Itraconazole, a potent inhibitor of P-glycoprotein, moderately increases plasma concentrations of oral morphine

Evaluation of the Cytochrome P450 3A and P-glycoprotein Drug-Drug Interaction Potential of Futibatinib

Futibatinib, a selective, irreversible fibroblast growth factor receptor 1-4 inhibitor, is being investigated for tumors harboring FGFR aberrations and was recently approved for the treatment of FGFR2 fusion/rearrangement-positive intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma. In vitro studies identified cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A as the major CYP isoform in futibatinib metabolism and indicated that futibatinib is likely a P-glycoprotein (P-gp) substrate and inhibitor. Futibatinib also showed time-dependent inhibition of CYP3A in vitro. Phase I studies investigated the drug-drug interactions of futibatinib with itraconazole (a dual P-gp and strong CYP3A inhibitor), rifampin (a dual P-gp and strong CYP3A inducer), or midazolam (a sensitive CYP3A substrate) in healthy adult participants. Compared with futibatinib alone, coadministration of futibatinib with itraconazole increased futibatinib mean peak plasma concentration and area under the plasma concentration-time curve by 51% and 41%, respectively, and coadministration of futibatinib with rifampin lowered futibatinib mean peak plasma concentration and area under the plasma concentration-time curve by 53% and 64%, respectively. Coadministration of midazolam with futibatinib had no effect on midazolam pharmacokinetics compared with midazolam administered alone. These findings suggest that concomitant use of dual P-gp and strong CYP3A inhibitors/inducers with futibatinib should be avoided, but futibatinib can be concomitantly administered with other drugs metabolized by CYP3A. Drug-drug interaction studies with P-gp-specific substrates and inhibitors are planned.

Antifungal Drug-Drug Interactions with Commonly Used Pharmaceutics in European Pediatric Patients with Acute Lymphoblastic Leukemia

Leukemia is one of the leading childhood malignancies, with acute lymphoblastic leukemia (ALL) being the most common type. Invasive fungal disease is a concerning problem also at pediatric hemato-oncology units. Available guidelines underline the need for antifungal prophylaxis and give recommendations for proper treatment in various clinical scenarios. Nonetheless, antifungal agents are often involved in drug-drug interaction (DDI) occurrence. The prediction of those interactions in the pediatric population is complicated because of the physiological differences in adults, and the lack of pharmacological data. In this review, we discuss the potential DDIs between antifungal agents and commonly used pharmaceutics in pediatric hemato-oncology settings, with special emphasis on the use of liposomal amphotericin B and ALL treatment. We obtained information from Micromedex^® and Drugs.com^® interaction checking databases and checked the EudraVigilance^® database to source the frequency of severe adverse drug reactions that resulted from antifungal drug interactions. Several major DDIs were identified, showing a favorable safety profile of echinocandins and liposomal amphotericin B. Interestingly, although there are numerous available drug interaction checking tools facilitating the identification of potential serious DDIs, it is important to use more than one tool, as the presented searching results may differ between particular checking programs.

Transport and Permeation Properties of Dapivirine: Understanding Potential Drug-Drug Interactions

The dapivirine (DPV) vaginal ring was developed by the nonprofit International Partnership for Microbicides (IPM) for reducing the risk of HIV infection. A clinical study (IPM 028) showed that concomitant use of the DPV ring and miconazole (MIC) altered DPV pharmacokinetic profile. In this work, we investigated whether or not DPV transport and permeation contributed to the observed DPV-MIC interaction. Our study evaluated the interaction between DPV and several transporters that are highly expressed in the human female reproductive tract, including MRP1, MRP4, P-gp, BCRP, and ENT1, using vesicular and cellular systems. We also evaluated the impact of DPV/MIC on cellular tight junctions by monitoring transepithelial electrical resistance with the Ussing chamber. Lastly, we evaluated the effect of MIC on DPV permeability across human cervical tissue. Our findings showed that DPV was not a substrate of MRP1, MRP4, P-gp, BCRP, or ENT1 transporters. Additionally, DPV did not inhibit the activity of these transporters. DPV, MIC, and their combination also did not disrupt cellular tight junctions. MIC did not affect DPV tissue permeability but significantly reduced DPV tissue levels. Therefore, our results suggest that the DPV-MIC interaction is not due to these five transporters, altered tight junction integrity, or altered tissue permeability.

Current Practices, Gap Analysis, and Proposed Workflows for PBPK Modeling of Cytochrome P450 Induction: An Industry Perspective

The International Consortium for Innovation and Quality (IQ) Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic (PBPK) Modeling Induction Working Group (IWG) conducted a survey across participating companies around general strategies for PBPK modeling of induction, including experience with its utility to address various questions, regulatory interactions, and regulatory acceptance. The results highlight areas where PBPK modeling is used with high confidence and identifies opportunities where confidence is lower and further evaluation is needed. To enhance the survey results, the PBPK-IWG also collected case studies and analyzed recent literature examples where PBPK models were applied to predict CYP3A induction-mediated drug-drug interactions. PBPK modeling of induction has evolved and progressed significantly, proving to have great potential to accelerate drug discovery and development. With the aim of enabling optimal use for new molecular entities that are either substrates and/or inducers of CYP3A, the PBPK-IWG proposes initial workflows for PBPK application, discusses future trends, and identifies gaps that need to be addressed.

Clinical Implications of P-Glycoprotein Modulation in Drug-Drug Interactions

Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) occur commonly and may lead to severe adverse drug reactions if not handled appropriately. Considerable information to support clinical decision making regarding potential DDIs is available in the literature and through various systems providing electronic decision support for healthcare providers. The challenge for the prescribing physician lies in sorting out the evidence and identifying those drugs for which potential interactions are likely to become clinically manifest. P-glycoprotein (P-gp) is a drug transporting protein that is found in the plasma membranes in cells of barrier and elimination organs, and plays a role in drug absorption and excretion. Increasingly, P-gp has been acknowledged as an important player in potential DDIs and a growing body of information on the role of this transporter in DDIs has become available from research and from the drug approval process. This has led to a clear need for a comprehensive review of P-gp-mediated DDIs with a focus on highlighting the drugs that are likely to lead to clinically relevant DDIs. The objective of this review is to provide information for identifying and interpreting evidence of P-gp-mediated DDIs and to suggest a classification for individual drugs based on both in vitro and in vivo evidence (substrates, inhibitors and inducers). Further, various ways of handling potential DDIs in clinical practice are described and exemplified in relation to drugs interfering with P-gp.

Opioid analgesics-related pharmacokinetic drug interactions: from the perspectives of evidence based on randomized controlled trials and clinical risk management

BACKGROUND

Multimorbidity results in complex polypharmacy which may bear a risk of drug interactions. A better understanding of opioid analgesics combination therapy used for pain management could help warrant medication safety, efficacy, and economic relevance. Until now there has been no review summarizing the opioid analgesics-related pharmacokinetic drug interactions from the perspective of evidence based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHOD

A literature search was performed using PubMed, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library, using a PRISMA flowchart.

RESULTS

Fifty-two RCTs were included for data interpretation. Forty-two RCTs (80.8%) were conducted in healthy volunteers, whereas 10 RCTs (19.2%) enrolled true patients. None of the opioid-drug/herb pairs was listed as contraindications of opioids involved in this review. Circumstances in which opioid is comedicated as a precipitant drug include morphine-P2Y12 inhibitors, morphine-gabapentin, and methadone-zidovudine. Circumstances in which opioid is comedicated as an object drug include rifampin-opioids (morphine, tramadol, oxycodone, methadone), quinidine-opioids (morphine, fentanyl, oxycodone, codeine, dihydrocodeine, methadone), antimycotics-opioids (buprenorphine, fentanyl, morphine, oxycodone, methadone, tilidine, tramadol), protease inhibitors-opioids (ritonavir, ritonavir/lopinavir-oxycodone, ritonavir-fentanyl, ritonavir-tilidine), grapefruit juice-opioids (oxycodone, fentanyl, methadone), antidepressants-opioids (paroxetine-tramadol, paroxetine-hydrocodone, paroxetine-oxycodone, escitalopram-tramadol), metoclopramide-morphine, amantadine-morphine, sumatriptan-butorphanol nasal sprays, ticlopidine-tramadol, St John's wort-oxycodone, macrolides/ketolides-oxycodone, and levomepromazine-codeine. RCTs investigating the same combination, almost unanimously, drew consistent conclusions, except two RCTs on amantadine-intravenous morphine combination where a different amantadine dose was used and two RCTs on morphine-ticagrelor combination where healthy volunteers and true patients were enrolled, respectively. RCTs investigating in true patients may reflect a realistic clinical scenario and overcome the limitation of RCTs performed in healthy volunteers under standardized conditions. Further research opportunities are also presented in this review.

CONCLUSION

Effective and safe combination therapy of opioids can be achieved by promoting the awareness of potential changes in therapeutic efficacy and toxicities, prescribing alternatives or changing administration strategy, tailoring dose, reviewing the appropriateness of orders, and paying attention to medication monitoring.

[Drug interactions in pain therapy]

BACKGROUND

Pain is one of the most common reasons for consulting a physician. Chronic pain patients often suffer from a variety of comorbidities, such as depression and anxiety and they are therefore often simultaneously treated with more than one drug. The probability of drug interactions increases with every additional drug.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

A systematic internet and literature search up to February 2015 was carried out. Systematic lists were included. In addition, the drug prescription information sheets were used and an internet search via Pubmed and google.com was carried out for drugs alone and in combination in order to find substance-specific interactions.

RESULTS

A differentiation is made between pharmaceutical, pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic drug interactions. Pharmaceutical interactions are caused by chemical, physical or physicochemical incompatibility of drugs or adjuvants used. These can even occur outside the body and during concomitant administration via the same route. A pharmacodynamic interaction in pain management is for example the additive sedative effect of opioids and benzodiazepines when taken together. Pharmacokinetic interactions occur during the absorption, distribution, metabolism and in the elimination phases.

CONCLUSION

Many drug interactions can be avoided by careful and continuous evaluation of pharmacotherapy and if necessary its adaptation; however, a sound knowledge of the underlying pharmacological mechanisms and the properties of currently used analgesics is necessary.

Review article: prescribing medications in patients with cirrhosis - a practical guide

BACKGROUND

Most drugs have not been well studied in cirrhosis; recommendations on safe use are based largely on experience and/or expert opinion, with dosing recommendations often based on pharmacokinetic (PK) changes.

AIM

To provide a practical approach to prescribing medications for cirrhotic patients.

METHODS

An indexed MEDLINE search was conducted using keywords cirrhosis, drug-induced liver injury, pharmacodynamics (PDs), PKs, drug disposition and adverse drug reactions. Unpublished information from the Food and Drug Administration and industry was also reviewed.

RESULTS

Most medications have not been adequately studied in cirrhosis, and specific prescribing information is often lacking. Lower doses are generally recommended based on PK changes, but data are limited in terms of correlating PD effects with the degree of liver impairment. Very few drugs have been documented to have their hepatotoxicity potential enhanced by cirrhosis; most of these involve antituberculosis or antiretroviral agents used for HIV or viral hepatitis. Paracetamol can be used safely when prescribed in relatively small doses (2-3 g or less/day) for short durations, and is recommended as first-line treatment of pain. In contrast, NSAIDs should be used cautiously (or not at all) in advanced cirrhosis. Proton pump inhibitors have been linked to an increased risk of spontaneous bacterial peritonitis (SBP) in cirrhosis and should be used with care.

CONCLUSIONS

Most drugs can be used safely in cirrhosis, including those that are potentially hepatotoxic, but lower doses or reduced dosing frequency is often recommended, due to altered PKs. Drugs that can precipitate renal failure, gastrointestinal bleeding, SBP and encephalopathy should be identified and avoided.

Exposure to oral oxycodone is increased by concomitant inhibition of CYP2D6 and 3A4 pathways, but not by inhibition of CYP2D6 alone

WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT THIS SUBJECT

Oxycodone is an opioid analgesic that is metabolized mainly in the liver by cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2D6 and 3A4 enzymes. So far, the effects of CYP2D6 or CYP3A4 inhibitors on the pharmacokinetics of oxycodone in humans have not been systematically studied.

WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS

Drug interactions arising from CYP2D6 inhibition most likely have minor clinical importance for oral oxycodone. When both of CYP2D6 and CYP3A4 pathways are inhibited, the exposure to oral oxycodone is increased substantially.

AIM

The aim of this study was to find out whether the inhibition of cytochrome P450 2D6 (CYP2D6) with paroxetine or concomitant inhibition of CYP2D6 and CYP3A4 with paroxetine and itraconazole, altered the pharmacokinetics and pharmacological response of orally administered oxycodone.

METHODS

A randomized placebo-controlled cross-over study design with three phases was used. Eleven healthy subjects ingested 10 mg of oral immediate release oxycodone on the fourth day of pre-treatment with either placebo, paroxetine (20 mg once daily) or paroxetine (20 mg once daily) and itraconazole (200 mg once daily) for 5 days. The plasma concentrations of oxycodone and its oxidative metabolites were measured for 48 h, and pharmacological (analgesic and behavioural) effects were evaluated.

RESULTS

Paroxetine alone reduced the area under concentration-time curve (AUC(0,0-48 h)) of the CYP2D6 dependent metabolite oxymorphone by 44% (P < 0.05), but had no significant effects on the plasma concentrations of oxycodone or its pharmacological effects when compared with the placebo phase. When both oxidative pathways of the metabolism of oxycodone were inhibited with paroxetine and itraconazole, the mean AUC(0,infinity) of oxycodone increased by 2.9-fold (P < 0.001), and its C(max) by 1.8-fold (P < 0.001). Visual analogue scores for subjective drug effects, drowsiness and deterioration of performance were slightly increased (P < 0.05) after paroxetine + itraconazole pre-treatment when compared with placebo.

CONCLUSIONS

Drug interactions arising from CYP2D6 inhibition most likely have minor clinical importance for oral oxycodone if the function of the CYP3A4 pathway is normal. When both CYP2D6 and CYP3A4 pathways are inhibited, the exposure to oral oxycodone is increased substantially.

Effects of oral clotrimazole troches on the pharmacokinetics of oral and intravenous midazolam

AIMS

The aim of the study was to determine the effects of oral clotrimazole troches on the pharmacokinetics of oral and intravenous midazolam in the plasma.

METHODS

We conducted a randomized, open-label, four-way crossover study in 10 healthy volunteers. Each volunteer received oral midazolam 2 mg or intravenous midazolam 0.025 mg kg(-1) with and without oral clotrimazole troches 10 mg taken three times daily for 5 days. Each study period was separated by 14 days. Serial blood samples were collected up to 24 h after oral midazolam and 6 h after intravenous midazolam. Plasma concentrations for midazolam and its metabolite 1-hydroxymidazolam were measured and fitted to a noncompartmental model to estimate the pharmacokinetic parameters.

RESULTS

Ten healthy volunteers aged 21-26 years provided written informed consent and were enrolled into the study. Clotrimazole decreased the apparent oral clearance of midazolam from 57 +/- 13 l h(-1)[95% confidence interval 48, 66] to 36 +/- 9.8 l h(-1) (95% confidence interval 29, 43) (P= 0.003). These changes were accompanied by a decrease in the area under the concentration-time curve (mean difference 22 microg h(-1) l(-1), P= 0.001) and bioavailability (mean difference 0.21, P= NS). There were no significant differences in the systemic clearance of midazolam with or without clotrimazole troches.

CONCLUSIONS

Oral clotrimazole troches decreased the apparent oral clearance of midazolam; no significant differences in the systemic clearance of midazolam were found.