein
`(50% to 100%) in all three volunteers after oral admin-
`istration compared with
`intravenous
`infusion, which
`probably explains the deviation in F values.
`Regional selectivity of oxidation
`is consistent for
`almost all CYP2D6 substrates. Oxidation occurs in the
`hydrophobic region 5 to 7 A from the basic nitrogen.20221
`In an x-ray crystallographic analysis of tolterodine,
`the
`corresponding distance was determined
`to be 5.78 A
`(Engstrbm I, Tergenius LE, Sellberg B. Personal com-
`munication, 1997). Another common feature of many
`CYP2D6 substrates is that interphenotype differences in
`metabolism become less prominent at steady state than
`after single doses, presumably because of enzyme satu-
`ration. This has been reported for several drugs, includ-
`ing clomipramine,** paroxetine,*j propafenone,*4 and
`methotrimeprazine
`(INN, levomepromazine).*s Toltero-
`dine has shown dose proportionality
`in single doses up
`to 12.8 rng.” Despite the high CYP2D6 specificity, no
`apparent saturation was observed after multiple doses as
`determined according to metabolic ratio. Furthermore,
`the decline in concentration of 5-HM was slightly slower
`than that of the parent compound and was not affected
`during twice-a-day administration.
`Only minute amounts of parent compound were
`recovered in both urine and feces in a mass-balance
`study. 1 1 Metabolism
`is thus also the main route of elim-
`ination among poor metabolizers because less than 2.5%
`of intact tolterodine was excreted in urine. In an in vitro
`
`study, hydroxylation of tolterodine showed strong cor-
`relation with CYP2D6 activity, whereas dealkylation
`correlated with CYP3A activity.*6 Taken together, these
`findings imply that tolterodine
`is eliminated by at least
`two parallel pathways: a high-affinity,
`low-capacity
`pathway
`(hydroxylation
`by CYP2D6)
`in extensive
`metabolizers and a low-affinity, high-capacity pathway
`(dealkylation by CYP3A) among poor metabolizers.
`In contrast to the kinetic data, the pharmacodynam-
`its of tolterodine were not generally
`influenced by
`metabolic phenotype.
`In a previous study, oral single-
`doses of tolterodine produced a distinct
`increase in
`heart rate at 6.4 mg, whereas visual accommodation
`was only affected at 12.8 mg.”
`In the present study, at
`a dosage of 4 mg, only a small increase in heart rate
`was observed in extensive metabolizers, whereas heart
`rate was unaffected among poor metabolizers, although
`the near point of visual accommodation
`increased. The
`effect on salivation was more distinct, without any
`major differences between the panels. This shows that
`F (26% in extensive metabolizers and 9 1% among poor
`metabolizers)
`is not a useful parameter to explain the
`pharmacologic effect of tolterodine.
`the salivary effect
`Among extensive metabolizers,
`could not be explained with tolterodine concentrations
`alone. Although depressed saliva secretion and 5-HM
`concentration
`resulted in a stronger relation after oral
`administration,
`they did not accurately explain
`the
`more complex situation after intravenous administra-
`
`Petitioner Torrent Pharmaceuticals Limited - Exhibit 1011 - Page 9
`
`

`
`538
`
`Brynne et al.
`
`CLINICAL
`
`P HARMACOLOGY
`
`& THERAPEUTICS
`MAY 1998
`
`tion. If equipotency of the two compounds12 and addi-
`tivity are assumed, the sum of the unbound
`toltero-
`dine and 5-HM concentration
`correlated with
`the
`effect on salivation
`independent of route of adminis-
`tration among extensive metabolizers. This suggests
`that during
`infusion
`the effect
`is mainly caused by
`tolterodine, whereas after cessation of infusion
`the
`effect can be attributed
`to increasing levels of 5-HM.
`Indeed, 30 minutes after the infusion most of the effect
`on salivation was related
`to 5-HM. Among poor
`metabolizers
`there was a correlation between toltero-
`dine concentration and the effect on salivation
`irre-
`spective of the route of administration.
`The two concentration-effect
`relations suggest that
`5-HM
`is the only major pharmacologically
`active
`metabolite after tolterodine administration because oral
`and intravenous data correlate well in both panels. Our
`data indicate an unbound 50% inhibitory concentration
`on salivation of about C,,,,
`that is, 3 to 4 nmol/L
`in
`extensive metabolizers and poor metabolizers. These
`estimates are very similar to the inhibition constants for
`parotid glands in vitro (4.8 nmol/L
`for tolterodine and
`5.2 nmol/L
`for 5-HM).l* The C max of total tolterodine
`(bound and unbound) among extensive metabolizers
`(16 nmol/L, or 5.2 yg/L) correlates well with the sug-
`gested 50% inhibitory concentration of 6 to 8 pg/L for
`stimulated
`salivation.11 Consequently,
`a true 50%
`inhibito

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket