Absence of a Pharmacokinetic Interaction between Etanercept and Warfarin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Etanercept, a soluble recombinant human tumor necrosis factor receptor (TNFr) fusion protein, is effective and well tolerated in the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA), juvenile rheumatoid arthritis (JRA), psoriatic arthritis (PsA), and ankylosing spondylitis (AS). The primary objective of this study was to investigate the potential pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interaction between a single dose of R- and S-enantiomers of warfarin and multiple doses of etanercept after administration of warfarin and etanercept alone and together. In a nonrandomized, three-period study, 12 healthy male subjects received a single oral 25-mg dose of warfarin after an overnight fast, followed by twice-weekly 25-mg subcutaneous doses of etanercept for seven doses. The last dose of etanercept was administered concurrently with a second dose of warfarin. Serial blood samples for plasma warfarin concentration measurement and international normalized ratio (INR) assessment were collected before and up to 144 hours after dose administration. Serial blood samples for serum etanercept concentration measurement were collected before and up to 60 hours after the sixth dose and 264 hours after the seventh dose. Etanercept did not affect the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of warfarin. All ratios of maximum serum concentration (C(max)) and area under the serum concentration versus time curve (AUC) for pharmacokinetics (R- and S-enantiomers of warfarin) and INR fell within the confidence interval of 0.8 to 1.25. Warfarin also did not cause a clinically significant alteration in the pharmacokinetics of etanercept. In conclusion, coadministration of etanercept and warfarin would not be expected to change the pharmacokinetics of either medication; therefore, no dosage adjustment is needed in cases in which warfarin and etanercept are coadministered.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".