» Articles » PMID: 16236041

Prediction of in Vivo Drug-drug Interactions from in Vitro Data: Impact of Incorporating Parallel Pathways of Drug Elimination and Inhibitor Absorption Rate Constant

Overview
Specialty Pharmacology
Date 2005 Oct 21
PMID 16236041
Citations 36
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Aims: Success of the quantitative prediction of drug-drug interactions via inhibition of CYP-mediated metabolism from the inhibitor concentration at the enzyme active site ([I]) and the in vitro inhibition constant (K(i)) is variable. The aim of this study was to examine the impact of the fraction of victim drug metabolized by a particular CYP (f(mCYP)) and the inhibitor absorption rate constant (k(a)) on prediction accuracy.

Methods: Drug-drug interaction studies involving inhibition of CYP2C9, CYP2D6 and CYP3A4 (n = 115) were investigated. Data on f(mCYP) for the probe substrates of each enzyme and k(a) values for the inhibitors were incorporated into in vivo predictions, alone or in combination, using either the maximum hepatic input or the average systemic plasma concentration as a surrogate for [I]. The success of prediction (AUC ratio predicted within twofold of in vivo value) was compared using nominal values of f(mCYP) = 1 and k(a) = 0.1 min(-1).

Results: The incorporation of f(mCYP) values into in vivo predictions using the hepatic input plasma concentration resulted in 84% of studies within twofold of in vivo value. The effect of k(a) values alone significantly reduced the number of over-predictions for CYP2D6 and CYP3A4; however, less precision was observed compared with the f(mCYP). The incorporation of both f(mCYP) and k(a) values resulted in 81% of studies within twofold of in vivo value.

Conclusions: The incorporation of substrate and inhibitor-related information, namely f(mCYP) and k(a), markedly improved prediction of 115 interaction studies with CYP2C9, CYP2D6 and CYP3A4 in comparison with [I]/K(i) ratio alone.

Citing Articles

Clinical Trial Data-Driven Risk Assessment of Drug-Drug Interactions: A Rapid and Accurate Decision-Making Tool.

Yuan T, Bi F, Hu K, Zhu Y, Lin Y, Yang J Clin Pharmacokinet. 2024; 63(8):1147-1165.

PMID: 39102093 DOI: 10.1007/s40262-024-01404-0.


Studying the Interaction between Bendamustine and DNA Molecule with SERS Based on AuNPs/ZnCl/NpAA Solid-State Substrate.

Yao L, Li Y, Zuo Z, Gong Z, Zhu J, Feng X Int J Mol Sci. 2023; 24(17).

PMID: 37686321 PMC: 10487454. DOI: 10.3390/ijms241713517.


Model-Based Drug-Drug Interaction Extrapolation Strategy From Adults to Children: Risdiplam in Pediatric Patients With Spinal Muscular Atrophy.

Cleary Y, Gertz M, Grimsey P, Gunther A, Heinig K, Ogungbenro K Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2021; 110(6):1547-1557.

PMID: 34347881 PMC: 9291816. DOI: 10.1002/cpt.2384.


Do Inhibitory Metabolites Impact DDI Risk Assessment? Analysis of in vitro and in vivo Data from NDA Reviews Between 2013 and 2018.

Steinbronn C, Yang X, Yu J, Dimova H, Huang S, Ragueneau-Majlessi I Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2021; 110(2):452-463.

PMID: 33835478 PMC: 9794360. DOI: 10.1002/cpt.2259.


The Necessity of Using Changes in Absorption Time to Implicate Intestinal Transporter Involvement in Oral Drug-Drug Interactions.

Sodhi J, Benet L AAPS J. 2020; 22(5):111.

PMID: 32808084 PMC: 7478332. DOI: 10.1208/s12248-020-00469-6.


References
1.
McCrea J, Prueksaritanont T, Gertz B, Carides A, Gillen L, Antonello S . Concurrent administration of the erythromycin breath test (EBT) and oral midazolam as in vivo probes for CYP3A activity. J Clin Pharmacol. 1999; 39(12):1212-20. DOI: 10.1177/00912709922012015. View

2.
Kanamitsu S, Ito K, Sugiyama Y . Quantitative prediction of in vivo drug-drug interactions from in vitro data based on physiological pharmacokinetics: use of maximum unbound concentration of inhibitor at the inlet to the liver. Pharm Res. 2000; 17(3):336-43. DOI: 10.1023/a:1007509324428. View

3.
Tucker G, Houston J, Huang S . Optimizing drug development: strategies to assess drug metabolism/transporter interaction potential--towards a consensus. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2001; 52(1):107-17. PMC: 2014497. DOI: 10.1046/j.0306-5251.2001.temp.1441.x. View

4.
Lin J . Sense and nonsense in the prediction of drug-drug interactions. Curr Drug Metab. 2001; 1(4):305-31. DOI: 10.2174/1389200003338947. View

5.
Yao C, Levy R . Inhibition-based metabolic drug-drug interactions: predictions from in vitro data. J Pharm Sci. 2002; 91(9):1923-35. DOI: 10.1002/jps.10179. View