QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: jpet.104.082826v1 314/1/180    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Galetin, A. Articles by Houston, J. B. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Galetin, A. Articles by Houston, J. B. Pubmed/NCBI databases Compound via MeSH Substance via MeSH Hazardous Substances DB MIDAZOLAM HYDROCHLORIDE QUINIDINE QUINIDINE SULFATE TESTOSTERONE

ABSORPTION, DISTRIBUTION, METABOLISM, AND EXCRETION

CYP3A4 Substrate Selection and Substitution in the Prediction of Potential Drug-Drug Interactions

School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Manchester, Manchester, United Kingdom (A.G., D.H., J.B.H.); and Department of Clinical Pharmacokinetics, Hoshi University, Tokyo, Japan (K.I.)

Received for publication December 23, 2004
Accepted March 18, 2005.

	Abstract

Top Abstract Materials and Methods Results Discussion Appendix References

 
The complexity of in vitro kinetic phenomena observed for CYP3A4 substrates (homo- or heterotropic cooperativity) confounds the prediction of drug-drug interactions, and an evaluation of alternative and/or pragmatic approaches and substrates is needed. The current study focused on the utility of the three most commonly used CYP3A4 in vitro probes for the prediction of 26 reported in vivo interactions with azole inhibitors (increase in area under the curve ranged from 1.2 to 24, 50% in the range of potent inhibition). In addition to midazolam, testosterone, and nifedipine, quinidine was explored as a more "pragmatic" substrate due to its kinetic properties and specificity toward CYP3A4 in comparison with CYP3A5. K_i estimates obtained in human liver microsomes under standardized in vitro conditions for each of the four probes were used to determine the validity of substrate substitution in CYP3A4 drug-drug interaction prediction. Detailed inhibitor-related (microsomal binding, depletion over incubation time) and substrate-related factors (cooperativity, contribution of other metabolic pathways, or renal excretion) were incorporated in the assessment of the interaction potential. All four CYP3A4 probes predicted 69 to 81% of the interactions with azoles within 2-fold of the mean in vivo value. Comparison of simple and multisite mechanistic models and interaction prediction accuracy for each of the in vitro probes indicated that midazolam and quinidine in vitro data provided the best assessment of a potential interaction, with the lowest bias and the highest precision of the prediction. Further investigations with a wider range of inhibitors are required to substantiate these findings.

An additional complicating issue in the assessment of CYP3A inhibition potential is the occurrence of homo/heterotropic cooperativity in vitro. This may result in a sigmoidal kinetic profile (for testosterone), substrate inhibition (for nifedipine), and limited substrate substitution and inhibitory reciprocity (Korzekwa, 2002; Houston et al., 2003). These "atypical" phenomena attributed to the existence of multiple binding sites have been associated with CYP3A4; however recent studies indicate similar behavior for other P450s (Egnell et al., 2003; Hutzler et al., 2003) and UDP glucuronosyltransferase enzymes (Uchaipichat et al., 2004). The incorporation of homo/heterotropic cooperativity in the in vitro-in vivo prediction of either clearance or DDI is not widely adopted. Although their actual in vivo relevance remains questionable, appropriate in vitro analysis is essential for accurate quantitative estimates of both clearance and DDI (Houston and Galetin, 2003).

To provide a link between the in vitro multisite inhibition data and the actual in vivo inhibition interactions, a prediction equation based on the same rapid equilibrium/steady-state assumptions as the single-site inhibition models (Segel, 1975) has been derived (see Appendix). In accordance with previous analysis (Tucker et al., 2001; Ito et al., 2004), the metric for the degree of DDI is the AUCi/AUC ratio for the plasma concentration-time profiles in the presence and absence of the inhibitor, respectively. The complexity of multisite kinetic analysis observed with certain CYP3A4 substrates indicated the need for an assessment of alternative and/or more pragmatic approaches and substrates for the prediction of potential DDI involving this enzyme.

The aim of the current study was to evaluate the importance of substrate selection for predicting a range of reported CYP3A4 drug interactions with ketoconazole, itraconazole, and fluconazole. The in vivo interactions previously reported by Ito et al. (2004) were critically reviewed and 26 studies were selected, including 13 different CYP3A4 substrates from different therapeutic and substrate subgroups. Classifying these studies according to Bjornsson et al. (2003) (Fig. 1) indicated that 50% of interactions were in the range of potent inhibition (AUCi/AUC >5).

View larger version (15K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Classification of the 26 CYP3A4 in vivo studies investigated according to Bjornsson et al. (2003) indicated that 19% of studies were cases of weak inhibition (, AUCi/AUC < 2), 30% moderate (, 2 < AUCi/AUC < 5), and the remainder (50%) were potent (, AUCi/AUC > 5). The order of in vivo studies shown corresponds to the listing in Table 2.

	Materials and Methods

Top Abstract Materials and Methods Results Discussion Appendix References

 
Chemicals. Midazolam, testosterone, quinidine, nifedipine, 6-hydroxytestosterone, ketoconazole, fluconazole, prednisone, verapamil, dextromethorphan, NADP, isocitric dehydrogenase were purchased from Sigma Chemical (Poole, Dorset, UK). (3S)-3-Hydroxyquinidine, oxidized nifedipine, itraconazole, and midazolam metabolites were obtained from Ultrafine Chemicals (Manchester, UK). All other reagents and solvents were of high analytical grade. Pooled human liver microsomes (n = 22, testosterone 6-hydroxylation activity = 6.4 nmol/min/mg protein) were obtained from BD Gentest (Woburn, MA).

In Vitro Inhibition Studies. Interaction studies were performed at incubation times (2.5 min, midazolam; 10 min, nifedipine; and 15 min, quinidine and testosterone), and protein concentrations (0.25 mg/ml) were within the linear range for the each substrate. Microsomes were suspended in phosphate buffer (0.1 M, pH 7.4) with the final incubation volume of 0.25 ml. Samples were preincubated for 5 min in a shaking water bath at 37°C, and each reaction was initiated with an NADPH regenerating system (1 mM NADP⁺, 7.5 mM isocitric acid, 10 mM magnesium chloride, and 0.2 units of isocitric dehydrogenase). The final concentration of the organic solvent (either methanol or acetonitrile) in incubation media was 0.2% (v/v). The substrate concentrations ranged from 5 to 50 µM (midazolam), 25 to 250 µM (quinidine), 2.5 to 100 µM (nifedipine), and 5 to 200 µM (testosterone). The concentrations of the inhibitors ranged from 0.01 to 10 µM (ketoconazole), 0.1 to 100 µM (fluconazole), and 0.01 to 10 µM (itraconazole). The reaction was terminated by 0.25 ml of ice-cold acetonitrile with 1 µM of the appropriate internal standard. Samples were centrifuged at 13,400g for 10 min and further analyzed by LC-MS/MS.

Microsomal Binding and Inhibitor Depletion. In addition to the effect of multisite binding on K_i estimates, the impact of nonspecific microsomal binding and depletion of an inhibitor during the incubation time on the K_i estimates was assessed. Depletion of azoles was evaluated over the range of substrate concentrations investigated (above and below K_m) for each individual substrate.

Binding to Microsomes. The binding of the inhibitors to human liver microsomes was determined by either microfiltration or dialysis, depending upon the extent of nonspecific binding to microfiltration tubes. Fluconazole was incubated (nominally 1 and 10 µM) with microsomes (0.5, 1.0, or 2.0 mg protein/ml) in 0.1 M phosphate buffer (0.5 ml, including 1% acetonitrile from the dilution of fluconazole) at 37°C for 10 min. The incubate was filtered by centrifugation at approximately 10,000g for 10 s through Whatman Anopore 0.05-µm microfiltration tubes (Whatman, Maidstone, UK). Samples of the incubate and filtrate were analyzed by LC-MS/MS. The binding of ketoconazole and itraconazole was determined by dialysis. Cellulose membranes (Dianorm, Munich, Germany) were conditioned overnight in 0.1 M phosphate buffer, at approximately 10°C. The compounds were incubated (nominally at 1 µM) with microsomes (0.01, 0.03, 0.1, and 0.5 mg protein/ml) in 0.1 M phosphate buffer (1.0 ml, including 1% acetonitrile from the dilution of ketoconazole or itraconazole) contained in Dianorm dialysis chambers that were rotated at 37°C for 6 h. Samples of dialysate were collected at 1, 3, and 6 h and analyzed, together with samples of the solution added to the microsomes, by LC-MS/MS.

Determination of Substrate and Metabolite Concentration. The metabolites 1'-hydroxymidazolam, 3-hydroxyquinidine, oxidized nifedipine, and 6-hydroxytestosterone and the inhibitors ketoconazole, fluconazole, and itraconazole were quantified by LC-MS/MS. For each assay, nine calibration standards with a blank were prepared in a matrix identical to the incubation extracts and included levels at below and above the expected concentrations. Each metabolite, together with either alprazolam (1'-hydroxymidazolam), dextromethorphan (3-hydroxyquinidine and oxidized nifedipine) or prednisone (6-hydroxytestosterone) as internal standard and either inhibitor (with verapamil as internal standard), were separated on a Luna C18(2) 50 x 4.6 mm 3-µm column (Phenomenex, Macclesfield, Cheshire, UK) at 40°C using either a binary or ternary gradient maintained at 1 ml/min by a Waters Alliance 2795 HT LC system.

For 1'-hydroxymidazolam/fluconazole/ketoconazole, an initial mobile phase of 90% 0.001 M ammonium acetate/10% acetonitrile was ramped immediately to 29% 0.001 M ammonium acetate/42% acetonitrile/29% formic acid at 1 min and immediately to 34% 0.001 M ammonium acetate/66% acetonitrile at 4 min. The initial ratio was immediately reestablished at 5 min and maintained to 6 min. For 1'-hydroxymidazolam/itraconazole, an initial mobile phase of 90% 0.001 M ammonium acetate/10% acetonitrile was ramped linearly to 10% 0.001 M ammonium acetate/90% acetonitrile between 1 and 5 min and maintained for 1 min. The initial ratio was immediately reestablished at 6 min and maintained to 7 min.

For 3-hydroxyquinidine/fluconazole/ketoconazole, an initial mobile phase of 90% 0.001 M ammonium acetate/10% acetonitrile was ramped linearly to 90% 0.01 M formic acid/10% acetonitrile between 1 and 4 min. The initial ratio was immediately reestablished at 4 min and maintained to 5 min. For 3-hydroxyquinidine/itraconazole, an initial mobile phase of 90% 0.001 M ammonium acetate/10% acetonitrile was ramped linearly to 58% 0.01 M formic acid/42% acetonitrile between 1 and 3 min and immediately to 10% 0.01 M formic acid/90% acetonitrile at 3 min. The initial ratio was immediately reestablished at 4 min and maintained to 5 min.

For oxidized nifedipine/fluconazole/ketoconazole/itraconazole, an initial mobile phase of 74% 0.01 M formic acid/26% acetonitrile was ramped linearly to 10% 0.01 M formic acid/90% acetonitrile between 1 and 3 min and maintained to 4 min. The initial ratio was immediately reestablished at 4 min and maintained to 5 min.

For 6-hydroxytestosterone/fluconazole/ketoconazole, an initial mobile phase of 90% 0.01 M formic acid/10% acetonitrile was ramped linearly to 54% 0.01 M formic acid/46% acetonitrile between 1 and 3 min and immediately to 10% 0.01 M formic acid/90% acetonitrile at 3 min. The initial ratio was immediately reestablished at 4 min and maintained to 5 min. For 6-hydroxytestosterone/itraconazole, an initial mobile phase of 90% 0.01 M formic acid/10% acetonitrile was ramped linearly to 10% 0.01 M formic acid/90% acetonitrile between 1 and 4 min. The initial ratio was immediately reestablished at 4 min and maintained to 5.5 min.

For fluconazole, ketoconazole, and itraconazole, an initial mobile phase of 90% 0.01 M formic acid/10% acetonitrile was ramped linearly to 10% 0.01 M formic acid/90% acetonitrile between 1 and 3 min and maintained to 4 min. The initial ratio was immediately reestablished at 4 min and maintained to 5 min.

The compounds were detected and quantified by atmospheric pressure electrospray ionization MS/MS using a Micromass Quattro Ultima triple quadrupole mass spectrometer. The LC column eluate was split, and one-fourth was delivered into the MS where the desolvation gas (nitrogen) flow rate was 600 l/h, the cone gas (nitrogen) flow rate was 100 or 300 l/h (6-hydroxytestosterone only), and the source temperature was 125°C.

Using positive ion mode, protonated molecular ions were formed using a capillary energy of 3.5 kV and cone energies of 36 V (ketoconazole), 56 V (fluconazole), 60 V (prednisone and verapamil), 70 V (6-hydroxytestosterone, 3-hydroxyquinidine, oxidized nifedipine, and alprazolam), 79 V (itraconazole), 80 V (1'-hydroxymidazolam), and 89 V (dextromethorphan). Product ions formed in argon at a pressure of 2 x 10^-3 mbar and at collision energies of 10 eV (prednisone, m/z 359.35341.0), 15 eV (6-hydroxytestosterone, m/z 305.35269.0), 17 eV (fluconazole, m/z 307.0220.0), 20 eV (oxidized nifedipine, m/z 345.0284.0), 23 eV (3-hydroxyquinidine, m/z 341.15226.0), 25 eV (alprazolam, m/z 309.05281.0), 30 eV (1'-hydroxymidazolam, m/z 342.05203.0; ketoconazole, m/z 531.05489.0; verapamil, m/z 455.2165.0), and 40 eV (dextromethorphan, 272.1170.8; itraconazole, m/z 705.0392.0) were monitored as ion chromatograms which were integrated and quantified by quadratic regression analysis of standard curves using Micromass QuanLynx 3.5 software.

The accuracy of the method was assumed to be adequate as the concentrations were calculated from calibration standards prepared in the same way as the extracts (spike calibration). Values were accepted if the internal standard ratio was greater than a value equal to the calibration regression intercept plus approximately 10 times the estimated standard deviation of the intercept (lower limit of quantitation). Repeatability precision was considered adequate if duplicate sample values were within 10% of each other.

Analysis of Multisite Inhibition Data. The kinetic parameters were calculated from untransformed data by nonlinear least-squares regression using GraFit 5 (Erithacus Software, Horley, Surrey, UK). The changes in kinetic parameters observed in the presence of various modifiers were significance tested using analysis of variance. For all four sets of data, analysis was based on the application of simple one-site or multisite kinetic models. According to the kinetic properties of the substrate, variations of the generic two-site model (Galetin et al., 2002) were applied to rationalize the inhibition profiles obtained for midazolam, quinidine, and nifedipine. These two-site kinetic models accommodated alterations in binding affinity () and catalytic efficiency upon effector binding (). In addition, in case of nifedipine interactions the two-site kinetic model incorporated the substrate inhibition phenomenon defined by the decrease in product formation (K_p) from SES by the factor (<1). In contrast, the three-site kinetic model was applied for testosterone interactions as positive cooperative binding of testosterone molecules was unaffected by increasing inhibitor concentration, indicating that the inhibitor acts at a distinct effector site. The two- and three-site kinetic models applied and the corresponding equations with the interaction factors were defined in our previous publications (Galetin et al., 2003; Houston and Galetin, 2005). Goodness of fit was determined by visual inspection of the fits, comparison of statistical parameters (² and Akaike information criterion values) between the models and a reduction in the standard errors of the parameter estimates.

DDI Prediction. In vivo studies used as a comparator have been selected from a database previously collated in our laboratory (Ito et al., 2004). In replicate studies (same dose of the inhibitor; Table 2), the weighted mean of the AUC ratios was obtained for further analysis. In all the studies AUC_(0-) was used for this purpose, the only exception was the ketoconazole and itraconazole interaction with triazolam (Varhe et al., 1994) where the AUC at the last time point was used. Whenever available, the mean ± S.D. estimates of the AUCi/AUC ratio (Fig. 1) were estimated from the individual AUC values reported in vivo; otherwise the sd values were obtained using eq. 1, assuming the normal distribution of the data (Armitage et al., 2002):

(1)

where Y represents the mean AUC ratio; X₁ and X₂ are mean AUC values in the presence and absence of the inhibitor, respectively; and varX₁ and varX₂ represent their respective variances (var is sd²).

The success of AUCi/AUC ratio prediction for 26 reported CYP3A4 in vivo interactions applying either the K_i estimates for midazolam, testosterone, nifedipine, or quinidine was assessed. When the two-site model was used to obtain the K_i value (e.g., nifedipine), the corresponding two-site equation (eq. 2) was applied in the prediction. In addition to [I]/K_i ratio, this two-site model equation also incorporates changes in the catalytic efficacy () and binding affinity () in the presence of the inhibitor (see Appendix). When / = 1, the two-site prediction equation is reduced to the simple 1 + [I]/K_i relationship:

(2)

where I represents the in vivo inhibitor concentration (either [I]in, input plasma concentration or [I]av, average plasma concentration during the dosing interval; values taken from Ito et al., 2004), whereas K_i estimates are obtained applying the generic two-site model (Houston and Galetin, 2003). When one- or three-site models are applied for the analysis of in vitro data, DDI prediction equation involving the interaction factors is not necessary and the simple 1 + [I]/K_i relationship is adequate (see Appendix, eq. 12).

Range of the predicted AUC ratios was obtained by Monte Carlo simulations (Nestorov et al., 2002) applying [I]av/K_i,u (inhibitor concentrations taken from the in vivo database; Ito et al., 2004). Contribution of parallel pathways (i.e., other P450 enzymes or renal clearance) was assessed by incorporating the fm_CYP3A4 values reported by H. S. Brown, K. Ito, A. Galetin, and J. B. Houston (manuscript submitted for publication), using the following equation (Rowland and Matin, 1973):

(3)

The bias of DDI prediction was assessed from the geometric mean of the ratio of predicted and actual value (average-fold error, afe). The mean squared prediction error (mse) (difference between the predicted and observed in vivo value) and the root mean squared prediction error (rmse) provided a measure of precision for the prediction of 26 in vivo DDI using midazolam, testosterone, nifedipine, and quinidine (Sheiner and Beal, 1981; Obach et al., 1997):

(4)

(5)

(6)

Of the three itraconazole metabolites reported by Isoherranen et al. (2004) (hydroxy-, keto- and N-desalkyl-itraconazole), only the contribution of hydroxy-itraconazole was included in the prediction. The contribution of the active metabolite (hydroxy-itraconazole) was incorporated as [1 + [I]av/K_i,u)_itraconazole + ([I]av/K_i,u)_{hydroxy-itraconazole}], where I and K_i values for the metabolite are literature values (Ito et al., 2004). Microsomal binding was assumed to be the same for the metabolite as determined for the parent.

	Results

Top Abstract Materials and Methods Results Discussion Appendix References

 
K_i Estimation for Azole Inhibitors. The inhibitory potency rank order (ketoconazole > itraconazole > fluconazole) was the same for each of the four substrates. Overall, the most potent inhibition was observed when midazolam and quinidine were used as probes, whereas K_i values for nifedipine were 7- to 13-fold higher than values obtained for other CYP3A4 substrates (Table 1). A similar trend in K_i values (midazolam generating the lowest K_i) was observed with a wider range of inhibitors (nifedipine, felodipine, verapamil, diltiazem, and saquinavir; data not shown).

In all substrate incubations, ketoconazole and itraconazole concentrations were depleted less than 20% over the incubation times applied, whereas no depletion was observed for fluconazole. The trend observed was constant across the substrate concentration range investigated and was greatest at higher concentrations of the inhibitor; hence, no corrections in K_i estimates were incorporated. Corrections for microsomal binding were applied for ketoconazole and itraconazole K_i values, with microsomal fraction unbound values of 0.71 and 0.056, respectively, at the protein concentration used in the study (0.25 mg/ml), whereas no correction was made for fluconazole (microsomal fraction unbound 0.95).

Significance of Multisite Modeling Approach for Azole Interactions. K_i estimates for midazolam, quinidine, testosterone, and nifedipine were obtained using both single site (competitive or noncompetitive) and multisite inhibition models (either two- or three-site) (Galetin et al., 2002).

For interactions with midazolam and quinidine (Fig. 3, A and B, respectively) noncompetitive and competitive inhibition models, respectively, gave comparable K_i estimates to the generic two-site kinetic model (e.g., ketoconazole-midazolam, 0.06 and 0.07 µM, respectively). In addition, the two-site kinetic analysis of these interactions generated / ratio values close to 1 (0.9–1.1).

View larger version (27K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Effect of increasing concentrations of azoles on the metabolism of midazolam (A), quinidine (B), testosterone (C), and nifedipine (D) in human liver microsomes. Midazolam (2.5–50 µM; A), quinidine (25–250 µM; B), testosterone (5–200 µM; C), and nifedipine (2.5–100 µM; D). Data points represent the mean of duplicate determinations. The lines represent the simultaneous fit to the corresponding models defined under Materials and Methods at ketoconazole concentrations of 0, 0.03, 0.1, 0.3, and 1 µM (for midazolam and quinidine) or itraconazole concentrations of 0, 0.03, 0.3, 1, and 3 µM (testosterone) and 0, 0.1, 0.3, 1, and 3 µM (nifedipine).

Nifedipine is a prototypical substrate reported to show negative homotropy; therefore, a two-site kinetic model with substrate inhibition was applied for the analysis of its interaction data (Galetin et al., 2003). A 3-fold range in the / ratio was observed for the three azoles (Fig. 2), mainly as a result of their effect on the rate of product formation (), because similar changes in the binding affinity (defined by = 0.11–0.14) were observed. In contrast to midazolam and quinidine, a noncompetitive inhibition model was not adequate, resulting in a significant difference in K_i values obtained (3- to 12.4-fold). Figure 3D illustrates the relationship between K_i, dissociation constant (K_s), and the interaction factors defining product formation from SES and ISE (K_p and K_p, respectively) on the maintenance of negative cooperativity in the presence of the modifier. In cases when is comparable to and K_i < K_s (up to 10-fold, e.g., itraconazole; Fig. 3D) or K_i > K_s (e.g., fluconazole-nifedipine; data not shown), substrate inhibition is maintained at low concentrations of the modifier. However, if K_i << K_s (e.g., 50- to 100-fold), the complex with the modifier (ISE) is rapidly formed, and no substrate inhibition is noted even at very low inhibitor concentrations (example not shown).

View larger version (19K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Lack of association between the Ki and / ratio obtained for the interaction of nifedipine with azole inhibitors.

View larger version (23K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Comparison of mean AUCi/AUC ratios predicted by Monte Carlo simulations applying [I]av/Ki,u using Ki values for midazolam (A), testosterone (B), quinidine (C), and nifedipine (D) and AUC ratios observed in vivo for 26 DDI where represents ketoconazole (eight), itraconazole (12), and fluconazole (six). The solid line represents line of unity, whereas dashed lines represent the 2-fold limit in prediction accuracy.

View larger version (19K): [in this window] [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Evaluation of substrate substitution in the prediction of 26 observed CYP3A4 drug interactions using midazolam, testosterone, quinidine, and nifedipine as in vitro probes. Interaction studies are divided into groups—benzodiazepines, cyclosporine and tacrolimus, nifedipine and felodipine, and statins.

Evaluation of Testosterone as a Probe. Testosterone K_i values predicted interactions with cyclosporine within 2-fold of in vivo value, whereas other probes overestimated the degree of interaction with cyclosporine up to 4-fold. In contrast to midazolam, testosterone underpredicted 29% of reported studies with benzodiazepines. These findings were consistent with substrate substitution within the same CYP3A4 substrate subgroup (Houston and Galetin, 2005). Of 26 interactions investigated, 69% of AUC ratios predicted were within a 2-fold range of the in vivo value, whereas underprediction was observed in six of 26 studies (Fig. 4B). The extent of overprediction was reduced 5- to 12-fold for alprazolam and cerivastatin, respectively when the contribution of the renal clearance and metabolism via CYP2C8, respectively, were included in the prediction.

Evaluation of Quinidine and Nifedipine as Probes. AUC ratios predicted using quinidine K_i values were comparable with midazolam predictions because 81% of the estimates were within 2-fold of the observed in vivo value. Use of quinidine provided low bias and the highest precision of the DDI prediction (rmse 4- to 10-fold lower compared with the other three substrates). Among the probe substrates assessed, only quinidine estimated the degree of interaction between ketoconazole and tacrolimus accurately (5.4- to 13-fold overestimation using testosterone and nifedipine K_i values, respectively). Predicted AUCi/AUC ratios from quinidine in vitro data (Table 2) showed a statistically significant correlation (Pearson correlation coefficient of 0.98; p < 0.05) with both midazolam and nifedipine, whereas no such relationship could be established with other pairs of probes (Pearson correlation coefficient <0.6; p > 0.1).

Success in prediction using nifedipine K_i values was comparable with testosterone (69% of mean AUC ratios predicted within the 2-fold range), with underprediction observed in six of 26 studies (maximum of 5-fold in itraconazole-lovastatin). The two-site prediction approach reduced the average-fold error by half and improved the precision of the DDI assessment (rmse reduced by 80%) in comparison with noncompetitive inhibition model-derived K_i values.

	Discussion

Top Abstract Materials and Methods Results Discussion Appendix References

 
Prediction of a potential DDI with CYP3A4 is challenging due to a number of in vitro and in vivo factors. Complexity of the in vitro kinetics observed for some of the CYP3A4 probes (Tang and Stearns, 2001; Houston et al., 2003), CYP3A interindividual variability in the abundance and activity in both liver and small intestine (with the variable contribution of polymorphically expressed CYP3A5) (Lin et al., 2002; Xie et al., 2004), and overlapping substrate specificity with P-glycoprotein (Zhang and Benet, 2001) confound the straight-forward prediction of a DDI.

A mechanistic approach to the analysis of in vitro homo- and heterotropic cooperative phenomena has indicated that the inclusion of CYP3A4 kinetic complexities (applying the interaction factor / ratio) into the DDI prediction strategy can provide an explanation for certain false negative and reduce the overestimation of true positive interactions (e.g., 28-fold for ketoconazole-triazolam interaction when K_i was obtained using triazolam as a probe) (Houston and Galetin, 2003). A limitation of this approach lies in its complexity and the number of data points required for full characterization of the phenomenon observed. Therefore, we have explored the significance of multisite kinetic modeling for reliable in vitro-in vivo prediction of a range of reported in vivo interactions with azole inhibitors. For that reason, four different CYP3A4 probes, midazolam, testosterone, quinidine and nifedipine, were assessed both from the prospect of their in vitro complexities and possibility of substrate substitution in prediction of DDI potential.

Considering that testosterone and midazolam are the most widely used in vitro measures of CYP3A4 activity (Yuan et al., 2002), it is important to know the extent to which the K_i values obtained for these probes may be extrapolated to clinically used drugs (substrate substitution approach). Therefore, the success of a DDI prediction, applying K_i values obtained for midazolam, testosterone, nifedipine, and quinidine, was explored using 26 reported in vivo interactions with a range of AUCi/AUC ratios from 1.2 to 24 (Table 2). The predicted increase in the AUC values in the presence of the azole inhibitors was obtained by Monte Carlo simulations applying the [I]av/K_i,u approach because this was found to be the best predictor when corresponding inhibitor-substrate pairs were investigated both in vitro and in vivo (Houston and Galetin, 2005). This was in contrast to the previous database analysis (Ito et al., 2004) where the maximum hepatic input concentration was the best surrogate for [I] for categorizing P450 inhibitors and for identifying true negative drug-drug interactions. Quinidine was assessed as an alternative and more pragmatic substrate due to its hyperbolic in vitro kinetic properties and specificity toward CYP3A4 in comparison with CYP3A5 (Galetin et al., 2004).

The probes investigated differ in their in vitro complexities, from standard hyperbolic kinetics (midazolam and quinidine) to positive (testosterone) and negative cooperativity (nifedipine) (Galetin et al., 2003). In addition to in vitro differences, the substrates selected vary in their in vivo characteristics that may impact the prediction of CYP3A4 DDI, e.g., significance of intestinal metabolism (Paine et al., 1997), involvement of P-glycoprotein (minimal in case of midazolam, in contrast to other substrates; Tolle-Sander et al., 2003), and contribution of CYP3A5 to the overall clearance (Lin et al., 2002; Huang et al., 2004).

The complexity of the inhibition models and prediction equation applied in the current study was highly dependent on the kinetic properties of the probe used. For midazolam and quinidine (simple hyperbolic kinetics), comparable K_i estimates were obtained by both one-site and generic two-site models, and the value of the relative / ratio close to 1 (0.9–1.1) indicated the reliability of simple inhibition models for the in vitro-in vivo prediction. In contrast, the application of simple inhibition models for interactions involving substrates with positive (testosterone) or negative (nifedipine) homotropic kinetic properties is problematic and may lead to inaccurate estimation of kinetic parameters and potential DDI. However, despite complex initial kinetic analysis, a prediction equation involving the interaction factor / ratio is not necessary for cases when testosterone sigmoidicity is maintained in the presence of the inhibitor (e.g., azoles) and the simple 1 + [I]/K_i relationship is appropriate. However, this approach is not satisfactory for nifedipine and substrates showing substrate and cooperative inhibition (/ 1).

The prediction equations applied are based on the assumptions of the "well stirred" liver model and linear pharmacokinetics of the drug. The possibility of an interaction in the gut wall and changes in the inhibitor concentrations with the time are not incorporated and represent a limitation of this approach (Rostami-Hodjegan and Tucker, 2004). Contrary to expectation, all four CYP3A4 probes investigated predicted 69 to 81% of the interactions with azoles within 2-fold of the mean in vivo value (average-fold error ranged from 0.86 to 1.09). However, it must be stressed that the success of the prediction is dependent upon detailed information, including critical reassessment of the available in vivo information, complex multisite in vitro analysis (where necessary), and incorporation of substrate-related information on parallel elimination pathways. The contribution of other P450 enzyme (cerivastatin) or renal excretion (alprazolam and quinidine) reduced significantly the extent of DDI overprediction (5- to 12-fold), depending on the in vitro probe used. The inhibition of the renal clearance in addition to the hepatic interaction (e.g., quinidine by itraconazole; Kaukonen et al., 1997) was not included, because the fraction excreted unchanged was considered to be too low (0.3) to significantly contribute to the observed interaction. Furthermore, the majority of the studies selected (81%) was in the range of moderate to potent inhibition interactions (Fig. 1), whereas the cases of weak inhibition generally represent a problematic prediction issue (Tucker et al., 2001).

As expected, midazolam K_i values predict changes in the AUC ratio within 2-fold of in vivo values for all the interactions with benzodiazepines, consistent with the validity of substrate substitution within the same substrate subgroup (Houston and Galetin, 2003). In an analogous way, testosterone K_i gave better prediction of cyclosporine and simvastatin interactions, whereas interactions of benzodiazepines or nisoldipine were underpredicted (up 3.7-fold). A higher percentage of underprediction was observed when the interaction potential was assessed by testosterone and nifedipine, whereas midazolam and quinidine had an equal number of under- and overestimates (Fig. 4, A–D). Regardless of the probes investigated, the interaction with tacrolimus and in most cases, atorvastatin, was overestimated, and lovastatin and simvastatin interactions were generally poorly predicted (Table 2; Fig. 5). The bias (average-fold error) observed in the predictions was not significantly different across all four CYP3A4 probes (0.86–1.08), whereas the precision (rmse) of the predictions using testosterone and nifedipine was lower in comparison with quinidine and midazolam.

A number of recent studies indicate that the clinical significance of the contribution of polymorphically expressed CYP3A5 to the overall clearance is controversial and substrate-dependent (Floyd et al., 2003; Haufroid et al., 2004; Wong et al., 2004). In contrast to the comparable activity and kinetics observed between CYP3A4 and CYP3A5 (Williams et al., 2002; Galetin et al., 2004), this enzyme shows differential and generally less potent inhibition in comparison with CYP3A4 (Gibbs et al., 1999), indicating lower susceptibility to drug interactions even in population groups with higher frequency of more active CYP3A5^*1 alleles (e.g., African-American). However, variable abundance and activity of CYP3A5 in both liver and intestine (Lin et al., 2002) result in the inconsistent CYP3A5 covariation with CYP3A4 and may contribute to the variability observed in the degree of interaction. In addition to CYP3A5, the ability of both ketoconazole and itraconazole to inhibit P-glycoprotein indicates that the functional link between CYP3A4 and this transporter (in the intestine, liver, or kidney) may have an impact on the degree of the interaction observed for certain CYP3A substrates (Kaukonen et al., 1997; Benet et al., 2004; Karyekar et al., 2004).

In conclusion, midazolam and quinidine provided the best assessment of a range of selected CYP3A4 drug interactions. Both substrates display hyperbolic kinetics in vitro and this adds to their pragmatic appeal in the evaluation of potential DDI compared with nifedipine and testosterone. However, the current analysis has shown that the kinetic complexities of nifedipine and testosterone can be overcome by the appropriate mechanistic analysis. The success of the substrate substitution approach was highly dependent on the incorporation of additional inhibitor- (microsomal binding and depletion over incubation time) and substrate-related (cooperativity, contribution of other metabolic pathways, or renal excretion) information. The current and previous mechanistic kinetic studies (Galetin et al., 2003) support the validity of appropriate substrate substitution and also indicate how in vitro kinetic characteristics can confound the DDI assessment. The general applicability of these findings requires further evaluation with a wider range of inhibitors.

	Appendix

Top Abstract Materials and Methods Results Discussion Appendix References

 
In Vitro-in Vivo Relationship for Substrates Showing Negative Homotropic Behavior (e.g., Nifedipine) and Cooperative Inhibition. In the case of substrate inhibition, the decrease in the rate of product formation (K_p) from a two-substrate bound complex is described by the interaction factor < 1. The kinetic model defined by eq. 7 incorporates sequeantial binding of substrate molecules; i.e., the "substrate inhibition site" cannot be occupied until the active site is filled and the second site may be independent from the active site (Houston et al., 2003). The final form of the equation is obtained after multiplying both the numerator and denominator by K_s:

(7)

The alterations in the product formation due to the presence of an inhibitor molecule at the active site are defined by the interaction factor . When substrate inhibition phenomenon remains, the effect of a modifier is analogous to the binding of a second substrate molecule, and is comparable to . At high concentrations of substrate and inhibitor, the profile changes to a hyperbolic curve due to dominance of the nonproductive S(EI) complex (Galetin et al., 2003). The following equation has been rearranged multiplying the initial equation by K_s, analogous to the case with no inhibitor.

(8)

Similar to single-site models, rapid equilibrium and steady-state principles have been used to assess the importance of cooperativity and predict changes in the in vivo plasma concentration-time profile from CYP3A4 in vitro data. The first order kinetics ([S] << K_s) assumption allows the simplification of the ratio of eqs. 7 and 8 and derivation of the two-site prediction equation in a form presented in eq. 9:

(9)

In addition to [I]/K_i ratio, this prediction equation incorporates changes in the catalytic efficacy () and binding affinity () in the presence of the inhibitor. When / = 1, the two-site prediction equation (eq. 9) is reduced to the simple relationship 1 + [I]/K_i.

In Vitro-in Vivo Relationship for Substrates Showing Positive Homotropic Behavior (e.g., Testosterone). Autoactivation is defined by the following two-site kinetic model (Houston et al., 2003), assuming that = 2 (V_max is equivalent to 2K_p[E]_t, where [E]_t is the total enzyme concentration; Segel, 1975), where < 1 defines the change in the dissociation constant K_s:

(10)

In the presence of increasing concentrations of the modifier, the interaction between two substrate molecules, and the sigmoidal properties of the substrate, are unaffected, suggesting that the inhibitor acts at a distinct effector site. Inhibition is not consistent with a competitive type, because the modifier causes changes in V_max, rather than changes in the substrate binding constant K_s (eq. 11). Similar to the equations described under A, the final form of eqs. 10 and 11 has been obtained by multiplying numerator and denominator by K_s:

(11)

The AUCi/AUC prediction equation is derived as a ratio of eqs. 10 and 11 and under the same first order kinetics assumptions as for negative homotropic behavior. Due to the nature of the interaction (sigmoidicity is maintained in the presence of the inhibitor), DDI prediction equation involving the interaction factors (eq. 9) is not necessary and the simple 1 + [I]/K_i relationship is appropriate (eq. 12):

(12)

	Acknowledgements

 
We thank Drs. Ivelina Gueorguieva and Kayode Ogungbenro for contribution on Monte Carlo simulations and variance estimates for the in vivo studies and Caroline Brown for help in testosterone experimental work.

	Footnotes

 
Financial support for this project was provided by the following Centre for Applied Pharmacokinetic Research Consortium members: Bristol Myers-Squibb Co., Eli Lilly & Co., GlaxoSmithKline, Novartis, Pfizer Central Research, F. Hoffmann-La Roche, and Servier.

Article, publication date, and citation information can be found at http://jpet.aspetjournals.org.

doi:10.1124/jpet.104.082826.

ABBREVIATIONS: DDI, drug-drug interaction(s); AUC, area under the curve; AUCi, area under the curve in the presence of the inhibitor; P450, cytochrome P450; LC, liquid chromatography; MS, mass spectometry; MS/MS, tandem mass spectrometry; S, substrate; I, inhibitor; SEI, ISE, SES, SESI, inhibitor and substrate or two-substrate bound complexes with an enzyme.

Address correspondence to: Dr. A. Galetin, School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Manchester, Oxford Rd., Manchester M13 9PL, UK. E-mail: aleksandra.galetin{at}manchester.ac.uk

	References

Top Abstract Materials and Methods Results Discussion Appendix References

 

Ahonen J, Olkkola KT, and Neuvonen PJ (1995) Effect of itraconazole and terbinafine on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of midazolam in healthy volunteers. Br J Clin Pharmacol 40: 270-272.[Medline]
Armitage P, Berry G, and Matthews JNS (2002) Analysing non-normal data, in Statistical Methods in Medical Research, pp 272-311, Blackwell Science, Oxford.
Bjornsson TD, Callaghan JT, Einolf HJ, Fischer V, Gan L, Grimm S, Kao J, King SP, Miwa G, Ni L, et al. (2003) The conduct of in vitro and in vivo drug-drug interaction studies: a pharmaceutical research and manufacturers of America (PhRMA) perspective. Drug Metab Dispos 31: 815-832.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Backman JT, Kivisto KT, Olkkola KT, and Neuvonen PJ (1998) The area under the plasma concentration-time curve for oral midazolam is 400-fold larger during treatment with itraconazole than with rifampicin. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 54: 53-58.[CrossRef][Medline]
Benet LZ, Cummins CL, and Wu CY (2004) Unmasking the dynamic interplay between efflux transporters and metabolic enzymes. Int J Pharmaceut 277: 3-9.
Canafax DM, Graves NM, Hilligoss DM, Carleton BC, Gardner MJ, and Matas AJ (1991) Interaction between cyclosporine and fluconazole in renal allograft recipients. Transplantation 51: 1014-1018.[Medline]
Egnell A-C, Eriksson C, Albertson N, Houston JB, and Boyer S (2003) Generation and evaluation of CYP2C9 heteroactivation pharmacophore. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 307: 878-887.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Floren LC, Bekersky I, Benet LZ, Mekki Q, Dressler D, Lee JW, Roberts JP, and Hebert MF (1997) Tacrolimus oral bioavailability doubles with coadministration of ketoconazole. Clin Pharmacol Ther 62: 41-49.[CrossRef][Medline]
Floyd MD, Gervasini G, Masica AL, Mayo G, George AL Jr, Bhat K, Kim RB, and Wilkinson GR (2003) Genotype-phenotype associations for common CYP3A4 and CYP3A5 variants in the basal and induced metabolism of midazolam in European- and African-American men and women. Pharmacogenetics 13: 595-606.[CrossRef][Medline]
Foradori A, Mezzano S, Videla C, Pefaur J, and Elberg A (1998) Modification of the pharmacokinetics of cyclosporine A and metabolites by the concomitant use of Neoral and diltiazem or ketoconazol in stable adult kidney transplants. Transplant Proc 30: 1685-1687.[CrossRef][Medline]
Galetin A, Brown C, Hallifax D, Ito K, and Houston JB (2004) Utility of recombinant enzyme kinetics in prediction of human clearance–impact of variability, CYP3A5 and CYP2C19 on CYP3A4 substrates. Drug Metab Dispos 32 1411-1420.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Galetin A, Clarke SE, and Houston JB (2002) Quinidine and haloperidol as modifiers of CYP3A4 activity: multisite kinetic model approach. Drug Metab Dispos 30: 1512-1522.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Galetin A, Clarke SE, and Houston JB (2003) Multisite kinetic analysis of interactions between prototypical CYP3A4 subgroup substrates: midazolam, testosterone and nifedipine. Drug Metab Dispos 31: 1108-1116.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Gibbs MA, Thummel KE, Shen DD, and Kunze KL (1999) Inhibition of cytochrome P-450 3A (CYP3A) in human intestinal and liver microsomes: comparison of K_i values and impact of CYP3A5 expression. Drug Metab Dispos 27: 180-187.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Gomez DY, Wacher VJ, Tomlanovich SJ, Hebert MF, and Benet LZ (1995) The effects of ketoconazole on the intestinal metabolism and bioavailability of cyclosporine. Clin Pharmacol Ther 58: 15-19.[CrossRef][Medline]
Greenblatt DJ, Wright CE, von Moltke LL, Harmatz JS, Ehrenberg BL, Harrel LM, Corbett K, Counihan M, Tobias S, and Shader RI (1998) Ketoconazole inhibition of triazolam and alprazolam clearance: differential kinetic and dynamic consequences. Clin Pharmacol Ther 64: 237-247.[CrossRef][Medline]
Haufroid V, Mourad M, van Kerckhove V, Wawrzyniak J, de Meyer M, Eddour DC, Malaise J, Lison D, Squifflet J-P, and Wallemacq P (2004) The effect of CYP3A5 and MDR1 (ABCB1) polymorphisms on cyclosporine and tacrolimus dose requirements and trough blood levels in stable renal transplant patients. Pharmacogenetics 14: 147-154.[CrossRef][Medline]
Heinig R, Adelmann HG, and Ahr G (1999) The effect of ketoconazole on the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and safety of nisoldipine. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 55: 57-60.[CrossRef][Medline]
Houston JB and Galetin A (2003) Progress towards prediction of human pharmacokinetic parameters from in vitro technologies. Drug Metab Rev 35: 393-415.[CrossRef][Medline]
Houston JB and Galetin A (2005) Modelling atypical CYP3A4 kinetics: principles and pragmatism. Arch Biochem Biophys 433: 351-360.[CrossRef][Medline]
Houston JB, Kenworthy KE, and Galetin A (2003) Typical and atypical enzyme kinetics, in Drug Metabolizing Enzymes: Cytochrome P450 and Other Enzymes in Drug Discovery and Development (Fisher M, Lee J, and Obach S eds) pp 211-254, FontisMedia, Lausanne, Switzerland.
Huang W, Lin YS, McConn IIDJ, Calamia JC, Totah RA, Isoherranen N, Glodowski M, and Thummel KE (2004) Evidence of significant contribution from CYP3A5 to hepatic drug metabolism. Drug Metab Dispos 32: 1434-1445.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Hutzler JM, Wienkers LC, Wahlstrom JL, Carlson TJ, and Tracy TS (2003) Activation of cytochrome P450 2C9-mediated metabolism: mechanistic evidence in support of kinetic observations. Arch Biochem Biophys 410: 16-24.[CrossRef][Medline]
Isoherranen N, Kunze KL, Allen KE, Nelson WL, and Thummel KE (2004) Role of itraconazole metabolites in CYP3A4 inhibition. Drug Metab Dispos 32: 1121-1131.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Ito K, Brown HS, and Houston JB (2004) Database analyses for the prediction of in vivo drug-drug interactions from in vitro data [published erratum appears in Br J Clin Pharmacol (2004) 58:565–568]. Br J Clin Pharmacol 57: 473-486.[CrossRef][Medline]
Jalava KM, Olkkola KT, and Neuvonen PJ (1997) Itraconazole greatly increases plasma concentrations and effects of felodipine. Clin Pharmacol Ther 61: 410-415.[CrossRef][Medline]
Kantola T, Kivisto KT, and Neuvonen PJ (1998) Effect of itraconazole on the pharmacokinetics of atorvastatin. Clin Pharmacol Ther 64: 58-65.[CrossRef][Medline]
Kantola T, Kivisto KT, and Neuvonen PJ (1999) Effect of itraconazole on cerivastatin pharmacokinetics. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 54: 851-855.[CrossRef][Medline]
Karyekar CS, Eddington ND, Briglia A, Gubbins PO, and Dowling TC (2004) Renal interaction between itraconazole and cimetidine. J Clin Pharmacol 44: 919-927.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Kaukonen K-M, Olkkola KT, and Neuvonen PJ (1997) Itraconazole increases plasma concentrations of quinidine. Clin Pharmacol Ther 62: 510-517.[CrossRef][Medline]
Kenworthy K, Bloomer JC, Clarke SE, and Houston JB (1999) CYP3A4 drug interactions: correlation of ten in vitro probe substrates. Br J Clin Pharmacol 48: 716-727.[CrossRef][Medline]
Kivisto KT, Kantola T, and Neuvonen PJ (1998) Different effects of itraconazole on the pharmacokinetics of fluvastatin and lovastatin. Br J Clin Pharmacol 46: 49-53.[CrossRef][Medline]
Korzekwa K (2002) In vitro enzyme kinetics applied to drug-metabolizing enzymes, in Drug-Drug Interactions (Rodrigues AD ed) pp 33-54, Marcel Dekker, New York.
Lin YS, Dowling ALS, Quigley SD, Farin FM, Zhang J, Lamba J, Schuetz EG, and Thummel KE (2002) Co-regulation of CYP3A4 and CYP3A5 and contribution to hepatic and intestinal metabolism of midazolam. Mol Pharmacol 62: 162-172.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Nestorov I, Gueorguieva I, Jones H, Houston JB, and Rowland M (2002) Incorporating measures of variability and uncertainty into the prediction of in vivo hepatic clearance from in vitro data. Drug Metab Dispos 30: 276-282.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Neuvonen PJ and Jalava KM (1996) Itraconazole drastically increases plasma concentrations of lovastatin and lovastatin acid. Clin Pharmacol Ther 60: 54-61.[CrossRef][Medline]
Neuvonen PJ, Kantola T, and Kivisto KT (1998) Simvastatin but not pravastatin is very susceptible to interaction with the CYP3A4 inhibitor itraconazole. Clin Pharmacol Ther 63: 332-341.[CrossRef][Medline]
Obach RS, Baxter JG, Liston TE, Silber BM, Jones BC, MacIntyre F, Rance DJ, and Wastall P (1997) The prediction of human pharmacokinetic parameters from preclinical and in vitro metabolism data. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 283: 46-58.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Olkkola KT, Ahonen J, and Neuvonen PJ (1996) The effects of the systemic antimycotics, itraconazole and fluconazole, on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of intravenous and oral midazolam. Anesth Analg 82: 511-516.[Abstract]
Olkkola KT, Backman JT, and Neuvonen PJ (1994) Midazolam should be avoided in patients receiving the systemic antimycotics ketoconazole or itraconazole. Clin Pharmacol Ther 55: 481-485.[Medline]
Paine MF, Khalighi M, Fisher JM, Shen DD, Kunze KL, Marsh CL, Perkins JD, and Thummel KE (1997) Characterization of interintestinal and intraintestinal variations in human CYP3A-dependent metabolism. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 283: 1552-1562.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Rostami-Hodjegan A and Tucker GT (2004) `In silico' simulations to assess the `in vivo' consequences of `in vitro' metabolic drug-drug interactions. Drug Discov Today 1: 441-448.
Rowland M and Matin SB (1973) Kinetics of drug-drug interactions. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 1: 553-567.[CrossRef]
Segel IH (1975) Enzyme Kinetics: Behaviour and Analysis of Rapid Equilibrium and Steady State enzyme Systems, Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York.
Sheiner LB and Beal SL (1981) Some suggestions for measuring predictive performance. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 9: 503-512.[CrossRef][Medline]
Stresser DM, Blanchard AP, Turner SD, Erve JCL, Dandeneau AA, Miller VP, and Crespi CL (2000) Substrate-dependent modulation of CYP3A4 catalytic activity: analysis of 27 test compounds with four fluorometric substrates. Drug Metab Dispos 28: 1440-1448.
Tang W and Stearns RA (2001) Heterotropic cooperativity of cytochrome P450 3A4 and potential drug-drug interactions. Curr Drug Metab 2: 185-198.[CrossRef][Medline]
Tolle-Sander S, Rautio J, Wring S, Polli JW, and Polli JE (2003) Midazolam exhibits characteristics of a highly permeable P-glycoprotein substrate. Pharm Res 20: 757-764.[CrossRef][Medline]
Trapnell CB, Narang PK, Li R, and Lavelle JP (1996) Increased plasma rifabutin levels with concomitant fluconazole therapy in HIV-infected patients. Ann Intern Med 124: 573-576..[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Tucker GT, Houston JB, and Huang S-M (2001) Optimizing drug development: strategies to assess drug metabolism/transporter interaction potential - toward a consensus. Clin Pharmacol Ther 70: 103-114.[CrossRef][Medline]
Uchaipichat V, Mackenzie PI, Guo X-H, Gardner-Stephen D, Galetin A, Houston JB, and Miners JO (2004) Human UDP-glucuronosyltransferases: isoform selectivity and kinetics of 4-methylumbelliferone and 1-naphthol glucuronidation, effects of organic solvents and inhibition by diclofenac and probenecid. Drug Metab Dispos 32: 413-423.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Varhe A, Olkkola KT, and Neuvonen PJ (1994) Oral triazolam is potentially hazardous to patients receiving systemic antimycotics ketoconazole and itraconazole. Clin Pharmacol Ther 56: 601-607.[Medline]
Varhe A, Olkkola KT, and Neuvonen PJ (1996a) Effect of fluconazole dose on the extent of fluconazole-triazolam interaction. Br J Clin Pharmacol 42: 465-470.[CrossRef][Medline]
Varhe A, Olkkola KT, and Neuvonen PJ (1996b) Fluconazole, but not terbinafine, enhances the effects of triazolam by inhibiting its metabolism. Br J Clin Pharmacol 41: 319-323.[CrossRef][Medline]
von Moltke LL, Greenblatt DJ, Harmatz JS, Duan SX, Harrel LM, Cotreau-Bibbo MM, Pritchard GA, Wright CE, and Shader RI (1996) Triazolam biotransformation by human liver microsomes in vitro: effects of metabolic inhibitors and clinical confirmation of a predicted interaction with ketoconazole. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 276: 370-379.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Williams JA, Ring BJ, Cantrell VE, Jones DR, Eckstein J, Ruterbories K, Hamman MA, Hall SD, and Wrighton SA (2002) Comparative metabolic capabilities of CYP3A4, CYP3A5 and CYP3A7. Drug Metab Dispos 30: 883-891.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Wong M, Balleine RL, Collins M, Liddle C, Clarke CL, and Gurney H (2004) CYP3A5 genotype and midazolam clearance in Australian patients receiving chemotherapy. Clin Pharmacol Ther 14: 471-478.
Xie H-G, Wood AJJ, Kim RB, Stein CM, and Wilkinson GR (2004) Genetic variability in CYP3A5 and its possible consequences. Pharmacogenomics 5: 243-272.[CrossRef][Medline]
Yasui N, Kondo T, Otani K, Furukori H, Kaneko S, Ohkubo T, Nagasaki T, and Sugawara K (1998) Effect of itraconazole on the single oral dose pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of alprazolam. Psychopharmacology 139: 269-273.[CrossRef][Medline]
Yuan R, Madani S, Wei X-X, Reynolds K, and Huang S-M (2002) Evaluation of cytochrome P450 probe substrates commonly used by the pharmaceutical industry to study in vitro drug interactions. Drug Metab Dispos 30: 1311-1319.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
Zhang Y and Benet LZ (2001) The gut as a barrier to drug absorption. Clin Pharmacokinet 40: 159-168.[CrossRef][Medline]

This article has been cited by other articles:

				R. S. Foti, J. T. Pearson, D. A. Rock, J. L. Wahlstrom, and L. C. Wienkers In Vitro Inhibition of Multiple Cytochrome P450 Isoforms by Xanthone Derivatives from Mangosteen Extract Drug Metab. Dispos., September 1, 2009; 37(9): 1848 - 1855. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Shou, M. Hayashi, Y. Pan, Y. Xu, K. Morrissey, L. Xu, and G. L. Skiles Modeling, Prediction, and in Vitro in Vivo Correlation of CYP3A4 Induction Drug Metab. Dispos., November 1, 2008; 36(11): 2355 - 2370. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				L. Wang, L. J. Christopher, D. Cui, W. Li, R. Iyer, W. G. Humphreys, and D. Zhang Identification of the Human Enzymes Involved in the Oxidative Metabolism of Dasatinib: An Effective Approach for Determining Metabolite Formation Kinetics Drug Metab. Dispos., September 1, 2008; 36(9): 1828 - 1839. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. Zhang and L.-Y. Lim Effects of Spice Constituents on P-Glycoprotein-Mediated Transport and CYP3A4-Mediated Metabolism in Vitro Drug Metab. Dispos., July 1, 2008; 36(7): 1283 - 1290. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				S. Klieber, S. Hugla, R. Ngo, C. Arabeyre-Fabre, V. Meunier, F. Sadoun, O. Fedeli, M. Rival, M. Bourrie, F. Guillou, et al. Contribution of the N-Glucuronidation Pathway to the Overall in Vitro Metabolic Clearance of Midazolam in Humans Drug Metab. Dispos., May 1, 2008; 36(5): 851 - 862. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. Gertz, P. J. Kilford, J. B. Houston, and A. Galetin Drug Lipophilicity and Microsomal Protein Concentration as Determinants in the Prediction of the Fraction Unbound in Microsomal Incubations Drug Metab. Dispos., March 1, 2008; 36(3): 535 - 542. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M. A. Felmlee, H.-K. Lon, F. J. Gonzalez, and A.-M. Yu Cytochrome P450 Expression and Regulation in CYP3A4/CYP2D6 Double Transgenic Humanized Mice Drug Metab. Dispos., February 1, 2008; 36(2): 435 - 441. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				W. Zhang, T. M. C. Tan, and L.-Y. Lim Impact of Curcumin-Induced Changes in P-Glycoprotein and CYP3A Expression on the Pharmacokinetics of Peroral Celiprolol and Midazolam in Rats Drug Metab. Dispos., January 1, 2007; 35(1): 110 - 115. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				M Iwase, N Kurata, R Ehana, Y Nishimura, T Masamoto, and H Yasuhara Evaluation of the effects of hydrophilic organic solvents on CYP3A-mediated drug-drug interaction in vitro Human and Experimental Toxicology, December 1, 2006; 25(12): 715 - 721. [Abstract] [PDF]

				V. Kumar, J. L. Wahlstrom, D. A. Rock, C. J. Warren, L. A. Gorman, and T. S. Tracy CYP2C9 Inhibition: Impact of Probe Selection and Pharmacogenetics on in Vitro Inhibition Profiles Drug Metab. Dispos., December 1, 2006; 34(12): 1966 - 1975. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. Chen, X.-X. Yang, M. Huang, Z.-P. Hu, M. He, W. Duan, E. Chan, F.-S. Sheu, X. Chen, and S.-F. Zhou Small Interfering RNA-Mediated Silencing of Cytochrome P450 3A4 Gene Drug Metab. Dispos., September 1, 2006; 34(9): 1650 - 1657. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				A. Galetin, H. Burt, L. Gibbons, and J. B. Houston PREDICTION OF TIME-DEPENDENT CYP3A4 DRUG-DRUG INTERACTIONS: IMPACT OF ENZYME DEGRADATION, PARALLEL ELIMINATION PATHWAYS, AND INTESTINAL INHIBITION Drug Metab. Dispos., January 1, 2006; 34(1): 166 - 175. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				R. S. Obach, R. L. Walsky, K. Venkatakrishnan, E. A. Gaman, J. B. Houston, and L. M. Tremaine The Utility of in Vitro Cytochrome P450 Inhibition Data in the Prediction of Drug-Drug Interactions J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., January 1, 2006; 316(1): 336 - 348. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

This Article Abstract Full Text (PDF) All Versions of this Article: jpet.104.082826v1 314/1/180    most recent Submit a response Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when eLetters are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Galetin, A. Articles by Houston, J. B. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Galetin, A. Articles by Houston, J. B. Pubmed/NCBI databases Compound via MeSH Substance via MeSH Hazardous Substances DB MIDAZOLAM HYDROCHLORIDE QUINIDINE QUINIDINE SULFATE TESTOSTERONE