1
|
Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic (PBPK) Modeling of Clopidogrel and Its Four Relevant Metabolites for CYP2B6, CYP2C8, CYP2C19, and CYP3A4 Drug–Drug–Gene Interaction Predictions. Pharmaceutics 2022; 14:pharmaceutics14050915. [PMID: 35631502 PMCID: PMC9145019 DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics14050915] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Figures] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/24/2022] [Revised: 04/19/2022] [Accepted: 04/20/2022] [Indexed: 11/23/2022] Open
Abstract
The antiplatelet agent clopidogrel is listed by the FDA as a strong clinical index inhibitor of cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2C8 and weak clinical inhibitor of CYP2B6. Moreover, clopidogrel is a substrate of—among others—CYP2C19 and CYP3A4. This work presents the development of a whole-body physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model of clopidogrel including the relevant metabolites, clopidogrel carboxylic acid, clopidogrel acyl glucuronide, 2-oxo-clopidogrel, and the active thiol metabolite, with subsequent application for drug–gene interaction (DGI) and drug–drug interaction (DDI) predictions. Model building was performed in PK-Sim® using 66 plasma concentration-time profiles of clopidogrel and its metabolites. The comprehensive parent-metabolite model covers biotransformation via carboxylesterase (CES) 1, CES2, CYP2C19, CYP3A4, and uridine 5′-diphospho-glucuronosyltransferase 2B7. Moreover, CYP2C19 was incorporated for normal, intermediate, and poor metabolizer phenotypes. Good predictive performance of the model was demonstrated for the DGI involving CYP2C19, with 17/19 predicted DGI AUClast and 19/19 predicted DGI Cmax ratios within 2-fold of their observed values. Furthermore, DDIs involving bupropion, omeprazole, montelukast, pioglitazone, repaglinide, and rifampicin showed 13/13 predicted DDI AUClast and 13/13 predicted DDI Cmax ratios within 2-fold of their observed ratios. After publication, the model will be made publicly accessible in the Open Systems Pharmacology repository.
Collapse
|
3
|
Abstract
This narrative review summarises the benefits, risks and appropriate use of acid-suppressing drugs (ASDs), proton pump inhibitors and histamine-2 receptor antagonists, advocating a rationale balanced and individualised approach aimed to minimise any serious adverse consequences. It focuses on current controversies on the potential of ASDs to contribute to infections-bacterial, parasitic, fungal, protozoan and viral, particularly in the elderly, comprehensively and critically discusses the growing body of observational literature linking ASD use to a variety of enteric, respiratory, skin and systemic infectious diseases and complications (Clostridium difficile diarrhoea, pneumonia, spontaneous bacterial peritonitis, septicaemia and other). The proposed pathogenic mechanisms of ASD-associated infections (related and unrelated to the inhibition of gastric acid secretion, alterations of the gut microbiome and immunity), and drug-drug interactions are also described. Both probiotics use and correcting vitamin D status may have a significant protective effect decreasing the incidence of ASD-associated infections, especially in the elderly. Despite the limitations of the existing data, the importance of individualised therapy and caution in long-term ASD use considering the balance of benefits and potential harms, factors that may predispose to and actions that may prevent/attenuate adverse effects is evident. A six-step practical algorithm for ASD therapy based on the best available evidence is presented.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Leon Fisher
- Frankston Hospital, Peninsula Health, Melbourne, Australia.
| | - Alexander Fisher
- The Canberra Hospital, ACT Health, Canberra, Australia
- Australian National University Medical School, Canberra, Australia
| |
Collapse
|
4
|
Yu LY, Sun LN, Zhang XH, Li YQ, Yu L, Yuan ZQY, Meng L, Zhang HW, Wang YQ. A Review of the Novel Application and Potential Adverse Effects of Proton Pump Inhibitors. Adv Ther 2017; 34:1070-1086. [PMID: 28429247 PMCID: PMC5427147 DOI: 10.1007/s12325-017-0532-9] [Citation(s) in RCA: 81] [Impact Index Per Article: 10.1] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 02/27/2017] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are known as a class of pharmaceutical agents that target H+/K+-ATPase, which is located in gastric parietal cells. PPIs are widely used in the treatment of gastric acid-related diseases including peptic ulcer disease, erosive esophagitis and gastroesophageal reflux disease, and so on. These drugs present an excellent safety profile and have become one of the most commonly prescribed drugs in primary and specialty care. Except for gastric acid-related diseases, PPIs can also be used in the treatment of Helicobacter pylori infection, viral infections, respiratory system diseases, cancer and so on. Although PPIs are mainly used short term in patients with peptic ulcer disease, nowadays these drugs are increasingly used long term, and frequently for a lifetime, for instance in patients with typical or atypical symptoms of gastroesophageal reflux disease and in NSAID or aspirin users at risk of gastrotoxicity and related complications including hemorrhage, perforation and gastric outlet obstruction. Long-term use of PPIs may lead to potential adverse effects, such as osteoporotic fracture, renal damage, infection (pneumonia and clostridium difficile infection), rhabdomyolysis, nutritional deficiencies (vitamin B12, magnesium and iron), anemia and thrombocytopenia. In this article, we will review some novel uses of PPIs in other fields and summarize the underlying adverse reactions.
Collapse
|
5
|
Shamliyan TA, Middleton M, Borst C. Patient-centered Outcomes with Concomitant Use of Proton Pump Inhibitors and Other Drugs. Clin Ther 2017; 39:404-427.e36. [PMID: 28189362 DOI: 10.1016/j.clinthera.2017.01.011] [Citation(s) in RCA: 4] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 09/07/2016] [Revised: 12/19/2016] [Accepted: 01/06/2017] [Indexed: 12/16/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE We performed a systematic review of patient-centered outcomes after the concomitant use of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) and other drugs. METHODS We searched 4 databases in July 2016 to find studies that reported mortality and morbidity after the concomitant use of PPIs and other drugs. We conducted direct meta-analyses using a random-effects model and graded the quality of evidence according to the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation working group approach. FINDINGS We included data from 17 systematic reviews and meta-analyses, 16 randomized controlled trials, and 16 observational studies that examined the concomitant use of PPIs with medications from 10 drug classes. Low-quality evidence suggests that the use of PPIs is associated with greater morbidity when administered with antiplatelet drugs, bisphosphonates, antibiotics, anticoagulants, metformin, mycophenolate mofetil, or nelfinavir. Concomitant PPIs reduce drug-induced gastrointestinal bleeding and are associated with greater docetaxel and cisplatin response rates in patients with metastatic breast cancer. For demonstrated statistically significant relative risks and benefits from concomitant PPIs, the magnitudes of the effects are small, with <100 attributable events per 1000 patients treated, and the effects are inconsistent among specific drugs. Among individual PPIs, the concomitant use of pantoprazole or esomeprazole, but not omeprazole or lansoprazole, is associated with an increased risk for all-cause mortality, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or stroke. Clopidogrel is associated with a greater risk for myocardial infarction compared with prasugrel. Conflicting results between randomized controlled trials and observational studies and high risk for bias in the body of evidence lessened our confidence in the results. IMPLICATIONS Available evidence suggests a greater risk for adverse patient outcomes after the concomitant use of PPIs and medications from 9 drug classes and warns against inappropriate drug combinations.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Tatyana A Shamliyan
- Evidence-Based Medicine Center, Quality Assurance, Elsevier, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
| | - Maria Middleton
- Evidence-Based Medicine Center, Elsevier, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| | - Clarissa Borst
- Clinical Drug Information, Elsevier, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
| |
Collapse
|
6
|
Yucel E, Sancar M, Yucel A, Okuyan B. Adverse drug reactions due to drug-drug interactions with proton pump inhibitors: assessment of systematic reviews with AMSTAR method. Expert Opin Drug Saf 2016; 15:223-36. [PMID: 26635063 DOI: 10.1517/14740338.2016.1128413] [Citation(s) in RCA: 16] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/03/2015] [Accepted: 12/02/2015] [Indexed: 12/17/2022]
Abstract
INTRODUCTION Many systematic reviews resulted in claims on drug-drug interactions (DDIs) with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). Such a large number begs for consensus on the clinical significance of findings. AREAS COVERED We critically evaluated the safety of PPI use with respect to DDIs with a meta-review of systematic reviews published between 1978 and 2015. We assessed the evidence by their reliability, repeatability, transparency, and objectivity according to the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) criteria. EXPERT OPINION Clinicians must assess risks for each PPI for certain comorbid conditions. DDIs don't substantiate class effect for PPIs; each PPI could induce unique DDIs. Concomitant use of PPIs with thienopyridines (e.g. clopidogrel) could be justified in patients without strong affinity to cytochrome CYP2C19 and with high risk of bleeding (e.g. patients with prior upper gastrointestinal bleeding, Helicobacter pylori infection, advanced age, steroid treatment, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use). DDIs could occur in an AIDS subpopulation treated with highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). DDIs exist for cancer patients undergoing targeted therapy. Hypomagnesemia could increase in the setting of advanced age and polypharmacy. Omeprazole poses high risks owing to its pharmacokinetic DDI profile. Future systematic reviews should incorporate these additional risks for better clinical guidance.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Emre Yucel
- a Epidemiology, Human Genetics, and Environmental Sciences , School of Public Health , Houston , TX , USA
| | - Mesut Sancar
- b Marmara University , Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy , Istanbul , Turkey
| | - Aylin Yucel
- c University of Houston, College of Pharmacy, Science & Research Bldg. 2 Co Science & Research Bldg. 2 College of Pharmacy Science & Research Bldg. 2 College of Pharmacy 3455 Cullen Blvd ., Houston , TX , USA
| | - Betul Okuyan
- b Marmara University , Clinical Pharmacy, Faculty of Pharmacy , Istanbul , Turkey
| |
Collapse
|
7
|
Bogetti-Salazar M, González-González C, Juárez-Cedillo T, Sánchez-García S, Rosas-Carrasco O. Severe potential drug-drug interactions in older adults with dementia and associated factors. Clinics (Sao Paulo) 2016; 71:17-21. [PMID: 26872079 PMCID: PMC4763155 DOI: 10.6061/clinics/2016(01)04] [Citation(s) in RCA: 13] [Impact Index Per Article: 1.4] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [MESH Headings] [Track Full Text] [Download PDF] [Journal Information] [Submit a Manuscript] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 11/02/2015] [Revised: 11/13/2015] [Accepted: 11/13/2015] [Indexed: 11/18/2022] Open
Abstract
OBJECTIVE To identify the main severe potential drug-drug interactions in older adults with dementia and to examine the factors associated with these interactions. METHOD This was a cross-sectional study. The enrolled patients were selected from six geriatrics clinics of tertiary care hospitals across Mexico City. The patients had received a clinical diagnosis of dementia based on the current standards and were further divided into the following two groups: those with severe drug-drug interactions (contraindicated/severe) (n=64) and those with non-severe drug-drug interactions (moderate/minor/absent) (n=117). Additional socio-demographic, clinical and caregiver data were included. Potential drug-drug interactions were identified using Micromedex Drug Reax 2.0® database. RESULTS A total of 181 patients were enrolled, including 57 men (31.5%) and 124 women (68.5%) with a mean age of 80.11±8.28 years. One hundred and seven (59.1%) patients in our population had potential drug-drug interactions, of which 64 (59.81%) were severe/contraindicated. The main severe potential drug-drug interactions were caused by the combinations citalopram/anti-platelet (11.6%), clopidogrel/omeprazole (6.1%), and clopidogrel/aspirin (5.5%). Depression, the use of a higher number of medications, dementia severity and caregiver burden were the most significant factors associated with severe potential drug-drug interactions. CONCLUSIONS Older people with dementia experience many severe potential drug-drug interactions. Anti-depressants, antiplatelets, anti-psychotics and omeprazole were the drugs most commonly involved in these interactions. Despite their frequent use, anti-dementia drugs were not involved in severe potential drug-drug interactions. The number and type of medications taken, dementia severity and depression in patients in addition to caregiver burden should be considered to avoid possible drug interactions in this population.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
| | | | - Teresa Juárez-Cedillo
- Epidemiologic and Health Service Research Unit, Aging Area. Mexican Institute of Social Security, and Faculty of High Studies (FES) Zaragoza. National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico City/DF, Mexico
| | - Sergio Sánchez-García
- Epidemiologic and Health Service Research Unit, Aging Area. Mexican Institute of Social Security, Mexico City/DF, Mexico
| | | |
Collapse
|
8
|
Leonard CE, Bilker WB, Brensinger CM, Flockhart DA, Freeman CP, Kasner SE, Kimmel SE, Hennessy S. Comparative risk of ischemic stroke among users of clopidogrel together with individual proton pump inhibitors. Stroke 2015; 46:722-31. [PMID: 25657176 DOI: 10.1161/strokeaha.114.006866] [Citation(s) in RCA: 23] [Impact Index Per Article: 2.3] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Indexed: 12/14/2022]
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE There is controversy and little information about whether individual proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) differentially alter the effectiveness of clopidogrel in reducing ischemic stroke risk. We, therefore, aimed to elucidate the risk of ischemic stroke among concomitant users of clopidogrel and individual PPIs. METHODS We conducted a propensity score-adjusted cohort study of adult new users of clopidogrel, using 1999 to 2009 Medicaid claims from 5 large states. Exposures were defined by prescriptions for esomeprazole, lansoprazole, omeprazole, rabeprazole, and pantoprazole-with pantoprazole serving as the referent. The end point was hospitalization for acute ischemic stroke, defined by International Classification of Diseases Ninth Revision Clinical Modification codes in the principal position on inpatient claims, within 180 days of concomitant therapy initiation. RESULTS Among 325 559 concomitant users of clopidogrel and a PPI, we identified 1667 ischemic strokes for an annual incidence of 2.4% (95% confidence interval, 2.3-2.5). Adjusted hazard ratios for ischemic stroke versus pantoprazole were 0.98 (0.82-1.17) for esomeprazole; 1.06 (0.92-1.21) for lansoprazole; 0.98 (0.85-1.15) for omeprazole; and 0.85 (0.63-1.13) for rabeprazole. CONCLUSIONS PPIs of interest did not increase the rate of ischemic stroke among clopidogrel users when compared with pantoprazole, a PPI thought to be devoid of the potential to interact with clopidogrel.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Charles E Leonard
- From the Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics (C.E.L., W.B.B., C.M.B., C.P.F., S.E. Kimmel, S.H.), Center for Pharmacoepidemiology Research and Training (C.E.L., W.B.B., D.A.F., C.P.F., S.E. Kimmel, S.H.), Department of Psychiatry (W.B.B.), Department of Neurology (S.E. Kasner), Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine (S.E. Kimmel), and Department of Systems Pharmacology and Translational Therapeutics (S.H.), Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; and Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis (D.A.F.).
| | - Warren B Bilker
- From the Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics (C.E.L., W.B.B., C.M.B., C.P.F., S.E. Kimmel, S.H.), Center for Pharmacoepidemiology Research and Training (C.E.L., W.B.B., D.A.F., C.P.F., S.E. Kimmel, S.H.), Department of Psychiatry (W.B.B.), Department of Neurology (S.E. Kasner), Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine (S.E. Kimmel), and Department of Systems Pharmacology and Translational Therapeutics (S.H.), Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; and Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis (D.A.F.)
| | - Colleen M Brensinger
- From the Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics (C.E.L., W.B.B., C.M.B., C.P.F., S.E. Kimmel, S.H.), Center for Pharmacoepidemiology Research and Training (C.E.L., W.B.B., D.A.F., C.P.F., S.E. Kimmel, S.H.), Department of Psychiatry (W.B.B.), Department of Neurology (S.E. Kasner), Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine (S.E. Kimmel), and Department of Systems Pharmacology and Translational Therapeutics (S.H.), Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; and Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis (D.A.F.)
| | - David A Flockhart
- From the Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics (C.E.L., W.B.B., C.M.B., C.P.F., S.E. Kimmel, S.H.), Center for Pharmacoepidemiology Research and Training (C.E.L., W.B.B., D.A.F., C.P.F., S.E. Kimmel, S.H.), Department of Psychiatry (W.B.B.), Department of Neurology (S.E. Kasner), Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine (S.E. Kimmel), and Department of Systems Pharmacology and Translational Therapeutics (S.H.), Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; and Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis (D.A.F.)
| | - Cristin P Freeman
- From the Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics (C.E.L., W.B.B., C.M.B., C.P.F., S.E. Kimmel, S.H.), Center for Pharmacoepidemiology Research and Training (C.E.L., W.B.B., D.A.F., C.P.F., S.E. Kimmel, S.H.), Department of Psychiatry (W.B.B.), Department of Neurology (S.E. Kasner), Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine (S.E. Kimmel), and Department of Systems Pharmacology and Translational Therapeutics (S.H.), Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; and Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis (D.A.F.)
| | - Scott E Kasner
- From the Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics (C.E.L., W.B.B., C.M.B., C.P.F., S.E. Kimmel, S.H.), Center for Pharmacoepidemiology Research and Training (C.E.L., W.B.B., D.A.F., C.P.F., S.E. Kimmel, S.H.), Department of Psychiatry (W.B.B.), Department of Neurology (S.E. Kasner), Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine (S.E. Kimmel), and Department of Systems Pharmacology and Translational Therapeutics (S.H.), Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; and Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis (D.A.F.)
| | - Stephen E Kimmel
- From the Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics (C.E.L., W.B.B., C.M.B., C.P.F., S.E. Kimmel, S.H.), Center for Pharmacoepidemiology Research and Training (C.E.L., W.B.B., D.A.F., C.P.F., S.E. Kimmel, S.H.), Department of Psychiatry (W.B.B.), Department of Neurology (S.E. Kasner), Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine (S.E. Kimmel), and Department of Systems Pharmacology and Translational Therapeutics (S.H.), Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; and Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis (D.A.F.)
| | - Sean Hennessy
- From the Center for Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics (C.E.L., W.B.B., C.M.B., C.P.F., S.E. Kimmel, S.H.), Center for Pharmacoepidemiology Research and Training (C.E.L., W.B.B., D.A.F., C.P.F., S.E. Kimmel, S.H.), Department of Psychiatry (W.B.B.), Department of Neurology (S.E. Kasner), Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Department of Medicine (S.E. Kimmel), and Department of Systems Pharmacology and Translational Therapeutics (S.H.), Perelman School of Medicine at the University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia; and Division of Clinical Pharmacology, Department of Medicine, Indiana University School of Medicine, Indianapolis (D.A.F.)
| |
Collapse
|