Grapefruit juice can increase the plasma concentrations of oral methylprednisolone

Associated factors of potential drug-drug interactions and drug-food interactions in patients with multiple sclerosis

Background:

Multiple sclerosis (MS) is the most common immune-mediated demyelinating disease in younger adults. Patients with MS (PwMS) are vulnerable to the presence of potential drug–drug interactions (pDDIs) and potential drug–food interactions (pDFIs) as they take numerous medications to treat MS, associated symptoms and comorbidities. Knowledge about pDDIs and pDFIs can increase treatment success and reduce side effects.

Objective:

We aimed at determining the frequency and severity of pDDIs and pDFIs in PwMS, with regard to polypharmacy.

Methods:

In the cross-sectional study, we analysed pDDIs and pDFIs of 627 PwMS aged ⩾18 years. Data collection was performed through patient record reviews, clinical examinations and structured patient interviews. pDDIs and pDFIs were identified using two DDI databases: Drugs.com Interactions Checker and Stockley’s Interactions Checker.

Results:

We identified 2587 pDDIs (counted with repetitions). Of 627 PwMS, 408 (65.1%) had ⩾ 1 pDDI. Polypharmacy (concomitant use of ⩾ 5 drugs) was found for 334 patients (53.3%). Patients with polypharmacy (Pw/P) were found to have a 15-fold higher likelihood of having ⩾ 1 severe pDDI compared with patients without polypharmacy (Pw/oP) (OR: 14.920, p < 0.001). The most frequently recorded severe pDDI was between citalopram and fingolimod. Regarding pDFIs, ibuprofen and alcohol was the most frequent severe pDFI.

Conclusion:

Pw/P were particularly at risk of severe pDDIs. Age and educational level were found to be factors associated with the occurrence of pDDIs, independent of the number of medications taken. Screening for pDDIs/pDFIs should be routinely done by the clinical physician to increase drug safety and reduce side effects.

Clinical Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Considerations in the Treatment of Inflammatory Bowel Disease

According to recent clinical consensus, pharmacotherapy of inflammatory bowel disease (IBD) is, or should be, personalized medicine. IBD treatment is complex, with highly different treatment classes and relatively few data on treatment strategy. Although thorough evidence-based international IBD guidelines currently exist, appropriate drug and dose choice remains challenging as many disease (disease type, location of disease, disease activity and course, extraintestinal manifestations, complications) and patient characteristics [(pharmaco-)genetic predisposition, response to previous medications, side-effect profile, necessary onset of response, convenience, concurrent therapy, adherence to (maintenance) therapy] are involved. Detailed pharmacological knowledge of the IBD drug arsenal is essential for choosing the right drug, in the right dose, in the right administration form, at the right time, for each individual patient. In this in-depth review, clinical pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic considerations are provided for tailoring treatment with the most common IBD drugs. Development (with consequent prospective validation) of easy-to-use treatment algorithms based on these considerations and new pharmacological data may facilitate optimal and effective IBD treatment, preferably corroborated by effectiveness and safety registries.

A guide to clinically relevant drug interactions in oncology

This paper presents an overview of new information on clinically relevant drug-drug interactions, particular focuses on negative drug interactions in oncology. We have generated a concise table of drug-drug interactions that provides a synopsis of the clinical outcome of the interaction along with a recommendation for management. We have also generated other tables that describe specific interactions with methotrexate and dosing guidelines for cytotoxic drugs in the presence of renal or hepatic dysfunction. Since warfarin is one of the non-anticancer drugs that is commonly used in cancer patients for the treatment and prevention of venous thromboembolism, its interactions with other anticancer drugs that have been reported in literatures were also reviewed in this paper. In general, drug interactions observed in cancer patients may be categorized into pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic and pharmaceutic interactions. Pharmacokinetic interactions involve one drug altering the absorption, distribution, metabolism, or excretion of another drug. Interpatient variability in the pharmacokinetic profile of many anticancer agents often complicates the predictability of the antitumor response and toxicities. Among four pharmacokinetic characteristics, drug interactions involving hepatic metabolism is probably the most common and important mechanism responsible for oncologic drug interactions. For example, several anticancer drugs including taxanes, vinca alkaloids, and irinotecan are known to be metabolized by cytochrome CYP3A4. Enzyme-inducing anticonvulsants have been shown to significantly decrease the plasma levels of these anticancer drugs, thereby compromising the anti-tumor effects. N ephrotoxicity or changes in hepatic function caused by some anticancer drugs (e.g., cisplatin, asparaginase) may also have an impact on the pharmacokinetics of the interacting agents. Pharmacodynamic interactions may occur when two or more drugs acting at a common receptor-binding site impact on the pharmacologic action of the object drug, without influencing the pharmacokinetics of each interacting agent. In clinical setting, a decrease of antitumor efficacy was observed in breast cell lines when gemcitabine or vinorelbine were used in combination with paclitaxel. On the other hand, a decreased incidence of thrombocytopenia was seen in patients receiving combination of carboplatin and palcitaxel compared to those receiving carboplatin alone. The third type of drug-drug interaction is known as pharmaceutic interaction. When one drug may alter the physical or chemical compatibility of another drug that utlimately leads to a change in appearance of the solution or a decrease of effectiveness of the drug due to drug inactivation or degradation.

Grapefruit-Drug Interactions: Can Interactions With Drugs Be Avoided?

Grapefruit is rich in flavonoids, which have been demonstrated to have a preventive influence on many chronic diseases, such as cancer and cardiovascular disease. However, since the early 1990s, the potential health benefits of grapefruit have been overshadowed by the possible risk of interactions between drugs and grapefruit and grapefruit juice. Several drugs interacting with grapefruit are known in different drug classes, such as HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, calcium antagonists, and immunosuppressives. Currently known mechanisms of interaction include the inhibition of cytochrome P450 as a major mechanism, but potential interactions with P-glycoprotein and organic anion transporters have also been reported. This review is designed to provide a comprehensive summary of underlying mechanisms of interaction and human clinical trials performed in the area of grapefruit drug interactions and to point out possible replacements for drugs with a high potential for interactions.

Grapefruit juice and licorice increase cortisol availability in patients with Addison's disease

OBJECTIVE

Failure to mirror the diurnal cortisol profile could contribute to the impaired subjective health status in Addison's disease (AD). Some patients report benefit from the use of various nutritional compounds. The objective of this study was to investigate the impact of licorice and grapefruit juice (GFJ) on the absorption and metabolism of cortisone acetate (CA).

DESIGN

Patients (n=17) with AD on stable CA replacement therapy were recruited from the outpatient clinic at Haukeland University Hospital, Norway. They were assessed on their ordinary CA medication and following two 3-day periods of co-administration of licorice or GFJ.

METHODS

Time series of glucocorticoids (GCs) in serum and saliva were obtained, and GCs in 24 h urine samples were determined. The main outcome measure was the area under the curve (AUC) for serum cortisol in the first 2.6 h after orally administered CA.

RESULTS

Compared with the ordinary treatment, the median AUC for serum cortisol increased with licorice (53 783 vs 50 882, P<0.05) and GFJ (60 661 vs 50 882, P<0.05). Median cortisol levels in serum were also elevated 2.6 h after tablet ingestion (licorice 223 vs 186 nmol/l, P<0.05; GFJ 337 vs 186 nmol/l, P<0.01). Licorice increased the median urinary cortisol/cortisone ratio (0.43 vs 0.21, P<0.00001), whereas GFJ increased the (allo-tetrahydrocortisol+tetrahydrocortisol)/tetrahydrocortisone ratio (0.55 vs 0.43, P<0.05).

CONCLUSION

Licorice and in particular GFJ increased cortisol available to tissues in the hours following oral CA administration. Both patients and physicians should be aware of these interactions.

Grapefruit-drug interactions

Grapefruit juice and grapefruit product consumption have potential health benefits; however, their intake is also associated with interactions with certain drugs, including calcium channel blockers, immunosuppressants and antihistamines. The primary mechanism through which interactions are mediated is mechanism-based intestinal cytochrome P450 3A4 inhibition by furanocoumarins resulting in increased bioavailability of administered medications that are substrates. Grapefruit products have also been associated with interactions with P-glycoprotein (P-gp) and uptake transporters (e.g. organic anion-transporting polypeptides [OATPs]). Polyphenolic compounds such as flavonoids have been proposed as the causative agents of the P-gp and OATP interactions. The mechanisms and magnitudes of the interactions can be influenced by the concentrations of furanocoumarins and flavonoids in the grapefruit product, the volume of juice consumed, and the inherent variability of specific enzymes and transporter components in humans. It is therefore challenging to predict the extent of grapefruit product-drug interactions and to compare available in vitro and in vivo data. The clinical significance of such interactions also depends on the disposition and toxicity profile of the drug being administered. The aim of this review is to outline the mechanisms of grapefruit-drug interactions and present a comprehensive summary of those agents affected and whether they are likely to be of clinical relevance.

The effect of grapefruit juice on drug disposition

INTRODUCTION

Since their initial discovery in 1989, grapefruit juice (GFJ)-drug interactions have received extensive interest from the scientific, medical, regulatory and lay communities. Although knowledge regarding the effects of GFJ on drug disposition continues to expand, the list of drugs studied in the clinical setting remains relatively limited.

AREAS COVERED

This article reviews the in vitro effects of GFJ and its constituents on the activity of CYP enzymes, organic anion-transporting polypeptides (OATPs), P-glycoprotein, esterases and sulfotransferases. The translational applicability of the in vitro findings to the clinical setting is discussed for each drug metabolizing enzyme and transporter. Reported AUC ratios for available GFJ-drug interaction studies are also provided. Relevant investigations were identified by searching the PubMed electronic database from 1989 to 2010.

EXPERT OPINION

GFJ increases the bioavailability of some orally administered drugs that are metabolized by CYP3A and normally undergo extensive presystemic extraction. In addition, GFJ can decrease the oral absorption of a few drugs that rely on OATPs in the gastrointestinal tract for their uptake. The number of drugs shown to interact with GFJ in vitro is far greater than the number of clinically relevant GFJ-drug interactions. For the majority of patients, complete avoidance of GFJ is unwarranted.

Undesirable effects of citrus juice on the pharmacokinetics of drugs: focus on recent studies

It is well known that intake of grapefruit juice affects the pharmacokinetics of various kinds of drugs. It has been reported that other citrus juices also interact with certain drugs. To re-evaluate citrus juice-drug interactions based on currently available evidence, a literature search was conducted for new and updated information since the grapefruit juice-drug interaction was last reviewed in 1998. MEDLINE (1998-October 2004) was accessed and more than 200 reports were found. The effects of grapefruit juice ingestion on the pharmacokinetics of orally administered drugs have been reported for 40 drugs since the reviews published in 1998. Increases in either area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) or maximum plasma concentration (C(max)) were found with 34 of these, the major mechanism being considered to be inactivation of intestinal cytochrome P450 3A4, a so-called mechanism-based inhibition. Although recent reports point to the inhibitory effects of grapefruit juice on the function of P-glycoprotein, which transports substrates from enterocytes back into the lumen, the contribution to the bioavailability of drugs that are substrates of P-glycoprotein has not been established yet. Dramatic decreases in AUC and C(max) for two drugs in association with grapefruit juice ingestion has been reported and, in these cases, inhibitory effects on organic anion transporting polypeptide, which mediates absorption from the intestinal lumen to enterocytes, might be involved. Other citrus juices such as Seville (sour) orange juice and commonly ingested varieties of orange juice also showed significant effects on the AUC and C(max) of some drugs. Although the situation is complex and uncertainties remain, we recommend that patients avoid citrus juice intake while taking medications and that healthcare providers advise against citrus juice intake in this setting until any interactions with subject drugs can be clarified in clinical studies.

Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of systemically administered glucocorticoids

Glucocorticoids have pleiotropic effects that are used to treat diverse diseases such as asthma, rheumatoid arthritis, systemic lupus erythematosus and acute kidney transplant rejection. The most commonly used systemic glucocorticoids are hydrocortisone, prednisolone, methylprednisolone and dexamethasone. These glucocorticoids have good oral bioavailability and are eliminated mainly by hepatic metabolism and renal excretion of the metabolites. Plasma concentrations follow a biexponential pattern. Two-compartment models are used after intravenous administration, but one-compartment models are sufficient after oral administration.The effects of glucocorticoids are mediated by genomic and possibly nongenomic mechanisms. Genomic mechanisms include activation of the cytosolic glucocorticoid receptor that leads to activation or repression of protein synthesis, including cytokines, chemokines, inflammatory enzymes and adhesion molecules. Thus, inflammation and immune response mechanisms may be modified. Nongenomic mechanisms might play an additional role in glucocorticoid pulse therapy. Clinical efficacy depends on glucocorticoid pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Pharmacokinetic parameters such as the elimination half-life, and pharmacodynamic parameters such as the concentration producing the half-maximal effect, determine the duration and intensity of glucocorticoid effects. The special contribution of either of these can be distinguished with pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analysis. We performed simulations with a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model using T helper cell counts and endogenous cortisol as biomarkers for the effects of methylprednisolone. These simulations suggest that the clinical efficacy of low-dose glucocorticoid regimens might be increased with twice-daily glucocorticoid administration.

Interactions Between Antiretrovirals and Antineoplastic Drug Therapy

Despite the established impact of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) in reducing HIV-related morbidity and mortality, malignancy remains an important cause of death. Patients who receive the combination of cancer chemotherapy and HAART may achieve better response rates and higher rates of survival than patients who receive antineoplastic therapy alone. However, the likelihood of drug interactions with combined therapy is high, since protease inhibitors (PIs) and non-nucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors (NNRTIs) are substrates and potent inhibitors or inducers of the cytochrome P450 (CYP) system. Since many antineoplastic drugs are also metabolised by the CYP system, coadministration with HAART could result in either drug accumulation and possible toxicity, or decreased efficacy of one or both classes of drugs. Although formal, prospective pharmacokinetic interaction studies are not available in most instances, it is possible to infer the nature of drug interactions based on the metabolic fates of these agents. Paclitaxel and docetaxel are both metabolised by the CYP system, although differences exist in the nature of the isoenzymes involved. Case reports describing adverse consequences of concomitant taxane-antiretroviral therapy exist. Although other confounding factors may have been present, these cases serve as reminders of the vigilant monitoring necessary when taxanes and HAART are coadministered. Similarly, vinca alkaloids are substrates of CYP3A4 and are, thus, vulnerable to PI- or NNRTI-mediated changes in their pharmacokinetics. Interactions with the alkylating agents cyclophosphamide and ifosfamide are complicated as a result of the involvement of the CYP3A4 and CYP2B6 isoenzymes in both the metabolic activation of these drugs and the generation of potentially neurotoxic metabolites. Existing data regarding the metabolic fate of the anthracyclines doxorubicin and daunorubicin suggest that clinically detrimental interactions would not be expected with coadministered HAART. Commonly used endocrine therapies are largely substrates of the CYP system and may, therefore, be amenable to modulation by concomitant HAART. In addition, tamoxifen itself has been associated with reduced concentrations of both anastrozole and letrozole, raising the concern that similar inducing properties may adversely affect the outcome of PI- or NNRTI-based therapy. Similarly, dexamethasone is both a substrate and concentration-dependent inducer of CYP3A4; enhanced corticosteroid pharmacodynamics may result with CYP3A4 inhibitors, while the efficacy of concomitant HAART may be compromised with prolonged dexamethasone coadministration. Since PIs and NNRTIs may also induce or inhibit the expression of P-glycoprotein, the potential for additional interactions to arise via modulation of this transporter also exists. Further research delineating the combined safety and pharmacokinetics of antiretrovirals and antineoplastic therapy is necessary.

Drug interactions in dentistry

BACKGROUND

The hepatic and intestinal cytochrome, or CY, P450 enzyme system is responsible for the biotransformation of a multitude of drugs. Certain medications used in dentistry can act as substrates, inducers or inhibitors of this system.

METHODS

The authors conducted a MEDLINE search of articles appearing between 1976 and the present using the keywords "drug interactions" and "cytochrome P450," and reviewed reports involving dental therapeutic agents using PubMed links from an Indiana University CYP450 drug interaction table on the World Wide Web.

RESULTS

The antibiotics erythromycin and clarithromycin are potent inhibitors of CYP3A4 and can increase blood levels and toxicity of CYP3A4 substrates. Likewise, quinolone antibiotics such as ciprofloxacin inhibit the metabolism of CYP1A2 substrates. Other dental therapeutic agents are substrates for CYP2C9 (celecoxib, ibuprofen and naproxen), CYP2D6 (codeine and tramadol), CYP3A4 (methylprednisolone) and CYP2E1 (acetaminophen). Because codeine and tramadol are prodrugs, inhibition of their metabolism can lead to a diminution of their analgesic effects. While inducers of acetaminophen metabolism, including alcohol, theoretically can increase the proportion of it that is biotransformed into a potentially hepatotoxic metabolite, recent research suggests that concomitant alcohol intake does not increase the hepatotoxic potential of therapeutic doses of acetaminophen.

CONCLUSIONS

A number of clinically significant drug interactions can arise with dental therapeutic agents that act as substrates or inhibitors of the CYP450 system. Clinical Implications. As polypharmacy continues to increase, the likelihood of adverse drug interactions in dentistry will increase as well. Ensuring that patients' medical histories are up to date and acquiring knowledge of the various substrates, inducers and inhibitors of the CYP450 system will help practitioners avoid potentially serious adverse drug interactions.

Prednisolone

To develop limited-sampling strategy (LSS) models for estimating prednisolone's area under plasma concentration versus time curve (AUC(0-infinity)), its maximum concentration in plasma (C(max)), and total clearance (CL/F). Healthy subjects (n = 24), enrolled in a bioequivalence study, received 20 mg PO of the prodrug prednisone as reference and test tablets, and plasma prednisolone concentrations (n = 576) were measured by a validated HPLC assay. A linear regression analysis of AUC(0-infinity), C(max), CL/F, and log(CL/F) against the plasma prednisolone concentrations for the reference formulation was carried out to develop LSS models to estimate these parameters. The LSS models were validated on the test formulation data sets and on simulated sets generated by the software ADAPT II. LSS models based on a single [1.5 hours for C(max) and 7 hours for AUC(0-infinity), CL/F, and log(CL/F)] plasma sample, accurately estimated (R2 = 0.84-0.97, mean bias < 1%; mean precision < 10%) these pharmacokinetic parameters. Validation tests indicated that the most informative single-point LSS models developed for the reference formulation provide precise estimates (R(2) > 0.83; mean bias < 3%; mean precision < 10%) of the corresponding pharmacokinetic parameters for the test formulation. LSS models based on the two most informative sampling points (1.5 and 7 hours) were required for accurate estimates (R(2) > 0.87; mean bias < 6%; mean precision < 8%) of prednisolone's C(max), AUC(0-infinity), CL/F, and log(CL/F) for the simulated data sets. Finally, bioequivalence assessment of the prednisone formulations, based on LSS-derived AUC(0-infinity) and C(max) values provided results identical to those obtained using the original values for these parameters. One- and 2-point LSS models provided accurate estimates of prednisolone's C(max), AUC(0-infinity), and CL/F, following single oral doses of prednisone, and allowed correct assessment of bioequivalence between two prednisone formulations.

Effects of herbal components on cDNA-expressed cytochrome P450 enzyme catalytic activity

We evaluated the effects of 25 purified components of commonly used herbal products on the catalytic activity of cDNA-expressed cytochrome P450 isoforms in in vitro experiments. Increasing concentrations of the compounds were incubated with a panel of recombinant human CYP isoforms (CYP1A2, CYP2C9, CYP2C19, CYP2D6 and CYP3A4) and their effects on the conversion of specific surrogate substrates measured fluorometrically in a 96-well plate format. For each test substance, the IC50 (the concentration required to inhibit metabolism of surrogate substrates by 50%) was estimated and compared with IC50's for the positive control inhibitory drugs furafylline, sulfaphenazole, tranylcypromine, quinidine, and ketoconazole. Constituents of Ginkgo biloba (ginkgolic acids I and II), kava (desmethoxyyangonin, dihydromethysticin, and methysticin), garlic (allicin), evening primrose oil (cis-linoleic acid), and St. John's wort (hyperforin and quercetin) significantly inhibited one or more of the cDNA human P450 isoforms at concentrations of less than 10 uM. Some of the test compounds (components of Ginkgo biloba, kava, and St. John's wort) were more potent inhibitors of the isoforms 1A2, 2C19, and 2C19 than the positive controls used in each assay (furafylline, sulfaphenazole, and tranylcypromine, respectively), which are known to produce clinically significant drug interactions. The enzyme most sensitive to the inhibitory of effects of these compounds was CYP2C19, while the isoform least effected was CYP2D6. These data suggest that herbal products containing evening primrose oil, Ginkgo biloba, kava, and St. John's Wort could potentially inhibit the metabolism of co-administered medications whose primary route of elimination is via cytochrome P450.

On the assessment of effects of food on the pharmacokinetics of drugs in early development

The impact of food on the pharmacokinetics of a drug has important implications in drug development. This commentary is aimed at addressing two key challenges, developability of drugs whose pharmacokinetics are severely influenced by food, and the need for addressing the effects of fruit juice ingredients which modulate metabolic/efflux properties of a compound. Perspectives on the value in predicting food-drug interactions during preclinical development, timing of clinical food-drug interaction studies, and implications of food effects are presented herein.

Pharmacokinetic considerations in the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease

This review describes the pharmacokinetics of the major drugs used for the treatment of inflammatory bowel disease. This information can be helpful for the selection of a particular agent and offers guidance for effective and well tolerated regimens. The corticosteroids have a short elimination half-life (t1/2beta) of 1.5 to 4 hours, but their biological half-lives are much longer (12 to 36 hours). Most are moderate or high clearance drugs that are hepatically eliminated, primarily by cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4-mediated metabolism. Prednisone and budesonide undergo presystemic elimination. Any disease state or comedication affecting CYP3A4 activity should be taken into account when prescribing corticosteroids. Depending on the preparation used, 10 to 50% of an oral or rectal dose of mesalazine is absorbed. Rapid acetylation in the intestinal wall and liver (t1/2beta 0.5 to 2 hours) and transport probably by P-glycoprotein affect mucosal concentrations of mesalazine, which apparently determine clinical response. Any clinical condition influencing the release and topical availability of mesalazine might modify its therapeutic potential. Metronidazole has high (approximately 90%) oral bioavailability, with hepatic elimination characterised by a t1/2beta of 6 to 10 hours and a total clearance of about 4 L/h/kg. Ciprofloxacin is largely excreted unchanged both renally (about 45% of dose) and extrarenally (25%), with a relatively short t1/2beta (3.5 to 7 hours). Thus, renal function affects the systemic availability of ciprofloxacin. Both mercaptopurine and its prodrug azathioprine are metabolised to active compounds (6-thioguanine nucleotides; 6-TGN) by hypoxanthine-guanine phosphoribosyltransferase and to inactive metabolites by the polymorphically expressed thiopurine S-methyltransferase (TPMT) and xanthine oxidase. Patients with low TPMT activity have a higher risk of developing haemopoietic toxicity. Both mercaptopurine and azathioprine have a short t1/2beta (1 to 2 hours), but the t1/2beta of 6-TGN ranges from 3 to 13 days. Therapeutic response seems to be related to 6-TGN concentration. Almost complete bioavailability has been observed after intramuscular and subcutaneous administration of methotrexate, which is predominantly (85%) excreted as unchanged drug with a t1/2beta of up to 50 hours. Thus, renal function is the major determinant for disposition of methotrexate. Cyclosporin is slowly and incompletely absorbed. It is extensively metabolised by CYP3A4/5 in the liver and intestine (median t1/2beta and clearance 7.9 hours and 0.46 L/h/kg, respectively), and inhibitors and inducers of CYP3A4 can modify response and toxicity. Infliximab is predominantly distributed to the vascular compartment and eliminated with a t1/2beta between 10 and 14 days. No accumulation was observed when it was administered at intervals of 4 or 8 weeks. Methotrexate may reduce the clearance of infliximab from serum.

Summary of information on human CYP enzymes: human P450 metabolism data

This chapter is an update of the data on substrates, reactions, inducers, and inhibitors of human CYP enzymes published previously by Rendic and DiCarlo (1), now covering selection of the literature through 2001 in the reference section. The data are presented in a tabular form (Table 1) to provide a framework for predicting and interpreting the new P450 metabolic data. The data are formatted in an Excel format as most suitable for off-line searching and management of the Web-database. The data are presented as stated by the author(s) and in the case when several references are cited the data are presented according to the latest published information. The searchable database is available either as an Excel file (for information contact the author), or as a Web-searchable database (Human P450 Metabolism Database, www.gentest.com) enabling the readers easy and quick approach to the latest updates on human CYP metabolic reactions.

Effect of itraconazole on the pharmacokinetics of prednisolone and methylprednisolone and cortisol secretion in healthy subjects

AIMS

Itraconazole is a potent inhibitor of CYP3A4 activity and is often used in combination with corticosteroids. Since the latter are partly metabolized by CYP3A4, we studied the interaction between itraconazole, prednisone and methylprednisolone in healthy male subjects.

METHODS

The effects of 4 days administration of oral itraconazole (400 mg on the first day then 200 mg day-1 for 3 days) on the pharmacokinetics of prednisolone after a single oral dose of prednisone (60 mg) and the pharmacokinetics of methylprednisolone after single oral dose of methylprednisolone (48 mg) were studied in 14 healthy male subjects in a two-period cross-over trial. Plasma cortisol concentrations were determined as a pharmacodynamic index.

RESULTS

Itraconazole increased the mean area under the methylprednisolone concentration-time curve from 2773 ng ml-1 h to 7011 ng ml-1 h (P < 0.001) and the elimination half-life from 3.2 h to 5.5 h (P < 0.001). The pharmacokinetics of prednisolone were unchanged. Cortisol concentrations at 24 h were lower after administration of methylprednisolone with itraconazole than after methylprednisolone alone (24 ng ml-1 vs 109 ng ml-1, P < 0.001).

CONCLUSIONS

Itraconazole increased methylprednisolone concentrations markedly with enhanced suppression of endogenous cortisol secretion, but had no effect on prednisolone pharmacokinetics. The pharmacokinetic interaction between methylprednisolone and itraconazole is probably related to inhibition of hepatic CYP3A4 activity by itraconazole.