Background: Acellular dermal matrix (ADM) is widely used for prosthetic breast reconstruction. Although many studies have investigated the efficacy and complications of ADM in prosthetic breast reconstruction, studies on drainage and seroma formation according to the size of ADM manufactured using the same process are lacking. This study analyzed drainage and seroma formation according to the size of sterile ADM. Methods: From January 2011 to June 2018, the authors retrospectively reviewed the medical charts of patients who underwent direct-to-implant breast reconstruction using MegaDerm at a single institution. The ADMs used were classified as small or large groups. The two groups were compared in terms of the volume and duration time of two closed-suction drains (supramuscular and submuscular drains). Seroma and infection risk were also analyzed. Results: Of 344 patients, 69 were included. Among them, 22 patients were in the small-ADM group and 47 patients were in the large-ADM group. The supramuscular drain volume (P=0.295) and time (P=0.365) were not significantly different between the two groups. However, the submuscular (P=0.001) and total drain volume (P=0.004) were higher in the large-ADM group. In addition, seroma occurred significantly more frequently in the large-ADM group (P=0.048), but there was no significant difference in minor infections (P=0.088). Conclusions The size of sterile ADM affected drainage and seroma formation, with a larger size increasing drain volume and seroma risk. This study could provide a clinical basis for the safe usage of large sterile ADM.

Purpose: The metabolic activity and demand usually increase in seriously ill patients, especially in patients with a brain injury (BI). These nutritional demands have been traditionally satisfied using predictive equations (PEs). Recently, indirect calorimetry (IC) has been used widely because it is more accurate than other methods. This study measured the energy expenditures (EE) using IC (GE, CARESCAPE B650, Helsinki, Finland) and calculated the PEs simultaneously in patients with BI. Methods: This study was conducted on 55 patients with a BI for three years (2017.7∼2020.8), who were mechanically ventilated within a hospital for ≤seven days. The EE values using IC were measured once in each patient, and the EE values using PE were calculated using 5 PEs (ESPEN, Harris-Benedict, HB; Frankenfield, FK; Penn state, PS; and Faisy) at the same time.The 55 patients were divided into two groups, acute group (39 patients; ≤3 hospital days group, AG) and subacute group (16 patients; ＞3 hospital days group, SG) according to the time, and the values were obtained. Results: There were no differences in the patient’s characteristics between the two groups, including age, gender, severity of the condition (Simplified Acute Physiology Score II), and anthropometric parameters. In AG, the energy expenditure values using PEs were significantly lower than those using IC in the three PEs (IC 1,712.0±476 kcal, ESPEN 1,558.6±324 kcal, P=0.038, HB 1,582.4±273 kcal, P=0.037, PS 1,530.8±340 kcal, P=0.005). In SG, the EE value using PEs did not differ significantly from that using IC. Conclusion An accurate assessment of EE is critical for seriously ill patients. These results showed that the previously well-known PEs might not be correct, particularly in acute patients with BI. Therefore, it is recommended that the EE values be obtained using IC, at least in acute patients with BI.

Purpose: The metabolic activity and demand usually increase in seriously ill patients, especially in patients with a brain injury (BI). These nutritional demands have been traditionally satisfied using predictive equations (PEs). Recently, indirect calorimetry (IC) has been used widely because it is more accurate than other methods. This study measured the energy expenditures (EE) using IC (GE, CARESCAPE B650, Helsinki, Finland) and calculated the PEs simultaneously in patients with BI. Methods: This study was conducted on 55 patients with a BI for three years (2017.7∼2020.8), who were mechanically ventilated within a hospital for ≤seven days. The EE values using IC were measured once in each patient, and the EE values using PE were calculated using 5 PEs (ESPEN, Harris-Benedict, HB; Frankenfield, FK; Penn state, PS; and Faisy) at the same time.The 55 patients were divided into two groups, acute group (39 patients; ≤3 hospital days group, AG) and subacute group (16 patients; ＞3 hospital days group, SG) according to the time, and the values were obtained. Results: There were no differences in the patient’s characteristics between the two groups, including age, gender, severity of the condition (Simplified Acute Physiology Score II), and anthropometric parameters. In AG, the energy expenditure values using PEs were significantly lower than those using IC in the three PEs (IC 1,712.0±476 kcal, ESPEN 1,558.6±324 kcal, P=0.038, HB 1,582.4±273 kcal, P=0.037, PS 1,530.8±340 kcal, P=0.005). In SG, the EE value using PEs did not differ significantly from that using IC. Conclusion An accurate assessment of EE is critical for seriously ill patients. These results showed that the previously well-known PEs might not be correct, particularly in acute patients with BI. Therefore, it is recommended that the EE values be obtained using IC, at least in acute patients with BI.

Concomitant administration of lobeglitazone, empagliflozin, and metformin is expected to enhance blood glucose-lowering effects and improve medication compliance in patients with diabetes mellitus. In this study, we investigated the pharmacokinetic (PK) interactions and safety of lobeglitazone and co-administered empagliflozin and metformin, which are approved agents used in clinical settings. Two randomized, open-label, multiple-dose, 2-treatment, 2-period, 2-sequence crossover clinical trials (parts 1 and 2) were conducted independently. In part 1, lobeglitazone monotherapy or lobeglitazone, empagliflozin, and metformin triple therapy was administered for 5 days. In part 2, empagliflozin and metformin dual therapy or the abovementioned triple therapy were administered for 5 days. Serial blood samples were collected up to 24 hours after the last dose in each period for PK evaluation.The primary PK parameters (AUC tau,ss , C max,ss ) of treatment regimens in each study part were calculated and compared. For lobeglitazone, the geometric mean ratios (GMRs) with 90% confidence intervals (CI) for triple therapy over monotherapy were 1.08 (1.03–1.14) for C max,ss and 0.98 (0.90–1.07) for AUC tau,ss . For empagliflozin, the GMRs and 90% CIs for triple therapy over dual therapy were 0.87 (0.78–0.97) for C max,ss and 0.97 (0.93–1.00) for AUC tau,ss.For metformin, the GMRs and 90% CIs for triple therapy over dual therapy were 1.06 (0.95– 1.17) for C max,ss and 1.04 (0.97–1.12) for AUCtau,ss . All reported adverse events were mild. The triple therapy consisting of lobeglitazone, empagliflozin, and metformin did not show any clinically relevant drug interactions in relation to the PKs and safety of each drug substance.

YH4808 is a novel potassium-competitive acid blocker that was developed as a therapeutic agent for gastric acid-related diseases; it may replace proton pump inhibitors, which are widely used in combination with amoxicillin and clarithromycin for Helicobacter pylori eradication. We compared the pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles and safety of amoxicillin, clarithromycin, and YH4808 used as monotherapies or in combination for evaluating potential drug interactions. An open-label, randomized, single-dose, Latin-square (4 × 4) crossover study was conducted in 32 healthy Korean volunteers. Subjects were randomly assigned to one of the 4 treatment sequences that consisted of 4 periods separated by 21-day washout intervals. PK parameters of YH4808, amoxicillin and clarithromycin administered in combination were compared with those of the respective monotherapies. The geometric mean ratios of the maximum concentration (Cmax) and the area under the time-concentration curve from time zero to time of the last quantifiable concentration (AUClast) of YH4808 increased during the triple therapy by 48.6% and 29.1%, respectively. Similarly, the Cmax and AUClast of M3 (active metabolite of YH4808) increased by 23.3% and 16.0%, respectively. The Cmax and AUClast of clarithromycin increased by 27.4% and 30.5%, and those of 14-hydroxyclarithromycin were increased by 23.1% and 32.4%, respectively. The corresponding amoxicillin values decreased during the triple therapy by 21.5% and 15.6%, respectively. There was no clinically significant change in safety assessment related to either monotherapies or triple therapy. In conclusion, amoxicillin, clarithromycin and YH4808 administered as triple therapy did not exhibit significant PK interactions and were not associated with safety issues.

Atorvastatin and ezetimibe are frequently co-administered to treat patients with dyslipidemia for the purpose of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol control. However, pharmacokinetic (PK) drug interaction between atorvastatin and ezetimibe has not been evaluated in Korean population. The aim of this study was to investigate PK drug interaction between two drugs in healthy Korean volunteers. An open-label, randomized, multiple-dose, three-treatment, three-period, Williams design crossover study was conducted in 36 healthy male subjects. During each period, the subjects received one of the following three treatments for seven days: atorvastatin 40 mg, ezetimibe 10 mg, or a combination of both. Blood samples were collected up to 96 h after dosing, and PK parameters of atorvastatin, 2-hydroxyatorvastatin, total ezetimibe (free ezetimibe + ezetimibe-glucuronide), and free ezetimibe were estimated by non-compartmental analysis in 32 subjects who completed the study. Geometric mean ratios (GMRs) with 90% confidence intervals (CIs) of the maximum plasma concentration (C(max,ss)) and the area under the curve within a dosing interval at steady state (AUC(τ,ss)) of atorvastatin when administered with and without ezetimibe were 1.1087 (0.9799–1.2544) and 1.1154 (1.0079–1.2344), respectively. The corresponding values for total ezetimibe were 1.0005 (0.9227–1.0849) and 1.0176 (0.9465–1.0941). There was no clinically significant change in safety assessment related to either atorvastatin or ezetimibe. Co-administration of atorvastatin and ezetimibe showed similar PK and safety profile compared with each drug alone. The PK interaction between two drugs was not clinically significant in healthy Korean volunteers.
Atorvastatin Calcium* ; Cholesterol ; Cross-Over Studies ; Drug Interactions* ; Dyslipidemias ; Ezetimibe* ; Humans ; Lipoproteins ; Male ; Pharmacokinetics ; Plasma ; Volunteers*

Fimasartan is a nonpeptide angiotensin II receptor blocker. In a previous study that compared the pharmacokinetics (PK) of fimasartan between patients with hepatic impairment (cirrhosis) and healthy subjects, the exposure to fimasartan was found to be higher in patients, but the decrease of blood pressure (BP) was not clinically significant in those with moderate hepatic impairment. The aims of this study were to develop a population PK-pharmacodynamic (PD) model of fimasartan and to evaluate the effect of hepatic function on BP reduction by fimasartan using previously published data. A 2-compartment linear model with mixed zero-order absorption followed by first-order absorption with a lag time adequately described fimasartan PK, and the effect of fimasartan on BP changes was well explained by the inhibitory sigmoid function in the turnover PK-PD model overlaid with a model of circadian rhythm (NONMEM version 7.2). According to our PD model, the lower BP responses in hepatic impairment were the result of the increased fimasartan EC₅₀ in patients, rather than from a saturation of effect. This is congruent with the reported pathophysiological change of increased plasma ACE and renin activity in hepatic cirrhosis.
Absorption ; Blood Pressure ; Circadian Rhythm ; Colon, Sigmoid ; Healthy Volunteers ; Humans ; Linear Models ; Liver Cirrhosis* ; Liver* ; Pharmacokinetics ; Plasma ; Receptors, Angiotensin ; Renin

BACKGROUND: The objective of this study was to compare the pharmacokinetics and safety between newly developed sildenafil (Please Orally Soluble Film) and sildenafil citrate (VIAGRA(R)) after single oral administration in healthy Korean male subjects. METHODS: A randomized, open-label, single dose, 2-way crossover study was conducted in 50 healthy male subjects. Each sequence group consisted of 25 subjects, received a single oral 50 mg dose of Please Orally Soluble Film (test formulation) or VIAGRA(R) (reference formulation) by study period. Blood samples were obtained during a 24-hour period after dosing. Sildenafil and its metabolite concentrations were determined using validated LC-MS/MS. A non-compartmental pharmacokinetic analysis was performed. Safety was assessed through monitoring of adverse events, vital sign check-up, physical examination, laboratory tests and electrocardiography. RESULTS: All enrolled participants completed the study. The point estimates and 90% confidence intervals of log transformed C(max) and AUC(last) of the test formulation in comparison to those of reference formulation were 0.9294(0.8353 - 1.0341) and 0.9415 (0.8869 - 0.9994) respectively. The analysis of variance showed no significant influences of formulation, sequence and period on the pharmacokinetic parameters. The frequencies of adverse events were not statistically different between the formulations. No serious adverse event was observed or reported. CONCLUSION: Please Orally Soluble Film could be considered bioequivalent to VIAGRA(R) and had similar safety properties in healthy Korean male subjects.
Administration, Oral ; Citric Acid ; Cross-Over Studies ; Humans ; Male ; Physical Examination ; Piperazines ; Purines ; Sulfones ; Sildenafil Citratea ; Vital Signs