Skip to main content
Log in

Pharmacokinetics of Intravenous Conivaptan in Subjects With Hepatic or Renal Impairment

  • Original Research Article
  • Published:
Clinical Pharmacokinetics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

Conivaptan is a non-peptide dual antagonist of vasopressin V1A and V2 receptors that is approved in the United States as an intravenous formulation for the treatment of euvolemic and hypervolemic hyponatremia in hospitalized patients. The pharmacokinetics of intravenous conivaptan had not been studied in patients with hepatic or renal impairment.

Objective

The objective of this study was to assess the pharmacokinetics and tolerability of intravenous conivaptan in subjects with mild or moderate hepatic or renal impairment compared with subjects with normal function.

Study Design

These studies were phase I, open-label pharmacokinetic studies conducted at two sites in the US.

Patients

Men and non-pregnant women 30–70 years of age were allocated to the mild (Child-Pugh classification score of 5–6) or moderate (Child-Pugh classification score of 7–9) hepatically impaired groups (n = 8–9 per group) based on their liver function assessed at screening. For the renal study, men and non-pregnant women between 18 and 70 years of age were assigned to renal function groups (n = 8–9 per group) based on estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) assessed at screening. Normal renal function was defined as an eGFR >80 ml/min, mild renal impairment as 50–80 ml/min, and moderate renal impairment as 30–49 ml/min. Subjects with normal hepatic or renal function were selected to match the race, sex, age, and body mass index of subjects enrolled in the impaired groups.

Intervention

Subjects were administered a 20-mg/30-min intravenous loading dose of conivaptan on day 1, followed by a 20-mg/23.5-h continuous conivaptan infusion. On day 2, immediately following the end of the day 1 infusion, a 20-mg/24-h continuous conivaptan infusion was administered.

Main Outcome Measure

Primary pharmacokinetic parameters estimated were the area under the plasma conivaptan concentration–time curve from time 0 to infinity (AUC), plasma conivaptan concentrations at the end of the 20-mg loading dose (C LD), and plasma conivaptan concentrations at the end of the second day 20-mg/24-h continuous infusion (C 48).

Results

For each of C LD, C 48, and AUC, the mean values were similar for subjects with mild hepatic impairment and subjects with normal hepatic function. Subjects with moderate hepatic impairment had a 73 % higher C 48 and an 80 % higher AUC compared with subjects with normal hepatic function. There were no clinically relevant changes in conivaptan exposure in the mild and moderate renal impairment groups compared with subjects with normal renal function. Intravenous conivaptan was generally well tolerated in subjects with mild or moderate hepatic or renal impairment. Infusion-site reaction was the most commonly reported adverse event.

Conclusion

Overall exposure to conivaptan increased in subjects with moderate hepatic impairment compared with subjects with normal hepatic function. Therefore, in patients with moderate hepatic impairment, conivaptan should be initiated with a loading dose of 10 mg over 30 min followed by 10 mg per day as a continuous infusion for 2–4 days, which is half the approved dose. No dose adjustment is necessary in patients with mild or moderate renal impairment and in patients with mild hepatic impairment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Hoorn EJ, Lindemans J, Zietse R. Development of severe hyponatraemia in hospitalized patients: treatment-related risk factors and inadequate management. Nephrol Dial Transplant. 2006;21(1):70–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Schrier RW. Body water homeostasis: clinical disorders of urinary dilution and concentration. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2006;17(7):1820–32.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Adrogue HJ. Consequences of inadequate management of hyponatremia. Am J Nephrol. 2005;25(3):240–9.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Schrier RW, Bansal S. Diagnosis and management of hyponatremia in acute illness. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2008;14(6):627–34.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Gross P. Treatment of hyponatremia. Intern Med. 2008;47(10):885–91.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Vaidya C, Ho W, Freda BJ. Management of hyponatremia: providing treatment and avoiding harm. Cleve Clin J Med. 2010;77(10):715–26.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Vaprisol® (conivaptan). Full prescribing information. Deerfield: Astellas Pharma US, Inc.; 2012.

  8. Verbalis JG, Zeltser D, Smith N, Barve A, Andoh M. Assessment of the efficacy and safety of intravenous conivaptan in patients with euvolaemic hyponatraemia: subgroup analysis of a randomized, controlled study. Clin Endocrinol (Oxf). 2008;69(1):159–68.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Zeltser D, Rosansky S, van Rensburg H, Verbalis JG, Smith N. Assessment of the efficacy and safety of intravenous conivaptan in euvolemic and hypervolemic hyponatremia. Am J Nephrol. 2007;27(5):447–57.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Angeli P, Wong F, Watson H, Gines P. Hyponatremia in cirrhosis: results of a patient population survey. Hepatology. 2006;44(6):1535–42.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Porcel A, Diaz F, Rendon P, Macias M, Martin-Herrera L, Giron-Gonzalez JA. Dilutional hyponatremia in patients with cirrhosis and ascites. Arch Intern Med. 2002;162(3):323–8.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Durand F, Valla D. Assessment of the prognosis of cirrhosis: Child-Pugh versus MELD. J Hepatol. 2005; 42 Suppl(1): S100–7.

    Google Scholar 

  13. Cockcroft DW, Gault MH. Prediction of creatinine clearance from serum creatinine. Nephron. 1976;16(1):31–41.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Division of Clinical Endocrinology, Indiana University, P450 Drug Interaction Table. 2012. http://medicine.iupui.edu/clinpharm/ddis/table.aspx. Accessed 18 Jul 2012

  15. Collier J, Bassendine M. How to respond to abnormal liver function tests. Clin Med. 2002;2(5):406–9.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Burke MD. Liver function: test selection and interpretation of results. Clin Lab Med. 2002;22(2):377–90.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  17. Samsca® (tolvaptan). Full prescribing information. Tokyo: Otsuka Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd.; 2012.

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was sponsored and funded by Astellas Pharma Inc. The sponsor was involved in the design, conduct, management, and analysis of the study and review of the manuscript.

Disclosures

M.J. Roy, K.A. Erdman, A.T. Abeyratne, L.C. Plumb, and J.J. Keirns are employees of Astellas Pharma Inc. D.S. Riff is on the advisory board of Synergy Pharmaceuticals. K. Lasseter is an employee of Clinical Pharmacology of Miami, which was funded by Astellas Pharma to perform some of this work. Richard M. Edwards, PhD (Complete Healthcare Communications, Inc.), provided medical writing support with funding from Astellas Pharma Inc.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to James J. Keirns.

Additional information

ClinicalTrials.gov registration numbers NCT00851227 and NCT00887627.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Roy, M.J., Erdman, K.A., Abeyratne, A.T. et al. Pharmacokinetics of Intravenous Conivaptan in Subjects With Hepatic or Renal Impairment. Clin Pharmacokinet 52, 385–395 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40262-013-0047-8

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40262-013-0047-8

Keywords

Navigation