throbber
Orug Disposition
`
`Cion. I'tIarmarol"MI 20 (I): 18-49. 1991
`OlI2· ~96J!9 I /OOO I .()(l38/S06.00/O
`C Ad"ln!rmahOnal llmllro
`All nlhls l"C'SCT'Ved.
`cPl<OOS :M ' .
`
`Clinical Pharmacology of Omeprazol.
`
`Colin W. Howden
`Unlv~rsll y Departmenl of Medicine and Therapt'ul1cs. WC'Slrm Infirmary.
`Gl1S10W Gil 6NT. Scotland
`
`Cont~ntJ
`
`.. 39
`J9
`.... 39
`. .. 39
`J9
`. ......... 39
`. ........... 40
`
`"
`
`SummaI)' .......................••....•...•......••.....•.....••••....•.....•••.......•...
`I. Chcml51ry and Pharmaoolos,y of OmeprlIlolr
`1.1 Ow-mlSlry
`..................... .
`1 2 Mrxk of A1'"lIl)n
`2. Pharmacodynamics m Humans ........................... . , ..... .
`2.1 Effect on Basal ACid Ou tput. ....................
`. ........................................... .
`2.2 Effect on Peniapsmn-Slimuilled Acid Output ......................................... ..
`2. 1 Effect on Insuiln·St,mlllatro ACid Olltput ..................................................... .
`2.4 Effect on 24-HOllr Intnp$tnc: At ldll y ..
`. ......... 41
`2.5 Effect on Pluma Gasmn Levels
`............................ .
`41
`. ...... 42
`2.6 Effect on I'cpsm Secretion
`..................... .
`.... 42
`2.7 Effect on Intrapstrie Bacteria and Bacterial Prodllcts
`. ..................................... 42
`...............................
`2.8 Effects on EndOCrine Flinction
`2.9 Effects on Renal TlIblilar Flinctlon .............................................................................. 42
`..... 42
`3. Pharmacokinetics In Hlimans .......................... .
`3.1 Absorption and ~TUm Cont"('ntntions
`........ 42
`3.2 Distriblition
`....................... .
`3.3 Metabolism and Elimination
`........... .
`. ... 44
`3.4 InnllCnce of Disease Stales o n tile Pharmacokinetics or Om~pn~olc ..........
`4. Drua Interactions ........................................................................... _ ...................................... 45
`4S
`4. 1 Diazepam ................................................................
`...................
`4.2 AmlnopllrnazollC (Aminopynnr) and PllrnazollC (AnllpYrlne) .................................. 45
`.. 45
`4.3 Pllrnytoin .
`4.4 Propnnolol
`...... 45
`4.5 warfarin
`.. 45
`4.6 Amo~ yclilin and Ibcampicillin ........ .
`4.7 Nlrc(!lplllC .......................................... .
`. ..... 45
`4.8 Anlllrnb and Mrtoclo pnmldr ........ .
`l Tllcrapclltic Uses of Omepn~olc ......... .
`. ..... 46
`. ............................... 46
`5. 1 Dliodenal Ulcer ............................... .
`. .................................... 46
`5.2 Gastric Ulcer ...............................................
`5.3 PePIiC Ulcerallon Refracl(lI"y to Treatmrnt ..............................................
`. ... 47
`S.4 Rrflll~ OcsoplllllliS ............................................................. ........................
`. .... 47
`5.5 Zollinger-Ellison Syndrome ........................................................................
`. ..... 47
`
`" . 43
`
`.. 4S .,
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1027 PAGE 1
`
`

`

`Clinical Pharmacolog~ of Omeprazo!t·
`
`J9
`
`Su mm(uJ'
`
`Omcprazo!c IS a spc(iflc inhibitor of H-. K '-ATPase or 'prmoll pump' In parlctal cclls.
`This cnz) me IS responsibk for the final step In the process of ac .d SCCTetlOn: omeprazoic
`blocks aCid !.Ccr('tlon In responsc to all stimuli. Single doses produce dosc-dependen t
`inhibition with mereasmg elTcrt O\er the first fcv. days. reachmg a ma\lmum after about
`5 da) s. Doscs of omeprazole 20mg dall~ or greater arc able 10 qrtually abohsh mtragastnc
`aeldl[~ In most mdl\lduals. although lov.cr do!.Cs ha'c a much more vanable effect
`Omepra10le causcs a dosc-depcndcnt Incrcasc In gastrin le\'els.
`OmepraLOk mUSl be protected from Intra gastric aeld v. hen ginn oral I). and IS there(cid:173)
`for;.' admmlstcred as encapsulated entenc-coatcd granules. :\bsorpllon can be crratlc but
`IS gcnerall~ rapid. and Illluall~ the drug IS \lldel) dlstnbutcd. IllS high!) protcm-bound
`and cxtcnSl\cl) metabolised. Its elimmatlon half-life IS about lh but Its pharmacotoglcal
`elTl'Ct la~ts much longer. smCl' !lIS prcfcrcnllaH~ concentrated m panetal cells v.here 1\
`forms a co' aiI'm lin kage v. IIh H'. K' -ATPase. \lhlch 11 Irre'crSlbl) mhlbllS. Omeprazole
`binds to hepatiC cytochrome P450 and mhlblts o.\ldaIlH metabolism of some drugs. the
`mosl important helllg phen)lOlll.
`Omcprazote has produced short tefm healing rates superior to the hlstammc ti ~·
`reccptor antagolllsts 10 duodenal ulcer. gastric ulcer and rcnu ~ ocsophag1\ls. It has also
`been shov.·n t o be hlghl) elTectlve III heali ng ulcers v.hlch ha,-c failed to respond 10 ti 1-
`receplOr antagonists. and has l)l"Cn e.,tremcl) \'aluable In treallng pallenlS v. IIh Zolllngcr(cid:173)
`Etlison s)ndromc.
`
`I. C hemistlJ' and Pharmacology of
`Omepra;-.ole
`1.1 Chemistr)
`
`The molecular structure of omcprazok is com(cid:173)
`posed of a substituted p)ridine ring li nked 10 a
`benzimidazole by a sulfoxide chain (fig. I). I t s mo(cid:173)
`lecular weight is 345 daltons. Omeprazok is a lipo(cid:173)
`philic weak base, and will thcrefore prcferentiall}
`accumulatc in an acidic environment such as the
`secretory me mbrane of the parietal cell.
`
`1.2 Mode of Action
`
`Omeprazole is avidly taken up by thc parietal
`cell. In an addic pH it becomcs converted to its
`activc form, a sulphenamlde. b) protonation. In
`
`Fig. 1. Chcmlcal structure of omrpralO!c
`
`this form, the drug produces an irreversible linkage
`via a disulfide bond with the e nzyme H'. K'(cid:173)
`AT Pa~ or 'proton pump' (fig. 2) which is rcspon(cid:173)
`sible for the active ~cre t ion of h ydrogen i o ns by
`the parietal cells (Sachs & wall mark 1989: Wall(cid:173)
`mark 1989) .
`This action makes omcprazok unique a mong
`cxisting gastric an tlsccretory drugs which arc com(cid:173)
`petith'e antagonists at specific cellular receplOrs on
`the basolateral aspect of the parieta l cell. Th rough
`its irreversible inhi bition of H+. K·-ATPase. orne(cid:173)
`prazok blocks gastric acid secretion in response to
`all known stim uli incl uding a~en t s such a s dibu tryl
`cyclic adenosine monophosphate (d\)<A MP). which
`acts intracellularly (Wolfc & Soli 1988).
`Omeprazole 15 degradcd by acid. and so must
`be protected from gastric acid whcn given orall y:
`this is achieved b) the use of encapsu lated enteric(cid:173)
`coatcd granu les.
`
`], Pharmacod),namics ill Humans
`2.1 Effect on Basal Acid Output
`
`Following oral admi nistration of o meprazole in
`ils enca psu lated enteric<oated gra nule fo rm ula(cid:173)
`tion. its maxi mal effect on gastric acid secretion is
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1027 PAGE 2
`
`

`

`40
`
`Clln. l'hurmU('QIi.III(,I. 10 (I) NYO
`
`similar group of6 subjects given omeprazolc 60mg
`daily, inhibition of basal acid output was 91.7%
`after the first dose and 99. [% after the seventh.
`In a separate study, the effects of7 days' admin(cid:173)
`istration of omeprazole IOmg daily were assessed
`(Howden et a1. 1985a). A single dose of IOmg did
`nOI significantly affect basal acid output. but after
`7 days of dosing mean basal acid output was reo
`duced by 93%. However. there was a high degree
`ofinterindividual variabili ty in response to this low
`dose.
`These studies show a dose-dependent effect of
`omeprazole on inhibition of basal acid output. They
`also show variability in response to low dose orne·
`prazole, and increased anti secretory effect with re(cid:173)
`peated dosing.
`
`2.2 Effect on Pentagastrin-Stimulated
`Acid Output
`
`Intravenous infusion of pentagastrin 1.2 ~g/kg
`for I hour increased gastric acid secretion in a group
`of 6 healthy male subjects fro m a mean ( ± SO)
`basal value o f 4.3 ± 3.4 mmol/ h to a plateau value
`of 35.4 ± 5.4 mmol/ h (Howden et al. 1984a).
`Omeprazole 30mg reduced the pentagastrin-stim(cid:173)
`ulated plateau acid outpu t t o 10.2 ± 10.1 mmol/
`h (-71.2%~ P < 0.05). After 7 days of dosing with
`omeprazole 30mg daily, this was further reduced
`to 0.6 ± 1.0 mmol/ h (-98 .4%~ p < 0.01).
`In subjects given omeprazole 60mg daily. pre(cid:173)
`treatment plateau acid output was 37.1 ± 10.6
`mmol/ h. After I dose this was reduced to L7 ±
`2.3 mmol/ h (-95.3%; p < 0.01); after the seventh
`dose, it was 0.4 ± 0.2 mmol/ h (-99%; p < 0.01).
`In subjects given omeprazole 10mg daily (Howden
`et al. 1985a). pretreatment plateau acid output was
`23.3 ± 8.2 mmol/h. Six hours after a single dose
`of 10mg, the figure was 23. 1 ± 8.6 mmol/h (not
`significant) but at a sim ilar time after the seventh
`daily dose it was 7.8 ± 6.7 mmol/ h (-66.5%; p <
`0.01). Again. there was a high degree ofi nterindiv(cid:173)
`idual variability in response to the low dose.
`In a group of patients with healed duodenal
`ulcer, pentagastrin-stimulated acid output after 7
`days of dosing with placeoo or omeprazole 5 or
`
`o
`
`Active intllbitor
`
`o
`
`Enzyme-SH
`
`Enzyme-inhib4tor comple~
`
`Fig. 2. Diagram of lilt InlNl'Iclion of lh~ aC1lv31Cd form of
`o mc pr.lzolc wilh gastTiC H·. K '-A TPasc:.
`
`achieved aftcr about 6 hours: in a group of6 healthy
`male subjects given omeprazole 30mg, basal acid
`output measured 6 hours later was reduced by 66%
`(Howden et a1. 1 984a). After I week of daily
`administration of the same dose, the inhibition of
`basal acid output had risen to almost 100%. In a
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1027 PAGE 3
`
`

`

`('lIn1(al Pharmacology of Omcpra:wlc
`
`41
`
`10mg daily was measured 14 hours after the final
`dose (Howden et aL 1986a), Toml out put was 42.9
`± 4.9 mmol fo llowing placebo. and 34.5 ± 9.8 and
`32.3 ± 8.7 followi ng omeprazole 5 and IOmg, re(cid:173)
`spectivel), Neither of the reductions in output pro(cid:173)
`duced by these low doses of omeprazole was sig(cid:173)
`nificanl.
`
`same study. indicating some degree of interi ndiv(cid:173)
`idual vanabili ly in response to th is dose.
`Finally, a dosage regimen of omeprazole 5 o r
`10mg daily for 7 days did nOt have any significan t
`effect on 24-hour intragastric acid ity in a gro up o f
`6 patIen ts with healed duodenal ulcer (Howden et
`at. 1 986a).
`
`2.3 Effect on Insulin-Stimulated Acid Output
`
`1.5 Effect on Plasma Gastrin Levels
`
`Omeprazole 30mg as a single oral dose reduced
`the stimulated acid output induced by an inlTa(cid:173)
`venous infusion of insulin 0.03 U!kglh (Utley et
`a1. 1985) from 16.8 ± 2.2 to 4.3 ± 1.8 mmol!h
`(-74%: p < 0,05). A sim ilar group of subjects re(cid:173)
`ceived a single dose of omeprazole 60mg. and in
`this group the insulin-stimulated acid output was
`reduced from 12.3 ± 2.6 to 3.4 ± 2.1 mmol!h
`(-73%: p < 0.05).
`
`2.4 Effect on 24- Hour Intragastnc Acidity
`
`In a group of9 patients with duodenal ulcer in
`clinical remission. a regimen of omeprazole 30mg
`dall) for I week nrtually el iminated intragastric
`acidit). with mean hourly hydrogen ion activity
`falling from 38.5 to 1.95 mmol/ L (Walt et a1. 1983).
`The median tntragastric pH rose from 1.4 to 5.3.
`representing a much greater increase than that
`achieved b) conventional doses of existing hist(cid:173)
`amine H1-receptor antagonists.
`In another s t ud~. 12 duodenal ulcer patients re·
`cei\ed omeprazole 20mg daily for 28 days (Lan·
`zon-Miller et a1. 1987). AI the end of that lime.
`median tntegrated 24-hour tntragastric aCidity had
`fallen from 1148 to 36 mmol/ L ' h (-97%), The
`same pallen ts also receiv("d a separa te course of
`\T("alment .... ith ranitidin(" 150mg twice daily: Ihe
`m("dlan tn tegrated 24-hour tntragastric acidity with
`that treatm("nt was 490 mmol! L ' h (-57% com(cid:173)
`pared wllh pretreatment values).
`Omcprazole 20mg dai ly for 8 days reduced in(cid:173)
`tragastric acid It) by around 99% in 6 patients wi th
`healed duodenal ulcer (Naesdal et a1. 1987) but had
`a much smaller effect on another 4 patients in the
`
`Plasma conce ntrations of a wide variety of gas(cid:173)
`trointestinal pcptides were measured in 6 healthy
`subjects 6 hours after a single oral dose of ome(cid:173)
`prazo1c 40mg (Allen et al. 1984). The basal level
`of gastrin was significan tly (p < 0.05) increased
`fro m 13 ± 6.8 to 28.2 ± 8.3 pmol/ L The inte(cid:173)
`grated gastri n response to a meal was also in(cid:173)
`creased. but failed to reach statistical significance.
`No significa nt changes were found in the concen(cid:173)
`lTations of any of the olher peptides measured.
`In a group of 12 healt hy volunteers given ome(cid:173)
`prazole 4001g daily fo r 9 days by Festen et a l.
`(1986). fast ing serum gastrin levels increased from
`36 ± 3 to 49 ± 6 nglL (p < 0.0 1) after the firs t
`dose and to 59 ± 6 nglL after the nint h (p < 0.002).
`A nonsignificant increase in serum gastrin lev(cid:173)
`els was found in I study of 10 duodenal ulcer
`patients given omeprazo1c 20mg daily for 8 days
`(Naesdal et a1. 1987). Omeprazole 5 or 10mg dai ly
`for 7 days also produced no alteration in fasti ng
`gastrin levels in a group of6 duodenal ulcer patients
`(Howden et al. I 986a). However. the median in(cid:173)
`tegrated gastrin response to a meal was signifi(cid:173)
`cantl) increased from 29.210 67.0 pmol/ L· h (p <
`0.05) follo wing 7 days of omeprazoJc 10mg daily.
`The median integrated 24-hour plasma gastrin
`was SIgni fi cantly raIsed from 328 to 1519 pmoII
`L · h In a group of 12 duodenal ulcer patients given
`omeprazo1e 20mg daily for 28 days (Lanzon-Miller
`et al. 1987). The median integrated 2-hour plasma
`gastrin fo r the same group of pa tients given rani(cid:173)
`tidine I 50mg twice daily for 28 days was 799 pmoll
`L · h.
`Omeprazole produces a dose-dependent in(cid:173)
`crease in gastrin levels. The rise in integrated 24-
`hour gastrin is directly proportional to the reduc-
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1027 PAGE 4
`
`

`

`42
`
`C/III. Pharmacolim('f. } O (I) 1990
`
`tion in integrated 24-hour intragastric acidity (Lan.
`zon-Miller & Pounder, personal communication).
`
`2.6 Effect on Pepsin Secretion
`
`Although omeprazole has a dramatic effect on
`secretion of gastric acid, it does not significantly
`affect that of pepsin. Such a finding is consistent
`with the specifi c action of the drug on parietal cells
`without an effect on the function of the pepsi n(cid:173)
`secreting chief cells.
`Thompson ct al. ( 1985) found no significant al(cid:173)
`teration in pepsin output after 4 weeks of omepra(cid:173)
`zoIc 20 or 40mg daily in 9 patients with duodenal
`ulcer disease. Omeprazo]e IOms daily for 7 days
`did not affect basal or pentagastrin-stimulated pep(cid:173)
`sin in 6 healthy volunteers (Howden et al. 1985a),
`and a higher dosage of 30 or 60mg daily for 7 days
`did not affect basal pepsin secretion in heallhy
`volunteers (Howden et a\. 1 984a). Similarly, 12
`healthy subjects given omeprazole 40mg daily for
`9 days did not display any alteration in pentagas(cid:173)
`trin-stimulated pepsin o utput (Festen et al. 1986).
`
`2.7 Effect on Intragastric Bacteria a nd
`Bacterial Products
`
`Ten healthy male subjects were given omepra(cid:173)
`zole 30mg daily for 2 weeks in the study of Sharma
`et a\. (1984). Gastric ju ice sampled 22 hours after
`the final dose of omeprazoie showed a significant
`(p < 0.01) rise in the concentrations of bacteria,
`nitrite a nd N-nitrosam ines and a nonsignificant re(cid:173)
`duction in nitrate levels. The profound inhibition
`of gastric acidity had allowed proliferation of in(cid:173)
`tragastric bacteria wit h consequent reduction of
`dietary nitrate to ni trite and the production of N(cid:173)
`nitrosamines. All these changes had resolved within
`3 days of stopping omeprazole.
`
`2.8 Effects on Endocrine Function
`
`The effects of high dose endocrine function have
`been st udied in healthy male subjects (Howden et
`al. 1986b; MacGilchrist et al. 1987). Omeprazole
`60mg daily for 8 days had no effect on t he basal
`
`levels of thyroid-stimulating hormone (TSH). fol(cid:173)
`licle-stimulating hormone (FSH). luteinising hor(cid:173)
`mone (LH), prolactin (PRL), thyroxine (T 4), tri(cid:173)
`iodothyronine (T), conisol or testosterone. In
`addition, the responses ofTSH and PRL to stimu(cid:173)
`lation with thyrotrophin-releasing hormone and the
`responses of FSH and LH to stimulation with lu(cid:173)
`tcinising hormone-releasing hormone were unaf(cid:173)
`fected by omeprazole.
`An in itial finding ofa reduction in the peak cor(cid:173)
`tisollevel in response to stimulation with synthetic
`corticotrophin (ACTH) in a g roup of healthy male
`subjects receiving omeprazole 60mgdaily for 8 days
`(Howden et al. 1986c) was not subsequently con(cid:173)
`firmed (MacGilchrist et al. 1987). However, in vi(cid:173)
`/fO studies using isolated bovine adrenocortical celts
`showed that incubation wi th omeprazole produces
`a marked dose-dependent inhibition of stimulated
`cortisol release (Howden et al. I 986c). This is un(cid:173)
`likely to have any sign ificance for the use of orne·
`prazole in humans, since extremely high concen·
`trations of omeprazole were necessary to produce
`the effect.
`
`2.9 Effects on Renal Tubular Function
`
`Omeprazole 60mg administered daily for 7 days
`did not affect 2~hou r urinary electrolyte excretion
`or urinary acidification in response to oral am·
`monium chloride in a g roup of8 healthy male sub(cid:173)
`jects ( Howden & Reid 1984).
`
`3. Pharmacokinetics in Humans
`3.1 Absorption and Serum Concentrations
`
`Since omeprazole is acid·labile, it must be pro(cid:173)
`tected from the action of acidic gastric juice when
`given by mouth. In some studies, this was achieved
`by administering the drug with oral sodi um bi·
`carbonate (e.g. Cederberg et al. 1989). Absorption
`of omeprazole was rapid, with peak plasma con(cid:173)
`centrations being reached within O.5h.
`This d rug is usually administered as encapsu·
`lated enteric-(oated granules. The release from this
`formulation and subseq uen t absorption are erratic
`and do not follow classic pharmacokinetic prinei-
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1027 PAGE 5
`
`

`

`Chnlcal Pharmacology of Omeprazole
`
`4J
`
`pies. Studies have shown marked interindividual
`vanability in both the rate and exten t of absorp(cid:173)
`tion,
`In most healthy male subjects given omeprazolc
`10. 30 or 60mg daily (Howden et a1. 1984b. I 985a).
`peak plasma omeprazole concentrations were
`achieved by 1.5 hours. although there was marked
`variation in individual peak concentrations. The
`ranges were 58 to 154,22310 1160 and 860 10 ]8]0
`.ugfL after single doses of 10. 30 and 60mg. re·
`spectively. The area under the plasma omeprazo[el
`time curve from administration until 8 hours after
`the dose (AUCW_SI) calculated by the li near trap.
`ezoidal rule also showed marked interindividual
`variation: the ranges after single oral doses of 10.
`]0 and 60mg were 156 10 428. ]]8 to 2270 and
`1380 to 5000 .ugfL· h. respectively.
`Arter 7 days of treatment with these doses ad.
`ministered daily. the AVCW_8) had increased from
`that of the first dose (Howden et a1. 1984b. 1985a):
`the mean increases were 45% after 10mg daily. 86%
`after ]Omg daily and 128% after 60mg dai ly. This
`implies a degree of nonlinearity which has alro ocen
`noted by others. In a group of healthy volunteers
`given omeprazole either 10. 20 or 40mg daily for
`5 days. the increases in AUC from days I to 5 av(cid:173)
`eraged 21. 69 and 182%. respectively (Andersson
`et a1. 1989).
`The most likely explanation fo r the observed rise
`in AUC is that omeprazole absorption increases
`With repeated dosmg due 10 a progressive suppres(cid:173)
`sion of acid secretion. Less omeprazole is degraded
`once acid secretion is inhibited. leaving more
`available for absorption. The increase in AUC can(cid:173)
`not be explained b) decreased elimination. since
`the clearance of omeprazole docs not change with
`continuous treatment (Ching et al. 1990).
`The true bioa vailability of omeprazolc has been
`estimated at 35% after a single dose. increasing to
`approximately 60% following repeated daily doses
`(Cederberg et al. 1989). The time of ad ministration
`docs not matenally influence its absorption. In 8
`healthy male subjects given omeprazole 40mg daily
`for 5 days. the parameters of time to peak concen(cid:173)
`trallon. peak concentration and AVC were similar
`
`whether the doses had been taken at 0900 or 2100h
`each day (Prichard et a1. 1985).
`
`].2 Distribution
`
`Omcprazole is. initially. rapidly distributed to
`extravascular sites. The mean volume of distribu(cid:173)
`tion in 8 healthy volunteers given 20mg ora lly was
`reported by Regardh et a1. ( 1985) to be 0.31 L/ kg.
`with a range of 0.19 to 0.45 L/ kg. This would be
`compatible with localisation of the major fraction
`of omeprazolc within extracell ular water. Pene(cid:173)
`tration of the drug into red blood cells is low. the
`ratio between whole blood concen trations and those
`in plasma being in the region of 0.6. Omeprazole
`is more than 95% bound to plasma proteins in hu(cid:173)
`mans. principally albumin and itt-acid glycopro(cid:173)
`tein (RegArdh el al. 1985). [t subsequently becomes
`preferentially concent raled within parietal cells.
`
`].] Metabolism and Elimination
`
`Omepra70le is almost entirely cleared by me(cid:173)
`tabolism. so that vinually no unchanged drug is
`excret('(! (Clissold & Campol i-R ichards 1986), After
`oral or In travenous administration of [14C]_ome_
`prazok. more than 80% of the radioactivity was
`recovered in the urine. with most of the remainder
`in the faeces. No unchanged drug was found in
`either urine or faeces (Cederberg el al. 1989:
`Regardh 1986). The main metabolites in humans
`are the sulfone and hydroxy-omeprazole (fig. ]).
`The sulfone metabolite docs not possess any anti(cid:173)
`secretor) activity. whilc hydroxy-omeprazole is only
`weakly antisecretory (Cederberg et al. 1989).
`Arter low dose omeprazole labelled with t4c was
`given intravenously to volunteers. 16% was re(cid:173)
`covered in the bile within the first 4 hours (Lind
`et al. [987). Negligible amounts of drug were re(cid:173)
`covered from gastric juice over this time. indicat(cid:173)
`ing that bi liary excretion is the only imponant gas(cid:173)
`trointestinal route of elimination.
`Elimination half·life after oral omeprazole has
`been estimated al about 1 h (Cederberg et al. 1989:
`RegArdh ct a1. 1985). Omeprazole is almost entirely
`cleared from plasma at 4 hours after oral admin-
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1027 PAGE 6
`
`

`

`44
`
`Om. Pharmarolwll't 10 (I) 1990
`
`Omeprnole .c:id Hydroxy(cid:173)
`omeprnoie
`-CH~H_
`
`-COOH _
`
`Fig. 3. Mc\abohsm or omcprazolc.
`
`H
`
`o
`II -5 - Omeprllole
`II o
`
`SUIlOM
`
`istmtion (Cederberg et al. 1989), The anti secretory
`effe(;t of the drug, however, lasts much l onger.
`Omeprazole becomes selectively concentrated in
`parietal cells (Cederberg et aJ. 1989; Wallmark 1989)
`where it acts as a noncompetitive inhibitor of
`H +,K+·ATPase. Suppression of acid secretion
`is not correlated with plasma o meprazole concen(cid:173)
`tratio ns, but there is an association between orne(cid:173)
`prazole A UC and anlisecretory effect (Cederberg c.
`al . 1989; Lind el 31. 1983).
`
`3.4 Influence of Disease States on the
`Pharmacokinetics of Omeprazole
`
`3.4./ Chronic Renal Failure
`The antisecretory effect o f omeprazole is main(cid:173)
`tained in patients with chronic renal failure under(cid:173)
`going regular haemodialysis (Howden e1 at I 985b).
`In 6 s uch patients given omeprazole 30mg by
`mouth, time to peak plasma concentration , peak
`plasma concentration and AUe did not differ be·
`tween nondialysis and dial ysis days. The drug was
`not detected in dialysis fluid . There was marked
`interindividual variability in these pharmacokin·
`etic parameters. The range in AUe (138 to 3248
`.IIg,lL· h) on the nondialysis day did not differ sig(cid:173)
`nificantly from that in 6 healthy male subjects given
`a single o ral dose of 30mg (338 to 2270 .IIg,lL· h:
`Howden et al. I 9 84b).
`In the study by Naesdal et at ( 1986), 12 patien ts
`with established chronic renal failure (creatinine
`
`to 62 ml/ m in) were given (14C)_
`clearance II
`labelled omeprazole 20mg intravenously and 40mg
`orally in random order. The pharmacokinetics of
`orneprazole in these patienls did not differ signifi(cid:173)
`cantly from values previously found in healthy
`subjetts. Mean elimination half-life was 0.6h, and
`mean systemic bioavai lability was 70%.
`
`3.4.2 Chronic Lil'er Disease
`The oral and intra venous pharmacokinetics of
`omeprazole were st udied in 10 patients with ci r(cid:173)
`rhosis (McKee et al. 1988). Patients received orne(cid:173)
`prazole 10mg intravenously, and a 7-day course of
`IOmg orally. Acid secretion was low in these
`patients but omeprazole was still able to signifi(cid:173)
`cantly reduce pentagastrin-stimulated acid output.
`The range of AUC(0-8) after the seventh oral dose
`was 3.97 to 10.61 .IImol/ L·h, again indicating a
`high degree of intersubject variability. The AUCs
`were higher than those recorded in a group of
`healthy male subjects given omeprazole I Omg orally
`for 7 days (Howden et al. I 985a). The mean elim(cid:173)
`ination half-life was 2.85h, which was higher than
`that reponed for health y subjects. There was no
`evidence ofattu mulation of omeprazole in the ci r(cid:173)
`rhotic patients since no o meprazole was detectable
`in plasma at the stan of the study on the sevenlh
`day of dosing. On the basis of these findings. spe(cid:173)
`cific dosage reduction is not necessary in patients
`with chronic liver disease. Doses of more than 20mg
`will not be needed in such patients.
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1027 PAGE 7
`
`

`

`Clinical I'harmacolog~ ofOmcprazoi<"
`
`45
`
`Other re~archer5 have reported mean val ues for
`elimination half-life of 2.68h (Cederberg et al. 1989)
`and 2.85h (Rondanelli et al. 1989) in cirrhotic
`patients.
`
`4. Drug Interactions
`
`Omeprazole can bind to hepatic cytochrome
`P450 and inhibi t the oxidative metabolism ofcer(cid:173)
`tain drugs. This section reviews drug..<frug inter(cid:173)
`actions reported in the literature.
`
`4.1 Diazepam
`
`Diazepam was the first drug reported to interact
`with omeprazole: Gugler and Jensen (1984) gave 8
`healthy male subjects intravenous diazepam 0.1 mg
`per kilogram of bodyweighl before and after a 9·
`day course of omeprazole 40mg daily. Following
`omeprazolc. the mean elimination half·life of di(cid:173)
`azepam was In(Tea~d from 36.9 to 85.0h (p < 0.01)
`and Ihe total body clearance was reduced from 1.34
`100.61 L/ h/ kg (p < 0.01).
`
`4.2 Aminophenazone (Aminopyrine) and
`Phenazone (Antipyrine)
`
`Elimination of the 2 model drugs aminophen.
`azone and phenazone was measured in a group of
`healthy male subjects given omeprazole 30 or 60mg
`daily for 2 weeks b~ Henry et oIl. (1984). The values
`for both drugs were not significantly altered in su))..
`jects receiving the lower do~. However. in 10 su))..
`jects given omeprazole 60mg daily. the half-life of
`aminophenazone was prolonged by 21% (p < 0.05)
`and that of phenazone by 10% (p < 0.025).
`
`4.3 Phen ytoin
`
`In 8 health y male subjects. the pharmacokin(cid:173)
`etics of phenytoin were studied before and after
`administration of omeprazole 40mg daily for 8 days
`(Gugler & Jensen 1985). The subjects were given
`phenytoin 250mg by intravenous infusion on each
`occasion. Phenytoin clearance was reduced from
`0.025 to 0.021 L/ h/ kg after omeprazole (p < 0.05).
`
`and mean elimination half-life was increased from
`20.710 26.3 h (p < 0.01). The volume ofdistribu(cid:173)
`tion and protein binding of phenytoin were unaf(cid:173)
`fected.
`In a separate study (Prichard et al. 1987), 10
`healthy male subjects received. in random order.
`placebo or omeprazole 40mg daily for 9 days.
`Phenytoin 300mg was given ora lly on the seventh
`day of each treatmen\. Phenytoin AUC(O-72) was
`significantly increased by omeprazole from 121.6
`to 151.4 mg/L ' h (p < 0.01). a finding which is of
`potential clinical importance in view of the narrow
`therapeutic index of phenytoin. There were non(cid:173)
`significant increases in the peak plasma phenytoin
`concentrations and in the apparent elimination half(cid:173)
`life.
`
`4.4 Propranolol
`
`Omeprazole 20mg daily fo r 8 days did not alter
`the pharmacokinetics of propranolol in a group of
`8 healthy subjects taking propranolol 80mg twice
`daily (Henry et al. 1987).
`
`4.5 Warfarin
`
`A group of 21 healthy male subjects received
`warfarin for 7 weeks in doses adjusted to reduce
`vi tamin K-dependent clotting factors to 10 to 20%
`of normal (Sutfin et al. 1989). For 2 weeks. Ihey
`were also given omeprazole 20mg daily. Omepra(cid:173)
`zole did nOI affect plasma concentrations of the
`S-enantiomer of warfarin but caused a 12% in(cid:173)
`crease in those of the R-enantiomer. Thrombotest
`values were sl ightly reduced during the concomi(cid:173)
`tant admin istration. from a mean of21.1% to 18.7%
`(p :: 0.04). No adjustment in warfarin dosage was
`required. It appears that omeprazole inhibits the
`hepatic metabolism of the pharmacologically less
`active R-enantiomer of warfarin , but (he effect was
`not great and is unlikely to be of major impon(cid:173)
`ance. Nevertheless, funher studies are indicated.
`
`4.6 Amoxycillin and Baca mpicillin
`
`The phannacokine(ics of oral amoxycillin 500mg
`and bacampicillin 800mg were studied in 8 healthy
`volunteers before and after I week of omeprazolc
`
`MYLAN PHARMS. INC. EXHIBIT 1027 PAGE 8
`
`

`

`46
`
`efm. Pharma('okmel. ;0 (JJ 1990
`
`lOmg daily (Paulsen el al. 1989). Although there
`was a slight delay in bacampicillin absorption. no
`significant effect was found on the AUe or elim(cid:173)
`ination half·life of either amoxycillin or bacampi(cid:173)
`cillin.
`
`4.7 Nifcdipine
`
`In 10 healthy male volunteers, omcprazolc 20mg
`administered daily for 7 days significantly (p < 0.02)
`reduced the clearance ofnifedipine from 7S to 59.4
`L/ h (Danhofct 31. 1989). Conversely, the clearance
`of omeprazole 40mg given intravenously was sig(cid:173)
`nificantly reduced (p < 0.03) from 28.8 to 24.9 L/
`h in the same subjects when they had been pre(cid:173)
`treated with niredipine IOmg 3 times daily for 5
`days.
`
`4.8 Antacids and Meloclopramide
`
`Concomitant administration of antacids does
`nOI affect the absorption of omeprazole (Howden
`& Reid 1988; Tuynman et at 1987). Similarly, there
`is no evidence for any interaction between orne·
`prazole and metoclopramide (Howden & Reid
`1988).
`
`S. Therapeutic UJeJ of Omeprazole
`5. 1 Duodenal Ulcer
`
`Duodenal ulcer healing rates for antise<:retory
`drugs arc directl y related to their degree of suppres(cid:173)
`sion of 24-hou r in tragastric acidity (Jones et al.
`1987). It is therefore not surprising that omepra(cid:173)
`zole has produced the highest recorded healing rates
`in duodenal ulceration. The fi rst dose-comparalive
`trial (Gustavsson et al. 1983) fou nd a healing rale
`of I()()% after 2 weeks of treatment with omepra(cid:173)
`zole 60mg daily in 16 patients. A similar group of
`16 pat ien ts was given omeprazole 20mg dai ly; after
`4 weeks, the healing rate was 93%.
`Omeprazole has been shown 10 be superior to
`conventional doses of ranitidine in healing duo(cid:173)
`denal ulcers (Bardhan et al. 1986; Classen et al.
`1985). However, a more reeent multicentre clinical
`trial from Canada fa iled to demonstrate a statis-.
`
`tically significant difference in healing rates be(cid:173)
`tween omeprazole 20mg daily and cimetidine in
`the high dose of 600mg twice daily (Archambault
`et al. 1988).
`In an extensi ve meta.analysis of published
`clinical trials of antisecretory drugs in the treat(cid:173)
`ment of duodenal ulcer (Jones et al. 1987). overall
`heali ng rates after 4 weeks of treatment with ome(cid:173)
`prazolc 60, 40, 10 and 20mg were 100% (n ::r:: 27).
`98.4% (n = 126), 92.8% (n '" 154) and 95.5%
`(n '" 177). respectively.
`
`5.2 Gastric Ulcer
`
`Omeprazole has been shown to be highly effec(cid:173)
`tive in healing benign gastric ulcers. In a detailed
`meta-analysis of published controlled trials of anti·
`secretory drugs in gastric ulcer (Howden & Hun t
`1990). omeprazole was associated with the highest
`overall healing rates. In addition. a significant re(cid:173)
`lationship was demonstrated between gastric ulcer
`healing rates and percentage suppression of 24-hour
`intragastric acidi ty.
`Walan el al. (1989) reponed that in a large
`multicentre trial omeprazole 20 or 40mg once daily
`was superior to ranitidine 150mg twice daily in the
`treatment of ulcers of the body of the stomach or
`prepyloric ulcers. O meprazole 20mg daily for 4
`weeks healed 69% of gastric ulcers in 203 patients;
`a dosage of 40mg daily healed 80% of gastric ulcers
`in 194 patients at 4 weeks. In 205 patients given
`rani tidine 150mg twice daily, only 59% healed after
`the same period. Omeprazole was also shown to be
`highl y effective in healing gastric ulcers in

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