Volume 3, Number 6: JUNE 2000

Platelet-Derived Microparticles in Patients with Arteriosclerosis Obliterans. Enhancement of High Shear-Induced Microparticle Generation by Cytokines. 

Nutritional treatment with branched-chain amino acids in advanced liver cirrhosis. 

Nutritional pharmacotherapy of chronic liver disease: from support of liver failure to prevention of liver cancer. 

Interaction potential and tolerability of the coadministration of cilostazol and aspirin. 

 

Platelet-Derived Microparticles in Patients with Arteriosclerosis Obliterans. Enhancement of High Shear-Induced Microparticle Generation by Cytokines. 

Reference: Thromb Res 2000 May 15;98(4):257-268.

We evaluated the plasma concentrations of cytokines and platelet-derived microparticles in patients with arteriosclerosis obliterans and studied the effect of cytokines on platelet-derived microparticle generation under high shear stress. Interleukin-6 levels peaked at 48 hours after vascular surgery, while thrombopoietin started to increase at 24 to 48 hours postoperatively and peaked on the seventh day. Platelet activation markers were increased in the arteriosclerosis obliterans patients preoperatively. Levels of P-selectin and CD63 both increased further, peaking at 6 to 24 hours postoperatively. Platelet-derived microparticle levels were also increased preoperatively. At 6 hours postoperatively, the plasma level of platelet-derived microparticles was significantly increased. Plasma platelet-derived microparticle level was lower at 12 hours but only returned to the preoperative value at 7 days after grafting. There was a difference in the platelet-derived microparticle level at 7
days between patients with or without antiplatelet therapy (cilostazol). The effect of cytokines on platelet activation under high shear stress was also studied. Interleukin-6 and thrombopoietin enhanced both P-selectin expression and platelet-derived microparticle generation under high shear stress. These results suggest that platelet-derived microparticles are released by platelet activation after vascular grafting when certain cytokines increase under high shear stress and that antiplatelet
therapy may reduce platelet-derived microparticle levels postoperatively.

Nutritional treatment with branched-chain amino acids in advanced liver cirrhosis. 

Reference: J Gastroenterol 2000;35S12:7-12.

During the last 20 years there has been much interest in nutritional treatment for patients with advanced cirrhosis. Most studies have measured the potential benefit of nutritional supplements of dietary proteins, generic protein hydrolysates, or specific branched-chain amino acid (BCAA)-enriched formulas in regard to nutritional parameters and hepatic encephalopathy. The issue is not definitively settled; data are conflicting and meta-analyses have failed to produce unequivocal results. A consensus review, recently produced under the auspices of the European Society for Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, concluded that: 

(1) patients with cirrhosis tend to be hypermetabolic, and a higher-than-normal supply of dietary proteins is needed to achieve nitrogen balance; 

(2) most patients tolerate a normal or even increased dietary protein intake, without risk of hepatic encephalopathy; 

(3) a modified eating pattern, based on several meals and a late evening snack, is useful; 

(4) in severely malnourished patients, amino acid supplements may be considered to provide the necessary amount of proteins to meet protein requirements; 

(5) in a few patients intolerant to the required protein intake, BCAA supplements may be considered to provide the
necessary nitrogen intake without detrimental effects on the mental state, perhaps even improving it.

Future studies are needed to quantify the advantage of nutritional support with amino acids or BCAA supplements on overall well-being, complications, and ultimately survival with a long-lasting disease where self-perceived health-related quality of life is a major outcome.

Nutritional pharmacotherapy of chronic liver disease: from support of liver failure to prevention of liver cancer. 

Reference: J Gastroenterol 2000;35S12:13-17.

Many patients with liver cirrhosis are in a state of protein and energy malnutrition and require careful nutritional support. Our research has revealed that approximately 30% of the patients have protein-energy malnutrition, 40% protein malnutrition, and 10% energy malnutrition; 20% are in a normal nutritional state. Supplementation with branched-chain amino acids alleviates chronic liver failure, improves the protein nutritional state, and subsequently prolongs survival. In contrast, therapeutic modalities for energy malnutrition have not yet been fully elucidated and await further studies. Improved survival of the cirrhotic patients essentially brings a higher incidence of hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC). A synthetic analogue of vitamin A (acyclic retinoid or 4,5-dehydrogeranyl geranoic acid) prevents at least the development of second primary tumors after curative treatment of preceding HCC. The mechanism of this cancer chemo-prevention is clonal deletion of premalignant and latent malignant cells by the retinoid. We describe our clinical experiences with these two nutritional pharmacotherapies of chronic liver diseases and review their basic mechanisms.

Reference: Clin Pharmacokinet 1999;37 Suppl 2:1-93.

OBJECTIVE: This study evaluated the effects of repeated oral drug administration with cilostazol alone and with aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid) on platelet aggregation, coagulation and bleeding time as well as the cilostazol-aspirin pharmacokinetic interaction in healthy males. 

DESIGN: This was a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study. Participants received either cilostazol
100 mg or placebo twice a day for 10 days; aspirin 325 mg/day was coadministered for the last 5 days. After a 14-day washout period, participants received the alternative treatment. 

STUDY PARTICIPANTS: 12 healthy male volunteers were enrolled. 

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Differences in bleeding times, platelet aggregation, prothrombin time (PT) and activated partial
thromboplastin time (aPTT) between cilostazol with aspirin and cilostazol alone. Noncompartmental pharmacokinetic parameters were determined for each study participant. 

RESULTS: Cilostazol, with or without aspirin, caused no changes in PT, aPTT or bleeding time. There was a 23 to 35% increase
in inhibition of ADP-induced ex vivo platelet aggregation by cilostazol plus aspirin when compared with aspirin alone. There was no additive or synergistic effect on arachidonic acid-induced platelet aggregation. Statistically significant but clinically insignificant increases in the area under the plasma concentration-time curve to the last measurable plasma concentration and trough concentrations of cilostazol and its metabolites (OPC-13015 and OPC-13213) occurred after aspirin coadministration,
with no differences observed in the maximum plasma concentration Drug-related adverse events were generally mild, the most frequent being headache. 

CONCLUSIONS: Cilostazol and aspirin coadministration did not cause clinically significant changes in PT, aPTT, bleeding time, platelet aggregation or plasma concentrations of cilostazol and its 2 active metabolites. Cilostazol was generally well tolerated with or without aspirin.

Effect of cilostazol on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of warfarin. 


OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effect of cilostazol administration on warfarin pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics following a single 25 mg dose of warfarin. 

DESIGN: A randomised double-blind 2-period crossover with healthy volunteers receiving either 100 mg cilostazol twice daily for 13 days or matching placebo twice daily for 13 days, and the other treatment 21 days later. A single 25 mg dose of warfarin was given 14 days prior to the start of the study, and 7 days after the cilostazol and placebo treatments. 

STUDY PARTICIPANTS: 15 normal healthy male volunteers. 

OUTCOME MEASURES: Noncompartmental pharmacokinetic parameters for (R)- and (S)-warfarin, the area under the curve of the prothrombin time (AUCPT), activated partial thromboplastin time (AUCaPTT), Ivy bleeding times, unbound fraction (fu) of cilostazol, and warfarin were determined for each individual. 

RESULTS: For (R)- and (S)-warfarin, the 90% confidence intervals for the ratios of the geometric means (90% CI) of the maximum plasma concentration and area under the plasma concentration-time curve were between 0.88 to 1.03. The 90% CI for the AUCPT and AUCaPTT was between 0.95 and 1.06. For Ivy bleeding time, the 90% CI for the ratios of the geometric means ranged between 0.71 and 1.22. The fu of cilostazol did not differ significantly between the 2 treatments. There was a 17% increase in the fu of warfarin (p < 0.05), which was not clinically significant. 

CONCLUSIONS: Coadministration of warfarin with twice daily administration of cilostazol 100 mg did not alter (R)- and (S)-warfarin pharmacokinetics, prothrombin time, partial thromboplastin time, Ivy bleeding times, or cilostazol protein binding.

Effect of multiple cilostazol doses on single dose lovastatin pharmacokinetics in healthy volunteers. 


OBJECTIVE: To assess the effects of cilostazol on lovastatin pharmacokinetics. 

DESIGN: This was a single-centre, open-label, multiple dose, sequential treatment study. Participants received single
oral doses of lovastatin 80 mg on days 1, 7 and 9, as well as oral cilostazol 100 mg twice daily on days 2 to 8, followed by a single oral 150 mg cilostazol dose on day 9. 

STUDY PARTICIPANTS: 15 healthy, nonsmoking male or female volunteers (aged 18 to 60 years) were enrolled, and 12
completed the study. 

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated using plasma concentrations of lovastatin and its beta-hydroxy metabolite and of cilostazol and its metabolites. Differences in the pharmacokinetics of each drug when given alone or in combination were assessed by analysis of variance. 

RESULTS: The maximum observed plasma concentration (Cmax) of lovastatin or its metabolite did not differ significantly when lovastatin was given alone and when it was given with 100 mg of cilostazol. The mean ratios of the area under the plasma
concentration-time curve from zero to the time of the last measurable concentration (AUCt) for lovastatin coadministered with 100 mg of cilostazol to that with lovastatin given alone were 1.6 for lovastatin and 1.7 for its metabolite. With 150 mg of cilostazol, lovastatin Cmax did not change, whereas Cmax of the metabolite increased 2.2-fold. The mean AUCt ratios for lovastatin given with 150 mg cilostazol/lovastatin given alone were 1.6 and 2.0 for lovastatin and its metabolite, respectively. All increases in lovastatin and metabolite AUC were statistically significant, except for the 1.6-fold increase in lovastatin AUC with 150 mg of cilostazol. Maximum steady-state plasma drug concentration (Cssmax) and AUC during a dosage interval (AUC tau) for cilostazol 100 mg twice daily decreased 14 and 15%, respectively, upon lovastatin coadministration. 

CONCLUSIONS: Lovastatin and metabolite exposure is increased only by up to 2-fold when cilostazol is coadministered, which is considerably less than that observed for potent CYP3A inhibitors such as itraconazole and grapefruit juice. Absorption of cilostazol decreased approximately 15% when it was given with lovastatin. No dosage adjustments are necessary for cilostazol when coadministered with lovastatin, whereas lovastatin dose reductions may be needed when the 2 drugs are given together.

Effects of CYP3A inhibition on the metabolism of cilostazol. 

OBJECTIVE: In vitro results suggest that cilostazol is metabolised by cytochrome P450 (CYP) isoforms 1A2, 2D6, 3A and 2C19. This study investigated the role of CYP3A inhibition on the metabolism of cilostazol. 

DESIGN: The study was conducted as a single-centre, open-label, nonrandomised, 2-period, crossover pharmacokinetic trial. A single dose of cilostazol 100 mg was administered orally on days 1 and 15. Erythromycin (150 mg orally 3 times daily) was administered on days 8 to 20. 14C-erythromycin (3 microns Ci) was administered intravenously on days 1 and 15 one hour before cilostazol administration to determine baseline and the inhibitory effect of erythromycin treatment on CYP3A activity. 

STUDY PARTICIPANTS: 16 healthy nonsmoking male volunteers. 

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Serial blood and pooled urine samples were collected before and after cilostazol administration to quantitate cilostazol and its metabolites. Serial exhalation samples were collected after intravenous 14C-erythromycin administration and radioactivity was quantitated by scintillation counting. Pharmacokinetics were determined by noncompartmental methods and compared before and after erythromycin administration. Tolerability assessments included adverse events, laboratory tests, vital signs and electrocardiographs. 

RESULTS: Following erythromycin coadministration, cilostazol maximum plasma concentration (Cmax), area under the plasma concentration-time curve at time t (AUCt), and area under the curve from zero to infinity (AUC infinity) increased significantly by 47, 87, and 73%, respectively, and an approximately 50% reduction in unbound clearance was observed for the major circulating metabolite of cilostazol, OPC-13015. Cmax decreased significantly (p < 0.001) by 24%, while AUCt increased
by 8%; this increase was not significant. For the second major metabolite, OPC-13213, the Cmax and AUCt increased by 29 and 141%, respectively (p < 0.001). 

CONCLUSIONS: In vivo results are in agreement with previous in vitro human microsome studies, indicating that cilostazol is metabolised to OPC-13015 via CYP3A. In addition, OPC-13213 concentrations increased after inhibition of CYP3A because of inhibition of sequential metabolism of OPC-13213 via CYP3A. A starting dose for cilostazol of 50 mg twice daily should be considered during coadministration of inhibitors of CYP3A.

Effect of omeprazole on the metabolism of cilostazol. 


OBJECTIVE: In vitro results suggest that cilostazol is metabolised by cytochrome P450 (CYP) isoforms 1A2, 2D6, 3A4 and 2C19. This study was designed to evaluate the effect of concomitant administration of omeprazole (a CYP2C19 inhibitor) on the pharmacokinetics of a single 100 mg oral dose of cilostazol. 

DESIGN: This study was conducted as a single-centre, open-label, nonrandomised, 2-period, crossover pharmacokinetic trial. A single 100 mg dose of cilostazol was administered orally on days 0 and 14. Oral omeprazole (40 mg every day) was administered on days 7 to 18. 

STUDY PARTICIPANTS: 20 healthy nonsmoking male and female volunteers. 

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Serial blood samples were collected before and after cilostazol administration to characterise the pharmacokinetics of cilostazol and its metabolites. 

RESULTS: Following omeprazole coadministration, the increases in cilostazol maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) and area under the plasma concentration-time curve at time t (AUCt) were 18% (p = 0.062) and 26% (p < 0.001), respectively. For the 2 major circulating metabolites, OPC-13015 and OPC-13213, the OPC-13015 Cmax and AUCt increased by 29 and 69%, respectively (p < 0.001). However, for OPC-13213, the Cmax and AUCt decreased by 22 and 31%, respectively (p < 0.001).
The plasma protein binding of cilostazol was unaffected by coadministration of omeprazole.

CONCLUSIONS: Coadministration of cilostazol with omeprazole resulted in an increase in the systemic exposure of cilostazol and its active metabolite, OPC-13015, by 26 and 69%, respectively. For the other active metabolite, OPC-13213, systemic exposure decreased by 31% because of inhibition of cilostazol metabolism to this metabolite. These changes in systemic exposure were well tolerated. A dose of 50 mg cilostazol twice a day should be considered during coadministration of
inhibitors of CYP2C19, such as omeprazole.

Inhibition of CYP2D6 by quinidine and its effects on the metabolism of cilostazol. 


OBJECTIVE: In vitro results are inconclusive as to whether cilostazol is metabolised by cytochrome P450 isoenzyme 2D6 (CYP2D6). The goals of this study were (1) to assure the dose of quinidine and timing relative to cilostazol used in this study were adequate to cause inhibition of CYP2D6, (2) to evaluate carryover effects of quinidine administration, and (3) to evaluate the effect of CYP2D6 deficiency and administration of quinidine (a CYP2D6 inhibitor) on the pharmacokinetics of a single
100 mg oral dose of cilostazol. 

DESIGN: This study was conducted as a single-centre, open-label, randomised sequence, 2-period, crossover pharmacokinetic trial. Water alone (treatment without quinidine) or two 200 mg oral doses of quinidine sulfate with water were administered 25 hours and 1 hour prior to a single 100 mg dose of cilostazol in period 1. Study participants were crossed over to opposite treatment in period 2. Metoprolol 25 mg, used as a positive control, was administered 1 hour after quinidine sulfate with water or using water alone to assess the magnitude of CYP2D6 inhibition by quinidine. 

STUDY PARTICIPANTS: 22 healthy nonsmoking Caucasian (14 male and 8 female) volunteers participated in the study. 

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Serial blood and urine samples were collected at predose and after cilostazol administration to characterise cilostazol and its metabolite pharmacokinetics. Additional plasma samples were taken to assess the pharmacokinetics of quinidine. Urine samples were collected to measure metoprolol and hydroxymetoprolol. 

RESULTS: Administration of metoprolol with quinidine caused a significant (p < 0.001) decrease in the urinary 4-hydroxymetoprolol/metoprolol ratio compared with administration of metoprolol alone (42-fold decrease, 0.065 vs 2.707). Hence, quinidine effectively converted extensive metabolisers of CYP2D6 to poor metabolisers of CYP2D6. The 21-day washout period was adequate to have complete recovery from quinidine inhibition of CYP2D6. The analysis of variance
demonstrated that the mean maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) for cilostazol, both adjusted and unadjusted for the free fraction, was higher in the control group than in the quinidine group (p =0.023). However, the time to Cmax (p = 0.669), the area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to infinity (AUC infinity; p = 0.133), and the apparent oral clearance (p = 0.135) were unchanged. The geometric mean ratios (90% confidence interval) comparing with quinidine (test) and without quinidine (reference) coadministration for Cmax and AUC infinity are 0.86 (0.77, 0.95) and 0.92 (0.84, 1.00), respectively. Similar patterns were observed for OPC-13015 and OPC-13213 with regard to Cmax, area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to the last measurable concentration at time t, and AUC infinity (where determinable). The slight decrease in the
systemic availability of cilostazol and its metabolites was thought to be a result of the increased gastrointestinal motility secondary to quinidine. 

CONCLUSIONS: Administration of quinidine sulfate 200 mg profoundly inhibited CYP2D6-mediated metabolism. The effects of quinidine inhibition of CYP2D6 metabolism were completely reversible during the 21-day washout period. Coadministration
of quinidine with cilostazol had no substantial effect on cilostazol or its metabolites (OPC-13015 and OPC-13213). Hence, CYP2D6 does not have a significant contribution in the metabolic elimination of cilostazol.

Effect of renal impairment on the pharmacokinetics of cilostazol and its metabolites. 

OBJECTIVE: The pharmacokinetics of cilostazol were studied in patients with mild, moderate and severe renal impairment and in healthy volunteers after administration of 50 mg single and multiple doses of cilostazol. 

DESIGN: This was an open-label, single and multiple dose study administering 50 mg cilostazol every 12 hours to healthy volunteers and patients with varying degrees of renal impairment. PARTICIPANTS: 6 normal volunteers [creatinine clearance (CLCR) > or = 90 ml/min]; 6 patients with mild (CLCR 50 to 89 ml/min), 5 with moderate (CLCR 26 to 49 ml/min) and 6 with
severe (CLCR 5 to 25 ml/min) renal impairment. 

OUTCOME MEASURES: Noncompartmental pharmacokinetic parameters were determined for each study participant. RESULTS: At steady state, in the severe renal disease group, cilostazol and OPC-13015 peak concentrations (Cmax) were 29
and 41% lower and the areas under the concentration-time curve over the dosage interval (AUC tau) 39 and 47% lower than in the healthy volunteers. Cmax and AUC tau of OPC-13213 were significantly higher, 173 and 209%, respectively, than those in the healthy volunteers. The accumulation ratios were not significantly different between the various renal function groups for cilostazol and its metabolites. The estimated pharmacological activity of cilostazol and its metabolites was similar
between the normal volunteers and those with severe renal impairment. 

CONCLUSIONS: A dosage reduction in renally impaired patients is not supported by the pharmacokinetics of cilostazol and its
metabolites in this patient group.

Effect of hepatic impairment on the pharmacokinetics of a single dose of cilostazol. 


OBJECTIVE: The pharmacokinetic profiles of cilostazol and its metabolites following a single oral dose of cilostazol 100 mg were compared between individuals with impaired and normal liver function.

DESIGN: The study was conducted as a single-centre, open-label, single dose pharmacokinetic and tolerability trial. STUDY PARTICIPANTS: 12 patients with impaired and compensated liver function were compared with 12 volunteers with normal liver function. Participants in each group were matched for gender, age and weight. Of the 12 patients with hepatic impairment examined in this study, 10 had mild impairment (Child-Pugh class A) and 2 had moderate impairment (Child-Pugh class B).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Blood and urine were collected up to 144 hours after drug administration. Pharmacokinetics were determined by noncompartmental methods. 

RESULTS: Protein binding did not differ between the groups (95.2% healthy volunteers, 94.6% hepatically impaired patients). Mean +/- SD unbound oral clearance of cilostazol decreased by 8.6% because of hepatic impairment (3380 +/- 1400 ml/min in healthy volunteers, 3260 +/- 2030 ml/min in hepatically impaired patients). Total urinary excretion of metabolites was significantly higher in healthy volunteers (26 vs 17% of dose). Overall, the pharmacokinetics of cilostazol and its metabolites, OPC-13213 and OPC-13015, were not substantially different in those with mild and moderate hepatic disease compared with values in healthy volunteers. Except for terminal-phase disposition half-life and apparent terminal-phase volume of distribution for cilostazol, the ratios of geometric means of pharmacokinetic parameters for plasma cilostazol, OPC-13213 and OPC-13015 in those with hepatic impairment versus healthy volunteers were close to 100%. 

CONCLUSIONS: Based on the results of the pharmacokinetic analysis, dose adjustment in patients with mild hepatic impairment is not necessary. However, caution should be exercised when cilostazol is administered to patients with moderate or severe hepatic impairment.

Relative bioavailability and effects of a high fat meal on single dose cilostazol pharmacokinetics. 


OBJECTIVES: The objectives of this research were to (1) assess the relative bioavailability following administration of a 100 mg cilostazol suspension versus 100 mg tablet; (2) assess dosage form equivalency (2 x 50 mg compared with 1 x 100 mg); (3) compare the relative bioavailability following a single 50 mg dose of cilostazol administered as an ethanolic solution versus a 50 mg tablet; and (4) determine the effects of high fat diet on the pharmacokinetics of cilostazol following a single dose of
100 mg cilostazol in the fed or fasted state. Results were compiled from 3 separate studies to address these objectives.

 DESIGN: All studies involved healthy adult males receiving single oral doses of cilostazol in the fed or fasted state. The fed state consisted of administering cilostazol after ingestion of a high fat meal. One study compared the relative bioavailability of 100 mg suspension and 2 x 50 mg tablet versus 100 mg tablet in a randomised crossover design. The study involving
administration of a 50 mg cilostazol ethanolic solution was a single treatment study. The effects of food on the pharmacokinetics of cilostazol after administration of 100 mg cilostazol in the fed or fasted state as well as the pharmacokinetic profile following administration of a single 50 mg oral dose of cilostazol were assessed in a randomised crossover design. 

STUDY PARTICIPANTS: All participants were healthy nonsmoking males aged between 19 and 48 years whose bodyweight was within 15% of ideal bodyweight. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Noncompartmental pharmacokinetic parameters were determined for each study participant. 

RESULTS: The area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) parameters were within the 80 to 125% criterion for bioequivalence for the cilostazol and its primary metabolite, OPC-13015. The maximum observed plasma concentrations (Cmax) for these formulations were not equivalent and indicated that the absorption of cilostazol from a suspension is more rapid than from a tablet. The apparent terminal half-lives (t1/2z) of cilostazol and OPC-13015 were shorter after administration of the suspension compared with the tablet. Cmax and AUC following administration of a single 50 mg cilostazol tablet were approximately 80% of that from the same dose administered as an ethanolic solution. The t1/2z of cilostazol decreased from 15.5 hours after a tablet to 2.5 hours after an ethanolic solution. Upon coadministration with a high fat meal, the Cmax of cilostazol increased 90% and AUC infinity increased 25% (p < 0.05). The t1/2z decreased from 15.1 +/- 14.5 hours (mean +/- SD) in the fasted state to 5.4 +/- 2.0 hours in the fed state. Single oral doses of 50 and 100 mg cilostazol were well
tolerated. 

CONCLUSIONS: The relative bioavailability of the 100 mg cilostazol tablet versus an oral 100 mg cilostazol suspension is 100%. The 2 x 50 mg and 1 x 100 mg tablets are considered to be bioequivalent. The absorption following administration of 50 mg cilostazol ethanolic solution is faster and appears to be greater than that after administration of the 50 mg tablet. Coadministration of food increases the rate and extent of cilostazol absorption. The oral pharmacokinetics of cilostazol and
metabolites are absorption-rate limited. The significant differences in the t1/2z observed when comparing cilostazol tablet, suspension, and solution as well as the effects of food suggest 'flip-flop' pharmacokinetics.

Cilostazol pharmacokinetics after single and multiple oral doses in healthy males and patients with intermittent claudication resulting from peripheral arterial disease. 


OBJECTIVE: To study the pharmacokinetics of cilostazol following single oral administration of 50 to 200 mg in healthy young males, and after repeated oral administration of 100 mg every 12 hours to patients with peripheral arterial disease (PAD). 

DESIGN: The healthy male single dose study was a single-centre, randomised sequence, open-label, incomplete block, 3-period, 4-treatment, crossover design. The patient study was a single-centre, multiple dose, open-label study. 

STUDY PARTICIPANTS: 20 healthy nonsmoking male volunteers were enrolled and successfully completed the single dose study. 26 patients (21 males, 5 females) with intermittent claudication resulting from PAD were enrolled and completed the single/multiple dose study. 

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Noncompartmental pharmacokinetic parameters, the area under the plasma concentration-time curve from zero to the time of last measurable plasma concentration, and maximum plasma concentration.

RESULTS: Peak plasma concentrations of cilostazol occurred about 3 hours after drug administration and then declined biexponentially with concentrations detectable (> 20 micrograms/L) in the plasma for at least 36 hours postdose. The apparent elimination half-life of cilostazol (approximately 11 hours) was similar after a single dose or after multiple doses, with steady state being reached within 4 days. Cilostazol accumulated 1.7-fold following multiple dose administration. The apparent volume of distribution (Vz/F; 2.76 L/kg) suggested extensive distribution of cilostazol in the tissues. The oral clearance of cilostazol (CL/F; 0.18 L/h/kg) was much lower than liver blood flow, indicating a low extraction ratio drug, and hence low probability of a significant first-pass effect. None of the administered doses were recovered in the urine as unchanged cilostazol, suggesting that metabolism, rather than urinary excretion, is the major elimination route. Following single oral doses of 50 to 200 mg, the plasma concentrations of cilostazol and its metabolites increased less than proportionally to the dose. The pharmacokinetics of cilostazol in normal healthy volunteers are predictive of those in patients with PAD. Single oral doses of 50 to 200 mg cilostazol as well as 100 mg cilostazol every 12 hours were well tolerated. 

CONCLUSION: The plasma concentration of cilostazol and its metabolites increased less than proportionally with increasing doses. The relatively low plasma clearance and high volume of distribution of cilostazol suggest a low first-pass effect and extensive distribution. The pharmacokinetics of cilostazol in normal volunteers is predictive of that in patients with PAD. Cilostazol was well tolerated in healthy volunteers and patients with intermittent claudication resulting from PAD.