Advertisement

Chronopharmacology in Drug Development

  • Björn LemmerEmail author
Living reference work entry

Abstract

The human body is highly organized in time and most functions display significant daily [circadian] and seasonal rhythms. Gene expression in the brain as well in the peripheral tissues has been convincingly demonstrated to be circadian phase dependent for many genes. In addition, seasonal gene expression – with inverse rhythms in the Northern and Southern Hemisphere – has been evidenced as well. Taking into account these rhythmic changes in the body, it is conceivable that also the pharmacokinetics and/or the pharmacodynamics can be rhythmic in experimental animals as well in humans. In this review chronopharmacological findings are compiled demonstrating to what an extent rhythmic changes in the composition of the body in health and disease can contribute to variations in time-dependent drug treatments. The results of clinical chronopharmacological studies in hypertension, asthma, and ulcer disease and treatment of antihyperlipidemia are reviewed.

Introduction

Adequate drug dosing in a given disease/indication is the most important goal in clinical pharmacology. Drug reference books are designed to give advice to the best of scientific knowledge. Both pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of a compound are well-accepted tools to achieve best dosing of a drug. Additional targets in drug dosing are involved: age, disease, gender, food, physical fitness, and family genetics. However, in recent years additional targets were shown to influence dosing, social aspects and living behavior such as shift work and transmeridian flight as well as social jet lag, and most important genetic variation in normal and diseased organ tissues – e.g., in cancer – came into focus in clinical medicine. Finally, the awareness of biological rhythms in organ and tissue functions leads to the introduction of chronopharmacology in clinical medicine. In this review the abovementioned topics will be touched in order to demonstrate the important new “environment” of clinical pharmacology.

The Biological Clock

Rhythmicity is the most ubiquitous feature of nature. Rhythms are found from unicellular to complex multicellular organisms in plants, animals, and men. Living organisms are continuously influenced by external stimuli, many of which have rhythmic patterns. Environmental rhythms in daily and seasonal patterns of light, food availability and temperature, etc. are predictable, and animals – including humans – have the ability to anticipate these environmental events with periodically and predictably changing internal conditions. These rhythmic patterns of anticipation have clear advantages and survival value. The frequencies of rhythms in nature cover nearly every division of time. There are rhythms which oscillate once per second (e.g., in the electroencephalogram), once per several seconds (respiratory rhythm, heart rate), and once per year (circannual rhythm).

The most evident environmental change which results from the regular spin of the earth around its central axis, resulting in the alternation between day and night, seems to have induced the predominant oscillation, the circadian rhythm (the about-24-h rhythm; circa = about, dies = day) described by Jürgen Aschoff (1947). There is sound evidence that living systems including humans are not only organized in space but are also highly organized in time (Albrecht 2012; Lemmer 2009, 2012a). One of the first observations on a rhythmic pattern in man was presented by the famous physiologist Sanctorius Sanctorius in 1664 when he described in a self-experiment daily variation in body weight due to transpiration. A review on biological rhythms described within the last several hundred years is compiled in a review (Lemmer 2009).

Circadian rhythms have been documented throughout the plant and animal kingdom at every level of eukaryotic organization. Circadian rhythms by definition are endogenous in nature, driven by oscillators or clocks, and persist under free-running conditions. In various species (e.g., Drosophila melanogaster, Neurospora, mouse, golden hamster, rhesus macaque, man), the genes controlling circadian rhythms have been identified (genes: per, frq, clock, tau, Rev-erbalpha). In 1971 Konopka and Benzer (1971) were able to identify on the X chromosome of Drosophila a region which controlled the period in the eclosion rhythm of three mutants (per clock gene). Circadian clocks are believed to have evolved in parallel with the geological history of the earth and have undergone selection pressures imposed by cyclic factors in the environment. These clocks regulate a wide variety of behavioral and metabolic processes in many life forms. They enhance the fitness of organisms by improving their ability to efficiently anticipate periodic events in their external environments, especially periodic changes in light, temperature, and humidity.

The mammalian circadian clocks, located in the neurons of suprachiasmatic nuclei (SCN) composed of about 10,000 heterogeneous neurons in the brain and in cells of peripheral tissues, are driven by a self-sustained molecular oscillator, which generates rhythmic gene expression with a periodicity of about 24 h. This molecular oscillator is composed of interacting positive and negative transcription/translation feedback loops in which the heterodimeric transcription activator CLOCK/BMAL1 promotes the transcription of E-box containing Cryptochrome (Cry1 and Cry2) and Period (Per1 and Per2) genes, as well as clock-controlled output genes. After being synthesized in the cytoplasm, CRY and PER proteins feedback in the nucleus to inhibit the transactivation mediated by positive regulators. The mPER2 protein acts at the interphase between positive and negative feedback loops by indirectly promoting the circadian transcription of the Bmal1 gene and by interacting with mCRY proteins However, this is a simplified scheme with additional clock genes and transcription factors involved.

In general, the human endogenous clock does not run at a frequency of exactly 24 h but somewhat slower. The rhythm in human body temperature which is timed by the biological clock has a period of about 24.5-h under free-running conditions, i.e., without environmental time cues or zeitgebers (e.g., light, temperature). The term “zeitgeber” introduced by Jürgen Aschoff at the Max Planck Institute (Aschoff 1947) is now part of the international scientific language. Mammals such as rodents or humans can entrain their activity to regular light cycles not shorter than 22 or longer than 26 h. Zeitgebers entrain the circadian rhythm to a precise 24-h period. Zeitgebers are, therefore, necessary to entrain a living subject to a “normal” period of 24 h! This is of great importance having in mind that seasonal variations not only in the light-dark cycle but also in temperature and other environmental conditions have impact on availability of nutrition, on the onset of diseases, and on time of birth and death, the latter was demonstrated in a single family residing at different latitudes, in Europe (latitude 51°N, 1500–2013 A.C.) and South Africa (30°S, 1750–2013 A.C.) (Lemmer 2014). In this study no seasonal variation was found in birth and death in the data set from South Africa (n = 1.284), whereas a significant peak in winter was detected both in birth and death in the European data (n = 2.361) between 1500 and 1950, which was then lost from 1950 up to 2013, obviously due to changed socioeconomic and environmental conditions (Lemmer 2012b, 2014).

Chronopharmacology: Pharmacokinetics-Pharmacodynamics

The principles of the pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic interactions are well known and the basis for the development of new drugs. In short, pharmacokinetics deals with absorption, distribution, metabolism, and elimination of drugs. The different steps in pharmacokinetics are determined and influenced by physiological functions of the body. Pharmacokinetic parameters such as peak drug concentration [Cmax], time to Cmax [tmax], volume of distribution [Vd], area under the curve [AUC], bioavailability, plasma protein binding, and elimination half-life ([t½] are evaluated during drug development but conventionally not considered to be influenced by the time of day at which a drug is administered. However, an increasing number of recently published studies convincingly gave evidence that this paradigm cannot be maintained any longer (Lemmer and Bruguerolle 1994).

The main reason to skip this paradigm is the demonstration that bodily functions, including those which are known to influence the pharmacokinetics, are not constant in time, even not within 24 h of a day. Figure 1 summarizes which parameters of the LADME System (Liberation-Absorption-Distribution-Metabolism) after oral drug administration have been demonstrated to be influenced by biological rhythms (Lemmer 1991b).
Fig. 1

Effect of biological rhythms on pharmacokinetics of drugs (after oral administration) Copyright © SpringerNature with permission from SpringerNature

Thus, gastric emptying time of solids is faster in the morning than in the afternoon (Fig. 2) (Goo et al. 1987). In addition, the perfusion of the GI tract varies with time of day, being more pronounced ad midnight and the early morning hours than around noon or in the late afternoon (Fig. 3) (Lemmer and Nold 1991).
Fig. 2

Gastric emptying of solids in relation of time of day (From Goo et al. 1987). Copyright © Elsevier With permission from Elsevier

Fig. 3

Rhythm in gastrointestinal perfusion as estimated by hepatic blood flow (Lemmer and Nold 1991). Copyright © John Wiley and Sons. With permission from Wiley and Sons

In the following chronokinetics are demonstrated in selected groups of compounds which are of importance in drug treatment.

Chronopharmacology of Antiasthmatic Drugs

Since nocturnal asthma is a common event in asthmatic disease, it is not surprising that antiasthmatic drugs have also been studied in relation to time of day (for review see Lemmer 1991a, 2012a; Smolensky et al. 2007b). Theophylline was one of the first drugs for which daily variations in its pharmacokinetics were reported (for review see Smolensky et al. 2007b), though theophylline is of less importance nowadays. More than 50 studies with different theophylline preparations in different galenic formulations were published demonstrating that in general Cmax was lower and/or tmax was longer after evening than after morning application of theophylline. This observation was supported by studies in which simultaneously the pharmacokinetics and the pulmonary effects of theophylline were compared in asthmatics, demonstrating that the drug might be dosed higher during the night than during daytime hours or even given as a single evening dose in order to adequately overcome the nocturnal symptoms (see Smolensky et al. 2007b). Thus, in contrast to the general belief concerning drug concentration profiles, “the flatter the better,” it seems, therefore, to be advantageous to accept greater fluctuations in drug concentrations throughout 24 h of a day. As a consequence in 1989 for the first time a pharmaceutical company was granted permission from the Food and Drug Administration in the USA and from the Bundesgesundheitsamt in Germany to market a sustained-release theophylline product for once-daily evening administration (see Smolensky et al. 2007b).

Beta2 agonists are also drugs of first choice in the treatment of asthmatic patients, though inhaled beta agonists are preferable to the oral application in most cases. For oral terbutaline the pharmacokinetics but also the effects on peak expiratory flow were shown to be circadian phase dependent (Lemmer and Bruguerolle 1994) with higher Cmax after morning than evening drug application and with tmax being 3.5 and 6.2 h, resp., thus resembling the daily variations observed with theophylline. A further study with oral terbutaline indicated that doubling the dose in the evening, i.e., unequally dosing during 24 h, can better control the nocturnal fall in peak flow. These studies give further support to the notion that the dose-response relationship of a given drug can be circadian phase dependent, as already demonstrated for theophylline and other compounds (see Lemmer and Bruguerolle 1994; Smolensky et al. 2007b).

Recently, the Commission on Drugs of the German Medical Association included “time of day” into their recommendations (“Arzneiverordnungen,” 22th edition 2009 Allwinn et al. 2009) as an important variable influencing drug efficacy.

Chronopharmacology of H2 Blockers in Peptic Ulcer Disease

This group of compounds are still the drugs of choice in the treatment of peptic ulcer. The chronobiologic finding on a circadian rhythm in gastric pH and acid secretion unanimously led to the recommendation that H2 blockers (ranitidine, cimetidine, famotidine, roxatidine, nizatidine) should be taken once a day in the afternoon when acid secretion is increasing, independently of whether or not the compounds have a short or a long half-life (Lemmer 1991a; Moore 1989). In consequence of this strategy, chronopharmacology helped to improve drug treatment as well as the patient’s compliance.

For both the H2 blocker cimetidine and the proton pump inhibitor omeprazole, significant daily variations in their pharmacokinetics were shown with Cmax being higher and tmax being shorter after morning than evening dosing. However, this does not seem to have an impact on drug efficacy. Daily variation in sensitivity to H2 receptor blockade seems to be of more importance: Recently it has been shown that a continuous infusion of ranitidine over a period of 24 h does not lead to a constant effect, because the increase in gastric pH by ranitidine was less during the nightly than during the daytime hours of drug infusion (Sanders et al. 1988). This may indicate a partial nocturnal resistance to H2 blockade. This interesting finding calls not only for further investigations but could also indicate that drugs with a different mechanism of action may be added to drug treatment with H2 blockers during the nightly hours.

Chronopharmacology of Cardiovascular Active Drugs

The cardiovascular system displays pronounced daily variations in its functions as well as in its hormonal and biochemical regulatory mechanisms (Lemmer 2007b, 2017; Manfredini et al. 2012, 2017). Nearly all groups of cardiovascular active drugs were shown to exert a circadian phase dependency in their effects (Hermida et al. 2007b; Lemmer 2007a; Lemmer and Portaluppi 1997), for a less number of compounds; however, daily variation in pharmacokinetics was reported (Lemmer 2007a).

In the last years an increasing number of reports were published on the effects of cardiovascular active drugs on the 24-h blood pressure profile. It is not possible in this short overview to go into detail. In general, drugs belonging to different classes differently affected the 24-h blood pressure profile.

Beta blockers and calcium channel blockers reduced high blood pressure more pronouncedly during the daytime than during the night. However, only very few studies addressed this question in cross-over studies, i.e., evaluating morning versus evening drug dosing, as well as taking a possible variation in the drugs’ pharmacokinetics or different galenic formulations into account (Lemmer 1991b, 2007c).

Both the pharmacokinetics and the cardiovascular effects on blood pressure and heart rate were simultaneously studied after oral application of propranolol (Langner and Lemmer 1988), isosorbide-5-mononitrate (IS-5-MN)) (Lemmer et al. 1991b; Scheidel and Lemmer 1991), nifedipine (Lemmer et al. 1990, 1991a), and enalapril (Witte et al. 1993) in a cross-over design (morning vs. evening) in healthy volunteers or hypertensive patients. Moreover, immediate-release and sustained-release preparations of IS-5-MN (Table 1) and nifedipine were investigated.
Table 1

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of immediate-release and sustained-release formulations of isosorbide mononitrate (IS-5-MN), morning vs. evening: *p < 0.05, **p < 0.01 (Data from Lemmer et al. 1990; Scheidel and Lemmer 1991)

 

IS-5-MN: i.r.

IS-5-MN: s.r.

 

06.30 h

18.30 h

08.00 h

20.00 h

Pharmacokinetic

Cmax (ng/ml)

1,605 ± 175

1,588 ± 173

509 ± 31

530 ± 26

tmax (h)

0.9 ± 0.3

2.1 ± 0.4**

5.2 ± 0.7

4.9 ± 0.3

AUC (ng/ml/h)

9,539 ± 827

10,959 ± 707

6,729 ± 375

6,418 ± 199

t1/2 ß (h)

4.6 ± 0.4

4.2 ± 0.4

6.4 ± 0.6

6.1 ± 0.5

Hemodynamic

Tmax SBP decrease (mmHg)

0.7 ± 0.1

1.1 ± 0.1

5.0 ± 0.6

2.8 ± 0.5*

Tmax DBP decrease (mmHg)

0.4 ± 0.1

0.6 ± 0.2

6.0 ± 0.7

2.9 ± 0.5**

Tmax HR decrease (S/min)

0.8 ± 0.3

0.9 ± 0.2

5.2 ± 1.0

3.8 ± 0.6

For propranolol and the i.r. preparations, significant daily variations in the pharmacokinetics were found with Cmax being higher and/or tmax being shorter after morning than evening dosing (Table 1); results are very similar to those already described for antiasthmatics and antiulcer drugs (see above). The stereospecific metabolism of propranolol was not circadian phase dependent (Langner and Lemmer 1988). Interestingly, peak effects of propranolol in lowering heart rate coincided with peak drug concentrations only after propranolol intake at 08.00 and 14.00 h, and being delayed after drug dosing at 20.00 h and at 02.00 h (Fig. 4, Table 2), indicating a circadian time dependency in the dose-response relationship of propranolol. This clearly indicates that the chronopharmacokinetics of propranolol cannot mainly be responsible for the daily variations in the drug’s hemodynamic effects; this must be related to the circadian variation in the sympathetic activity.
Fig. 4

Chronopharmacology of (±)-propranolol (80 mg p.o.) in healthy subjects given at four different times of day. Shown are the plasma concentration oh (-)-propranolol and the decrease in heart rate in relation to control values. (From Langner and Lemmer 1988). Copyright © SpringerNature. With permission of SpringerNature

Table 2

Chronokinetics of cardiovascular active drugs, * at least <0.05 (Data from and references in Lemmer 2006)

Drug

Dose (mg) and duration

Cmax (ng/ml)

tmax (h)

References

Morning

Evening

Morning

Evening

Digoxin

0.5, single dose

3.6*

1.8

1.2

3.2

Bruguerolle et al. (1988)

Enalapril

10

    

Witte et al. (1993)

Enalaprilat

Single dose

33.8

41.9

4.4

4.5

Enalaprilat

3 weeks

46.7

53.5

3.5*

5.6

IS-5-MN I.R.

60, single dose

1605.0

1588.0

0.9*

2.1

Scheidel and Lemmer (1991) and Lemmer et al. (1989)

IS-5-MN S.R.

60, single dose

509.0

530.0

5.2

4.9

Lemmer et al. (1991a)

Molsidomine

8, single dose

27.0

23.5

1.7

1.7

Nold and Lemmer (1998)

Nifedipine I.R.

10, single dose

82.0*

45.7

0.4*

0.6

Lemmer et al. (1991a)

Nifedipine S.R.

2 × 20, 1 week

48.5

50.1

2.3

2.8

Lemmer et al. (1991a, b)

Atenolol

50, Single dose

440.0

391.8

3.2

4.0

Shiga et al. (1993)

Oxprenolol

80, single dose

507.0

375.0

1.0

1.1

Koopmans et al. (1993)

Propranolol (±)

80, single dose

    

Langner and Lemmer (1988)

Propranolol (-)

 

38.6*

26.2

2.5

3.0

Propranolol (±)

80, single dose

68.0

60.0

2.3

2.7

Semenowicz-Siuda et al. (1984)

Verapamil S.R.

360, 2 weeks

389.0

386.0

7.2*

10.6

Jespersen et al. (1989)

Verapamil

80, single dose

59.4*

25.6

1.3

2.0

Hla et al. (1992)

Conventionally, different galenic formulations are only considered in that way that the duration of drug action is modified. For two drugs, however, the pharmacokinetics of both an immediate-release and a sustained-release formulation have been studied at different times of day giving evidence that circadian time can influence the kinetics depending on the formulation (Table 2): In contrast to the i.r. nifedipine mentioned above, a s.r. formulation did not display significant daily variations in its pharmacokinetics in hypertensive patients. A sustained-release preparation of the calcium channel blocker verapamil, on the other hand, did show a significant longer tmax after evening than morning dosing in healthy subjects.

Very similar to the findings with different formulations of nifedipine were results obtained with two formulations of IS-5-MN in healthy subjects: With the immediate-release preparation of IS-5-MN, clear-cut daily variations were found in regard to tmax after morning (0.9  ±  0.3 h) or after evening (2.1  ±  0.4 h) application (Table 3). Most interestingly, time to peak drug effects in decreasing blood pressure and reflexly increasing heart rate coincided with tmax in pharmacokinetics in the morning, but were in advance by about 1 h in the evening. No daily variations were observed in the pharmacokinetics of the sustained-release formulation of IS-5-MN. Nevertheless, peak drug effects in lowering blood pressure and increasing heart rate again coincided with tmax but occurred about 2 h earlier after drug application in the evening. This again indicates daily variations in the dose-response relationship of drugs as already mentioned before for digoxin, propranolol, and nifedipine. Moreover, the data also demonstrate that the kind of drug formulation may be of importance whether or not chronokinetics can be observed.
Table 3

Cross-over studies (morning vs. evening) with calcium channel blockers, EH essential hypertension, ND non-dipping, NT normotension, RH renal hypertension (Data from and references in Lemmer (2005, 2012a))

In the following cross-over studies (morning vs. evening) are presented which demonstrate that the time of day of drug application can have an effect on the drug response on the 24-h blood pressure profile. Fortunately, those studies were performed for those drugs which are drugs of choice in treating hypertension, i.e., calcium channel blockers, ACE inhibitors, and AT1 receptor blockers. These studies clearly demonstrate that those clinical studies are of importance for drug development by the pharmaceutical industry in order to better treat chronic diseased patients with hypertension.

Cross-Over Studies with Calcium Channel Blockers

Calcium channel blockers are also not a homogenous group of drugs. Vasodilatation by calcium channel blockers occurs at lower concentrations than the cardiodepressant effects. However, the difference between vasodilating and cardiodepressant effects is greater with the 1,4-dihydropyridines (e.g., nifedipine, nitrendipine, isradipine, amlodipine) than with the verapamil- and diltiazem-like compounds. Moreover, these drugs differ in their kinetics with amlodipine having a long half-life per se.

A single morning dose of a sustained-release verapamil showed a good 24-h blood pressure control, whereas a sustained-release formulation of diltiazem was less effective at night. Dihydropyridine derivatives, differing in pharmacokinetics, seem to reduce blood pressure to a varying degree during day and night; drug formulation and dosing interval may play an additional role.

Up to now, 12 studies using a cross-over design [morning vs. evening] have been published (Table 3). In primary essential hypertensives with a dipper profile, amlodipine, isradipine, nifedipine GITS, and nisoldipine did not differently affect the 24-h blood pressure profile after once morning or once-evening dosing, whereas with nitrendipine and lacidipine, the profile remained unaffected or slightly changed after evening dosing. Most interestingly, the greatly disturbed blood pressure profile in secondary hypertensives [non-dippers] due to renal failure was only normalized after evening but not after morning dosing of isradipine. Similarly, amlodipine and nisoldipine ER transformed non-dippers into dippers, but both after evening and morning dosing (Table 3), which might be due to the longer “apparent” half-life of these drugs. These findings demonstrate that time of drug dosing of a dihydropyridine calcium channel blocker can be advantageous in not only reducing the elevated blood pressure but also normalizing the disturbed blood pressure profile.

A time-of-day effect was also described for the kinetics of various calcium channel blockers (Table 2). The bioavailability of an immediate-release formulation of nifedipine was found to be reduced by about 40% after evening compared to morning dosing with Cmax being higher and tmax being shorter after morning dosing. No such circadian time-dependent kinetics were observed with a sustained-release formulation of nifedipine. Also regular as well as sustained-release verapamil displayed higher Cmax and/or shorter tmax values after morning dosing. Similar chronokinetics have been reported after oral dosing of other cardiovascular active drugs such as enalapril, propranolol, and others. Conversely, intravenously infused nifedipine did not display daily variations in its pharmacokinetics indicating that gastrointestinal mechanisms must be involved in the drug’s chronokinetics after oral application.

Cross-Over Studies with Converting Enzyme Inhibitors

Captopril is the representative of a short-acting converting enzyme inhibitor; longer acting ones are enalapril, benazepril, quinapril, and ramipril, and these prodrugs are hydrolyzed to active metabolites. Converting enzyme inhibitors are not only effective antihypertensive drugs but can also increase the life expectancy in congestive heart failure.

Several studies with converting enzyme inhibitors dosed once in the morning or twice daily showed that these drugs did not greatly modify the 24-h blood pressure pattern. However, intra-arterial studies with enalapril or ramipril have shown that while causing sustained daytime reduction in blood pressure, these drugs had only marginal effects on nighttime pressures. Thus, the findings obtained with converting enzyme inhibitors in conventional, i.e., not time specific, clinical studies are controversial.

Seven cross-over studies (morning vs. evening dosing) with converting enzyme inhibitors in essential hypertensive patients were published (Table 4). They demonstrate that evening dosing in contrast to morning dosing resulted in a more pronounced nightly drop (super dipping) and the 24-h blood pressure profile was distorted by evening enalapril (Table 4). Evening dosing of quinapril and perindopril also resulted in a more pronounced effect than morning dosing. In the light of a reduced cardiac reserve of patients at risk of hypertension, a too pronounced nightly drop in blood pressure (super dipping) after evening dosing might be a potential risk factor for the occurrence of ischemic events such as cerebral infarction (Table 5).
Table 4

Cross-over studies with ACE inhibitors, references in Lemmer (2006)

Table 5

Cross-over studies with AT1 receptor blockers. Acc. (Lemmer 2006)

Cross-Over Studies with AT1 Receptor Blockers

There are four studies published with the AT1 receptor blockers in dippers, valsartan, irbesartan, telmisartan, and olmesartan, which similarly reduced the blood pressure after both morning and bedtime dosing (Hermida et al. 2003, 2007a; Smolensky et al. 2007a; Pechere-Bertschi et al. 1998). In patients with chronic renal disease, olmesartan restored the nightly decline in blood pressure (Fukuda et al. 2008). In non-dippers valsartan had only a slightly more pronounced effect at night (Hermida et al. 2003).

Diuretics and Other Antihypertensive Drugs

Antihypertensives of other classes have rarely been studied in relation to possible circadian variation. Once-daily morning dosing of the diuretics such as indapamide or xipamide reduced blood pressure in essential hypertensives without changing the 24-h blood pressure pattern. In salt-sensitive hypertensive patients (dippers and non-dippers), an interesting study was performed with diuretics: Uzu and Kimura (1999) could demonstrate that diuretics did not affect the circadian blood pressure profile in dippers but transformed the non-dippers into dippers.

In conclusion, there is sound evidence that the treatment of hypertension by various groups of antihypertensive drugs is dependent on the underlying rhythmic organization of the cardiovascular system. Since we are not inbred strains of rats, individualization of drug therapy is the choice of treatment; fortunately, the ability of a great number of drugs from various antihypertensive groups allows us to treat a patient according to his individual setting. As a rule non-dipping hypertensive patients seem to be best treated when the drug is given at bedtime. In dipping hypertensives morning dosing seems to be best, and it seems not justified to treat all hypertensive patients with an antihypertensive drug given in the evening. Thus, the underlying rhythmic pattern of blood pressure regulation has impact on drug treatment. In order to achieve this goal, it is essential that a 24-h blood pressure profile by ABPM is used in each patient.

However, unfortunately only a small group of patients by about 25% is really controlled by ABPM as shown in epidemiological studies in Germany and worldwide (Lemmer et al. 2008).

Chronopharmacology of CSE Inhibitors

The HMG CoA reductase inhibitors (CSE inhibitors) are widely used to treat hypercholesteria in patients. They have also been studied in relation to time of day of drug dosing (Table 6). All studies demonstrate that evening dosing should be preferred since efficacy is greater and side effects are less than after morning dosing. Moreover, for atorvastatin and pravastatin also daily variation in their pharmacokinetics was demonstrated (Tables 7 and 8), which, however, does not seem to play a role in efficacy. Fortunately, the evening dosing has been realized by the pharmaceutical industry and the medical association (Table 8).
Table 6

Effects of CSH inhibitors on lipids (% decrease) after morning or evening administration (Illingworth 1986; Saito et al. 1991; Wallace et al. 2003)

Drug

Dose (mg/day)

Cholesterol

LDL

HDL

Triglycerides

Lovastatin

a.m. (n = 12)

20–40

−21.4

−26.9

+1.1

−15.0

p.m. (n = 12)

20–40

−27.0

−32.2

±0.0

−15.0

Simvastatin

a.m. (n = 32)

5

−13.7

−19.3

+2.8

+1.7

p.m. (n = 29)

5

−20.7

−28.5

+5.4

−4.9

Atorvastatin

a.m. (n = 15)

40

−33.1

−47.2

+1.3

−22.8

p.m. (n = 15)

40

−34.3

−48.2

+2.3

−26.4

Table 7

Chronokinetics of atorvastatin after morning and evening application (Cilla et al. 1996)

Atorvastatin

Morning

Evening

Cmax (ng/ml)

95.0

65.9

tmax (h)

1.9

2.9

Table 8

Chronokinetics of pravastatin after morning and evening application (Triscari et al. 1995)

Pravastatin

Morning

Evening

Cmax (ng/ml)

28.0

11.0*

tmax (h)

1.0

1.5*

Figure 5 shows the chronokinetics of pravastatin in healthy subjects. The lower AUC of pravastatin following PM dosing does not diminish its efficacy, possibly because PM dosing immediately precedes the diurnal peak period of hepatic cholesterol synthesis. Lower blood levels of pravastatin following PM dosing may contribute to its favorable safety profile (Triscari et al. 1995) (Tables 9 and 10).
Fig. 5

Chronokinetics of pravastatin and its major metabolite SQ 31,906 after morning vs. evening application of pravastatin in 20 healthy subjects (Triscari et al. 1995). Copyright © Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. With permission of Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc.

Table 9

Summary of drugs for which chronokinetic and/or chronodynamic studies were performed

Table 10

Recommendation of the German Medical Association to take into account chronopharmacological findings in the prescription of drugs (Allwinn et al. 2009), composition in (Lemmer 2012a)

 

Rheumatic disease

p 299

Morning stiffness: evening dosing of NSAR

p 300

Taking into account rhythm in pain perception

p 307

Morning dosing of glucocorticosteroids

 

Depression

p 433

Lithium increases circadian rhythm in physiological functions

p 415

Sleep deprivation, light therapy

 

Hypertension

p 601

24-h blood pressure monitoring [ABPM],white coat effect

p 604

Antihypertensives: morning dosing

p 625

Altered BP rhythm in pregnancy:

 

 High BP evening, at night

 

Bronchial asthma

p 776

Asthma with nightly symptoms

p 778

Symptoms mainly at night and morning

p 778

Day-night rhythm in FEV1

p 785

Long-acting beta agonists in nightly asthma

p 790

Theophylline evening dosing in nightly asthma

 

Peptic ulcer

p 828

Proton pump inhibitors: morning dosing

 

Hyperlipidemia

p 1053–1055

Statins evening dosing

 

M. Addison

p 1137

High morning glucocorticoid concentration: Evening dosing of slow-release preparations

p 1140

Prednisolone single dose in the morning

p 1138

Circadian dosing

 

Pituitary insufficiency/male sexual disturbances

p 1119

Somatotropin evening dosing

p 1178

Testosterone-TTS evening dosing

 

Melatonin and sleep-wake rhythm

p 1223

Melatonin in blind persons

 

Melatonin in jet-lag symptoms

Conclusion

In conclusion, this review sheds a light on the importance of the time of day at which a drug is given to a patient and how the pharmacokinetics and/or the effects can vary with time of day. Thus, it is of utmost importance to include this chronopharmacological paradigm into the design of a clinical study. In the last years chronopharmacological findings were included in the recommendations of the German Medical Association to the doctors when prescribing drugs in certain entities of diseases (Table 8).

In this review it was only possible to outline the contribution of circadian rhythms to the pharmacokinetics and the effects of drugs used in the treatment of various diseases. There is no doubt that the rhythmic organization of the human body has an impact on drug treatment.

This review finally draws attention to the increasing number of reports demonstrating daily and seasonal variations in central and peripheral gene expression, e.g., Chen et al. 2016, Dallmann et al. 2012, and Dopico et al. 2015 (Figs. 6, 7, and 8).
Fig. 6

Circadian gene expression in man (Chen et al. 2016). With permission from PNAS

Fig. 7

Seasonal rhythms in human clock and hormone receptor genes (Dopico et al. 2015). Copyright © 2015, Rights Managed by Nature Publishing Group with creative commons license

Fig. 8

Seasonal rhythms in human in the Northern and Southern Hemisphere (Dopico et al. 2015). Copyright © 2015, Rights Managed by Nature Publishing Group with creative commons license

It is plausible to assume that this time-dependent expression of genes can/must be involved in daily as well as seasonal variation in disease entities as well as in metabolism and effects of drug.

In the light of the tendency for an increased individualization of drug therapy, drug development should consider an additional aspect of drug efficacy, i.e., the contribution of physiological-biological rhythms – down to the expression of genes – to the kinetics and effects of drugs. As demonstrated in this review, this is possible when the underlying rhythmic pattern in health and disease is regarded as a tool for improving drug development.

The Nobel Prize award in 2017 for the molecular biology of the body clock underlines also the importance of biological rhythms for medicine and this award can further stimulate the incorporation of this branch of science into clinical research.

Notes

Disclosure

The author has no conflict of interest.

References and Further Reading

  1. Albrecht U (2012) Timing to perfection: the biology of central and peripheral circadian clocks. Neuron 74(2):246–260.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.neuron.2012.04.006 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. Allwinn R et al (2009) Arzneiverordnungen. In: Arzneimittelkommission, der, deutschen, Ärzteschaft (eds). 22 edn. Medizinische Medien Informations GmbH, Neu IsenburgGoogle Scholar
  3. Aschoff J (1947) Einige allgemeine Gesetzmäßigkeiten physikalischer Temperaturregulation. Pflügers Arch 249:125–136CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bruguerolle B, Bouvenot G, Bartolin R, Manolis J (1988) Chronopharmacocinetique de la digoxine chez le sujet de plus de soixante-dix ans. Therapie 43:251–253PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. Chen CY et al (2016) Effects of aging on circadian patterns of gene expression in the human prefrontal cortex. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 113(1):206–211.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1508249112 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Cilla DD, Gibson DM, Whitfield LR, Sedman AJ (1996) Pharmacodynamic effects and pharmacokinetics of atorvastatin after administration to normocholesterolemic subjects in the morning and evening. J Clin Pharmacol 36:604–609CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. Dallmann R, Viola AU, Tarokh L, Cajochen C, Brown SA (2012) The human circadian metabolome. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 109(7):2625–2629.  https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1114410109 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  8. Dopico XC et al (2015) Widespread seasonal gene expression reveals annual differences in human immunity and physiology. Nat Commun 6:7000.  https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms8000 CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. Fukuda M et al (2008) Angiotensin II type 1 receptor blocker, olmesartan, restores nocturnal blood pressure decline by enhancing daytime natriuresis. J Hypertens 26(3):583–588CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. Goo RH, Moore JG, Greenberg E, Alazraki NP (1987) Circadian variation in gastric emptying of meals in humans. Gastroenterology 93:515–518CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Hermida RC et al (2003) Administration time-dependent effects of valsartan on ambulatory blood pressure in hypertensive subjects. Hypertension 42(3):283–290CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. Hermida RC, Ayala DE, Fernandez JR, Calvo C (2007a) Comparison of the efficacy of morning versus evening administration of telmisartan in essential hypertension. Hypertension 50(4):715–722CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Hermida RC, Ayala DE, Smolensky MH, Portaluppi F (2007b) Chronotherapy in hypertensive patients: administration-time dependent effects of treatment on blood pressure regulation. Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther 5(3):463–475CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. Hla KK, Latham AN, Henry JA (1992) Influence of time of administration on verapamil pharmacokinetics. Clin Pharmacol Ther 51(4):366–370CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Illingworth DR (1986) Comparative efficacy of once versus twice daily mevinolin in the therapy of familial hypercholesterolemia. Clin Pharmacol Ther 40:338–343CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. Jespersen CM, Frederiksen M, Hansen JF, Klitgaard NA, Sorum C (1989) Circadian variation in the pharmacokinetics of verapamil. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 37(6):613–615PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. Koopmans R, Oosterhuis B, Karemaker JM, Wemer J, van Boxtel CJ (1993) The effect of oxprenolol dosage time on its pharmacokinetics and haemodynamic effects during exercise in man. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 44:171–176.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. Konopka RJ, Benzer S (1971) Clock mutants of Drosophila melanogaster. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 68(9):2112–2116CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. Langner B, Lemmer B (1988) Circadian changes in the pharmacokinetics and cardiovascular effects of oral propranolol in healthy subjects. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 33:619–624CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. Lemmer B, Behne S, Becker HJ (1989) Chronopharmacology of oral nifedipine in healthy subjects. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 36 Suppl:A 177Google Scholar
  21. Lemmer B (1991a) Circadian rhythms and drug delivery. J Control Release 16:63–74CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lemmer B (1991b) Implications of chronopharmacokinetics for drug delivery: antiasthmatics, H2-blockers and cardiovascular active drugs. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 6:83–100CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Lemmer B (2005) Chronopharmacology and controlled drug release. Expert Opin Drug Deliv 2(4):667–681CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Lemmer B (2006) The importance of circadian rhythms on drug response in hypertension and coronary heart disease – from mice and man. Pharmacol Ther 111(3):629–651CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. Lemmer B (2007a) Chronobiology and chronopharmacology of hypertension. In: White WB (ed) Clinical hypertension and vascular disease: blood pressure monitoring in cardiovascular medicine and therapeutics, 2nd edn. Humana Press, Totowa, pp 413–435CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Lemmer B (2007b) Chronobiology and chronopharmacology of hypertension: importance of timing of dosing. In: White WB (ed) Blood pressure monitoring in cardiovascular medicine and therapeutics, 2nd edn. Humana Press, Totowa, pp 410–435Google Scholar
  27. Lemmer B (2007c) Hypertension: do we need to consider the biological clock in drug dosing? Expert Rev Cardiovasc Ther 5(3):375–379CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Lemmer B (2009) Discoveries of rhythms in human biological functions: a historical review. Chronobiol Int 26(6):1019–1068CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Lemmer B (2012a) Chronopharmakologie, 4th edn. Wiss. Verlagsges, StuttgartGoogle Scholar
  30. Lemmer B (2012b) Masking effect of modern technology on annual rhythms: variation in births and deaths in a single family history over five centuries. Chronobiol Int 26:1019–1068CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Lemmer B (2014) Seasonal variation in nativity and mortality and in socioeconomic conditions in a single family residing at different latitudes: Germany versus South Africa. ChronoPhysiol Ther 4:59–66CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Lemmer B (2017) Signal transduction and chronopharmacology of regulation of circadian cardiovascular rhythms in animal models of human hypertension. Heart Fail Clin.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hfc.2017.05.009
  33. Lemmer B, Bruguerolle B (1994) Chronopharmacokinetics. Are they clinically relevant? Clin Pharmacokinet 26(6):419–427CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Lemmer B, Nold G (1991) Circadian changes in estimated hepatic blood flow in healthy subjects. Br J Clin Pharmacol 32:627–629CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. Lemmer B, Portaluppi F (1997) Chronopharmacology of cardiovascular diseases. In: Redfern PH, Lemmer B (eds) Physiology and pharmacology of biological rhythms, Handbook of experimental pharmacology, vol 125. Springer, Berlin, pp 251–297CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Lemmer B, Nold G, Behne S, Becker HJ, Liefhold J, Kaiser R (1990) Chronopharmacology of oral nifedipine in healthy subjects and in hypertensive patients. Eur J Pharmacol 183:521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lemmer B, Nold G, Behne S, Kaiser R (1991a) Chronopharmacokinetics and cardiovascular effects of nifedipine. Chronobiol Int 8(6):485–494CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Lemmer B, Scheidel B, Blume H, Becker HJ (1991b) Clinical chronopharmacology of oral sustained-release isosorbide-5-mononitrate in healthy subjects. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 40:71–75CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. Lemmer B, Middeke M, Schaaf B, Eckes L (2008) Prescribing practices and morning blood pressure control: results of a large-scale, primary-care study conducted in Germany. J Hum Hypertens 22(4):295–297CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. Manfredini R et al (2012) Twenty-four-hour patterns in occurrence and pathophysiology of acute cardiovascular events and ischemic heart disease. Chronobiol Int.  https://doi.org/10.3109/07420528.2012.715843
  41. Manfredini R, Salmi R, Cappadona R, Signani F, Basili S, Katsiki N (2017) Sex and circadian periodicity of cardiovascular diseases. Heart Fail Clin.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.hfc.2017.05.008
  42. Moore JG (1989) Circadian rhythmicity in gastric emptying, acid secretion, and mucosal damage by drugs: implications for drug therapy. In: Lemmer B (ed) Chronopharmacology – biochemical and cellular interactions, Chronopharmacology – cellular and biochemical interactions. Marcel Dekker, New York, pp 631–654Google Scholar
  43. Nold G, Lemmer B (1998) Pharmacokinetics of sustained-release molsidomine after morning versus evening application in healthy subjects. Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol 357:R173.Google Scholar
  44. Nold G, Strobel G, Lemmer B (1998) Morning versus evening amlodipine: effect on circadian blood pressure profile in essential hypertensive patients. Blood Press Monit 3:17–25.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. Pechere-Bertschi A et al (1998) Renal response to the angiotensin II receptor subtype 1 antagonist irbesartan versus enalapril in hypertensive patients. J Hypertens 16:385–393CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Saito Y, Yoshida S, Nakaya N, Hata Y, Goto Y (1991) Comparison between morning and evening doses of simvastatin in hyperlipidemic subjects a double-blind comparative study. Arterioscler Thromb 11(4):816–826CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Sanders SW, Moore JG, Buci KN, Bishop AL (1988) Circadian variation in the pharmacodynamic effects of intravenous ranitidine. Annu Rev Chronopharmacol 5:335–338Google Scholar
  48. Semenowicz-Siuda K, Markiewicz A, Korczynska-Wardecka J (1984) Circadian bioavailability and some effects of propranolol in healthy subjects and in liver cirrhosis. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol 22:653–658.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. Scheidel B, Lemmer B (1991) Chronopharmacology of oral nitrates in healthy subjects. Chronobiol Int 8:409–419CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Smolensky MH, Hermida RC, Portaluppi F (2007a) Comparison of the efficacy of morning versus evening administration of olmesartan in uncomplicated essential hypertension. Chronobiol Int 24(1):171–181CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. Smolensky MH, Lemmer B, Reinberg AE (2007b) Chronobiology and chronotherapy of allergic rhinitis and bronchial asthma. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 59(9–10):852–882CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. Triscari J, Rossi L, Pan HY (1995) Chronokinetics of pravastatin administered in the PM compared with AM dosing. Am J Ther 2(4):265–268CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. Uzu T, Kimura G (1999) Diuretics shift circadian rhythm of blood pressure from nondipper to dipper in essential hypertension. Circulation 100(15):1635–1638CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. Wallace A, Chinn D, Rubin G (2003) Taking simvastatin in the morning compared with in the evening: randomised controlled trial. BMJ 327(7418):788CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  55. Witte K et al (1993) Cardiovascular effects, pharmacokinetics, and converting enzyme inhibition of enalapril after morning versus evening administration. Clin Pharmacol Ther 54:177–186CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Experimental and Clinical Pharmacology and Toxicology, Medical FacultyMannheim Ruprecht-Karls-University of HeidelbergMannheimGermany

Personalised recommendations