Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

Keynote webinar | Spotlight on medication adherence

LIVE: Thursday 27th June 2024, 18:00-19:30 (CEST)
Join our expert panel to discover why you need to understand the drivers of non-adherence in your patients, and how you can optimize medication adherence in your clinics to drastically improve patient outcomes.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Clinical Pharmacokinetics
Published in: Clinical Pharmacokinetics 7/2007

01-07-2007 | Original Research Article

Memantine Pharmacotherapy

A Naturalistic Study Using a Population Pharmacokinetic Approach

Authors: Dr Johannes Kornhuber, Evelin M. Kennepohl, Stefan Bleich, Jens Wiltfang, Thomas Kraus, Udo Reulbach, Ingolf Meineke

Published in: Clinical Pharmacokinetics | Issue 7/2007

Login to get access

Abstract

Background and objective

Memantine plasma concentrations show considerable interindividual variability. High memantine plasma concentrations are associated with the occurrence of neuropsychiatric adverse effects such as confusion. The objective of the present study was, therefore, to investigate the reasons for the observed variability of the pharmacokinetics of memantine in a representative patient population and to explore patient covariates on drug disposition.

Subjects

Fifty-six ambulatory Western European patients aged 50–91 years.

Methods

This prospective study used a full population pharmacokinetic sampling design. After at least 11 days of continuous memantine intake, the patients provided pharmacokinetic profiles, with six measurements each over a 12-hour period, with a total of 335 serum memantine concentrations. Covariates considered for inclusion in the models were: subject demographic factors (age, total body weight, gender), laboratory tests (urinary pH), total daily dose of memantine, memantine formulation type, comedication eliminated via tubular secretion and smoking history. The model development was conducted in three sequential steps. First, an adequate basic structural model was chosen (e.g. a one-, two- or three-compartment pharmacokinetic model). The data were analysed to estimate population pharmacokinetic parameters with the nonlinear mixed-effects model computer program NONMEM. Second, the effects of covariates were investigated on post hoc estimates using multivariate statistics. Third, the covariates with significant effects in the second step were used to build a final covariate pharmacokinetic model, again using NONMEM.

Results

A two-compartment model with first-order absorption satisfactorily described memantine pharmacokinetics. In the final regression model, total bodyweight, memantine formulation type (solution vs tablets) and concomitant medication eliminated via tubular secretion were all important determinants of the apparent clearance (CL/F). The final regression model was: CL/F (L/h) = (1.92 + 0.048 · BW [kg]) · 0.53QFRM · 0.769CMD where FRM = 1 for patients receiving memantine solution, otherwise FRM = 0; CMD = 1 for patients receiving a comedication eliminated via tubular secretion, otherwise CMD = 0; and BW is bodyweight. Compared with the basic model, the final population pharmacokinetic model explained 61% of the interindividual variance of the apparent clearance.

Conclusions

The population pharmacokinetic model that was developed identified a set of sources of variability in the apparent clearance of memantine, which can be used as a reference in order to optimise memantine therapy in Western European patients.
Footnotes
1
The use of trade names is for product identification purposes only and does not imply endorsement.
 
Literature
1.
Komhuber J, Weiler M, Schoppmeyer K, et al. Amantadine and memantine are NMDA receptor antagonists with neuroprotective properties. J Neural Transm Suppl 1994; 43: 91–104
2.
Möbius HJ, Stöffler A, Graham SM. Memantine hydrochloride: pharmacological and clinical profile. Drugs Today (Barc) 2004; 40(8): 685–95CrossRef
3.
Kornhuber J, Bormann J, Retz W, et al. Memantine displaces [3H]MK-801 at therapeutic concentrations in postmortem human frontal cortex. Eur J Pharmacol 1989; 166: 589–90PubMedCrossRef
4.
Bormann J. Memantine is a potent blocker of N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor channels. Eur J Pharmacol 1989; 166: 591–2PubMedCrossRef
5.
Kornhuber J, Bormann J, Hübers M, et al. Effects of the 1-amino-adamantanes at the MK-801-binding site of the NMDA-receptor-gated ion channel: a human postmortem brain study. Eur J Pharmacol Mol Pharmacol Sect 1991; 206: 297–300CrossRef
6.
Kornhuber J, Quack G. Cerebrospinal fluid and serum concentrations of the N-methyl-D-aspartate (NMDA) receptor antagonist memantine in man. Neurosci Lett 1995; 195: 137–9PubMedCrossRef
7.
8.
9.
Freudenthaler S, Görtelmeyer R, Pantev M, et al. Dose-response analysis to support dosage recommendations for memantine. Naunyn-Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol 1996; 353 Suppl.: R159
10.
Periclou A, Ventura D, Rao N, et al. Pharmacokinetic study of memantine in healthy and renally impaired subjects. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2006; 79(1): 134–43PubMedCrossRef
11.
Wesemann W, Sontag K-H, Maj J. Zur Pharmakodynamik und Pharmakokinetik des Memantin. Arzneimittelforschung/Drug Res 1983; 33: 1122–34
12.
Freudenthaler S, Meineke I, Schreeb KH, et al. Influence of urine pH and urinary flow on the renal excretion of memantine. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1998; 46(6): 541–6PubMedCrossRef
13.
Henkel JG, Hane JT. Structure-anti-Parkinson activity relationships in the aminoadamantanes: influence of bridgehead substitution. J Med Chem 1982; 25: 51–6PubMedCrossRef
14.
Micuda S, Mundlova L, Anzenbacherova E, et al. Inhibitory effects of memantine on human cytochrome P450 activities: prediction of in vivo drug interactions. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2004; 60: 583–9PubMedCrossRef
15.
Aarons L. Population pharmacokinetics: theory and practice. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1991; 32: 669–70PubMed
16.
Beal SL, Sheiner LB. NONMEM users guides, NONMEM Project Group, San Francisco. San Francisco (CA): University of California, 1992
17.
Fachinfo-Service. Fachinformationsverzeichnis Deutschland, RoteListe Service GmbH — Frankfurt/Main [online]. Available from URL: http://​www.​fachinfo.​de [Accessed 2006 Jan 15]
18.
Masereeuw R, Russel FG. Mechanisms and clinical implications of renal drug excretion. Drug Metab Rev 2001; 33(3–4): 299–351PubMedCrossRef
19.
20.
Merz + Co. Validation of a GC/MS-method for the quantitative assessment of memantine in human plasma and urine [internal report]. Frankfurt/Main: Merz + Co., 2001
21.
Sheiner LB, Beal SL. Bayesian individualization of pharmacokinetics: simple implementation and comparison with non-Bayesian methods. J Pharm Sci 1982; 71: 1344–8PubMedCrossRef
22.
Hastie T, Tibshirani R. Generalized additive models. Stat Sci 1986; 1: 297–318CrossRef
23.
Hastie T, Tibshirani R. Generalized additive models for medical research. Stat Methods Med Res 1995; 4(3): 187–96PubMedCrossRef
24.
Maitre PO, Buhrer M, Thomson D, et al. A three-step approach combining Bayesian regression and NONMEM population analysis: application to midazolam. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 1991; 19(4): 377–84PubMed
25.
Mandema JW, Verotta D, Sheiner LB. Building population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic models I: models for covariate effects. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 1992; 20(5): 511–28PubMed
26.
Wählby U, Jonsson EN, Karlsson MO. Comparison of stepwise covariate model building strategies in population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic analysis. AAPS PharmSci 2002; 4(E27): 1–12
27.
28.
Akaike H. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans Autom Contr 1974; 19: 716–23CrossRef
29.
Perri D, Ito S, Rowsell V, et al. The kidney: the body’s playground for drugs: an overview of renal drug handling with selected clinical correlates. Can J Clin Pharmacol 2003; 10(1): 17–23PubMed
30.
Nierenberg DW. Drug inhibition of penicillin tubular secretion: concordance between in vitro and clinical findings. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1987; 240(3): 712–6PubMed
31.
Somogyi A, Stockley C, Keal J, et al. Reduction of metformin renal tubular secretion by cimetidine in man. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1987; 23(5): 545–51PubMedCrossRef
32.
Fujita T, Urban TJ, Leabman MK, et al. Transport of drugs in the kidney by the human organic cation transporter, OCT2 and its genetic variants. J Pharm Sci 2006; 95(1): 25–36PubMedCrossRef
33.
Gaudry SE, Sitar DS, Smyth DD, et al. Gender and age as factors in the inhibition of renal clearance of amantadine by quinine and quinidine. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1993; 54(1): 23–7PubMedCrossRef
34.
Busch AE, Karbach U, Miska D, et al. Human neurons express the polyspecific cation transporter hOCT2, which translocates monoamine neurotransmitters, amantadine, and memantine. Mol Pharmacol 1998; 54(2): 342–52PubMed
35.
Fourie J, Escobar MR, Sitar DS. NMDA receptor antagonists to characterize rat renal organic cation transporter function. Eur J Pharmacol 2002; 452(1): 1–10PubMedCrossRef
36.
Launay-Vacher V, Izzedine H, Karie S, et al. Renal tubular drug transporters. Nephron Physiol 2006; 103(3): 97–106CrossRef
37.
Fromm MF. Importance of P-glycoprotein for drug disposition in humans. Eur J Clin Invest 2003; 33 Suppl. 2: 6–9PubMedCrossRef
38.
Periclou AP, Ventura D, Sherman T, et al. Lack of pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic interaction between memantine and donepezil. Ann Pharmacother 2004; 38(9): 1389–94PubMedCrossRef
39.
Rao N, Chou T, Ventura D, et al. Investigation of the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions between memantine and glyburide/metformin in healthy young subjects: a single-center, multiple-dose, open-label study. Clin Ther 2005; 27(10): 1596–606PubMedCrossRef
40.
Nagy CF, Kumar D, Cullen EI, et al. Steady-state pharmacokinetics and safety of donepezil HC1 in subjects with moderately impaired renal function. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2004; 58 Suppl. 1: 18–24PubMedCrossRef
41.
Tiseo PJ, Foley K, Friedhoff LT. An evaluation of the pharmacokinetics of donepezil HC1 in patients with moderately to severely impaired renal function. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1998; 46 Suppl. 1: 56–60PubMedCrossRef
42.
Honegger UE, Quack G, Wiesmann UN. Evidence for lysosomotropism of memantine in cultured human cells: cellular kinetics and effects of memantine on phospholipid content and composition, membrane fluidity and β-adrenergic transmission. Pharmacol Toxicol 1993; 73: 202–8PubMedCrossRef
43.
Ishizaki J, Yokogawa K, Ichimura F, et al. Uptake of imipramine in rat liver lysosomes in vitro and its inhibition by basic drugs. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 2000; 294(3): 1088–98PubMed
44.
Ohkuma S, Poole B. Fluorescence probe measurement of the intralysosomal pH in living cells and the perturbation of pH by various agents. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 1978; 75(7): 3327–31PubMedCrossRef
Metadata
Title
Memantine Pharmacotherapy
A Naturalistic Study Using a Population Pharmacokinetic Approach
Authors
Dr Johannes Kornhuber
Evelin M. Kennepohl
Stefan Bleich
Jens Wiltfang
Thomas Kraus
Udo Reulbach
Ingolf Meineke
Publication date
01-07-2007
Publisher
Springer International Publishing
Published in
Clinical Pharmacokinetics / Issue 7/2007
Print ISSN: 0312-5963
Electronic ISSN: 1179-1926
DOI
https://doi.org/10.2165/00003088-200746070-00005

Other articles of this Issue 7/2007

Clinical Pharmacokinetics 7/2007 Go to the issue

Original Research Article

Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Vildagliptin in Patients with Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus

Review Article

Clinical Pharmacology of Levosimendan

Original Research Article

Multiple-Dose Pharmacokinetics and Safety of Bevirimat, a Novel Inhibitor of HIV Maturation, in Healthy Volunteers

Review Article

Strategies to Improve Drug Delivery Across the Blood-Brain Barrier

Original Research Article

Effect of Fluvoxamine on the Pharmacokinetics of Roflumilast and Roflumilast N-Oxide