Advertisement

Pharmaceutical Research

, Volume 31, Issue 9, pp 2404–2419 | Cite as

In Vitro and In Situ Evaluation of pH-Dependence of Atazanavir Intestinal Permeability and Interactions with Acid-Reducing Agents

  • Olena Kis
  • Sharon L. Walmsley
  • Reina Bendayan
Research Paper

Abstract

Purpose

The objectives of this study were to evaluate the effects of intestinal lumen pH, food intake, and acid-reducing agents on the intestinal permeability of atazanavir, an HIV-1 protease inhibitor.

Methods

Atazanavir permeability across Caco-2 cell monolayers (P app) and in situ steady-state permeability across rat jejunum and ileum (P eff) were evaluated in buffers of varied pH (4.5–8.5), in fasted- or fed-state simulated intestinal fluid, or in presence of acid-reducing drugs (e.g., omeprazole).

Results

In vitro accumulation and apical-to-basolateral P app of atazanavir increased with decreasing pH. This effect appeared to be associated with lower atazanavir efflux by P-glycoprotein at acidic pH (5.5) compared to neutral pH. In situ atazanavir P eff across rat jejunum and ileum also decreased 2.7 and 2.3-fold, respectively, when pH was increased from 4.5 to 8.5. Several acid-reducing agents (e.g., omeprazole) moderately inhibited atazanavir efflux in Caco-2 monolayers; however, this effect was not observed in situ. Fed-state buffer significantly increased atazanavir apical-to-basolateral P app (p < 0.001) and in situ P eff (p < 0.05) compared to fasted-state buffer.

Conclusions

Atazanavir permeability is sensitive to changes in intestinal lumen pH. This pH-sensitivity may contribute to atazanavir clinical interactions with acid-reducing agents and variable oral bioavailability.

Key words

acid-reducing agents atazanavir HIV-1 protease inhibitors intestinal permeability pH dependence 

ABBREVIATIONS

AUC

area under the curve

Cmax

maximum or peak plasma concentration

CYP

cytochrome P450

H2RA

histamine2-receptor antagonist

HIV

human immunodeficiency virus

MRP

multidrug resistance-associated protein

OATP

organic anion transporting polypeptide

Pgp

P-glycoprotein

PPI

proton-pump inhibitor

SIF

simulated intestinal fluid

Notes

Acknowledgments and disclosures

This work is supported by an operating grant from the Canadian Foundation for AIDS Research Grant #20023, awarded to Dr. Reina Bendayan. Drs. Reina Bendayan and Sharon Walmsley are recipients of the Ontario HIV Treatment Network (OHTN) Career Scientist award. Ms. Olena Kis was supported by Ph.D. studentships from the OHTN, Ministry of Health of Ontario, and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Frederick Banting and Charles Best – Canada Graduate Scholarship.

We thank Dr. David E. Smith, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Michigan College of Pharmacy, for excellent guidance with the implementation of the rodent in situ single-pass perfusion technique and Dr. Carolyn Cummins, Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Toronto, for helpful advice in the design of in vitro and in situ experiments.

References

  1. 1.
    Panel on Antiretroviral Guidelines for Adults and Adolescents. Guidelines for the use of antiretroviral agents in HIV-1 infected adults and adolescents. Department of Health and Human Services; 2013 February 12. Available from: http://aidsinfo.nih.gov/ContentFiles/AdultandAdolescentGL.pdf.
  2. 2.
    Bristol-Myers Squibb Company. REYATAZ® (atazanavir sulfate) Capsules: Prescribing Information. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; 2013 August. Available from: http://packageinserts.bms.com/pi/pi_reyataz.pdf.
  3. 3.
    Bristol-Myers Squibb Company. BMS-232632: Atazanavir briefing document. Bristol-Myers Squibb Company; 2003 May. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/ac/03/briefing/3950B1_01_bristolmyerssquibb-atazanavir.pdf.
  4. 4.
    Busti AJ, Hall RG, Margolis DM. Atazanavir for the treatment of human immunodeficiency virus infection. Pharmacotherapy. 2004;24(12):1732–47.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Welage LS, Carver PL, Revankar S, Pierson C, Kauffman CA. Alterations in gastric acidity in patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus. Clin Infect Dis. 1995;21(6):1431–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Zhu L, Persson A, Mahnke L, Eley T, Li T, Xu X, et al. Effect of low-dose omeprazole (20 mg daily) on the pharmacokinetics of multiple-dose atazanavir with ritonavir in healthy subjects. J Clin Pharmacol. 2011;51(3):368–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Luber AD, Brower R, Kim D, Silverman R, Peloquin CA, Frank I. Steady-state pharmacokinetics of once-daily fosamprenavir/ritonavir and atazanavir/ritonavir alone and in combination with 20 mg omeprazole in healthy volunteers. HIV Med. 2007;8(7):457–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Agarwala S, Gray K, Wang Y, Grasela D. Pharmacokinetic effect of omeprazole on atazanavir coadminstered with ritonavir in healthy subjects. 12th Conference on Retroviruses and Opportunistic Infections. 2005 February 22.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Wang X, Boffito M, Zhang J, Chung E, Zhu L, Wu Y, et al. Effects of the H2-receptor antagonist famotidine on the pharmacokinetics of atazanavir-ritonavir with or without tenofovir in HIV-infected patients. AIDS Patient Care STDS. 2011;25(9):509–15.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shin JM, Kim N. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of the proton pump inhibitors. J Neurogastroenterol Motil. 2013;19(1):25–35.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Janneh O, Anwar T, Jungbauer C, Kopp S, Khoo SH, Back DJ, et al. P-glycoprotein, multidrug resistance-associated proteins and human organic anion transporting polypeptide influence the intracellular accumulation of atazanavir. Antivir Ther. 2009;14(7):965–74.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Dahan A, Miller JM, Amidon GL. Prediction of solubility and permeability class membership: provisional BCS classification of the world’s top oral drugs. AAPS J. 2009;11(4):740–6.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kis O, Zastre JA, Hoque MT, Walmsley SL, Bendayan R. Role of drug efflux and uptake transporters in atazanavir intestinal permeability and drug-drug interactions. Pharm Res. 2013;30(4):1050–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kis O, Robillard K, Chan GN, Bendayan R. The complexities of antiretroviral drug-drug interactions: role of ABC and SLC transporters. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 2010;31(1):22–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bierman WF, Scheffer GL, Schoonderwoerd A, Jansen G, van Agtmael MA, Danner SA, et al. Protease inhibitors atazanavir, lopinavir and ritonavir are potent blockers, but poor substrates, of ABC transporters in a broad panel of ABC transporter-overexpressing cell lines. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2010;65(8):1672–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Li W, Zeng S, Yu LS, Zhou Q. Pharmacokinetic drug interaction profile of omeprazole with adverse consequences and clinical risk management. Ther Clin Risk Manag. 2013;9:259–71.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ito S, Kusuhara H, Yokochi M, Toyoshima J, Inoue K, Yuasa H, et al. Competitive inhibition of the luminal efflux by multidrug and toxin extrusions, but not basolateral uptake by organic cation transporter 2, is the likely mechanism underlying the pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions caused by cimetidine in the kidney. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2012;340(2):393–403.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Moss DM, Siccardi M, Murphy M, Piperakis MM, Khoo SH, Back DJ, et al. Divalent metals and pH alter raltegravir disposition in vitro. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2012;56(6):3020–6.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Klein S. The use of biorelevant dissolution media to forecast the in vivo performance of a drug. AAPS J. 2010;12(3):397–406.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hubatsch I, Ragnarsson EG, Artursson P. Determination of drug permeability and prediction of drug absorption in Caco-2 monolayers. Nat Protoc. 2007;2(9):2111–9.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Kis O, Zastre JA, Ramaswamy M, Bendayan R. pH dependence of organic anion-transporting polypeptide 2B1 in Caco-2 cells: potential role in antiretroviral drug oral bioavailability and drug-drug interactions. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2010;334(3):1009–22.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Dahan A, Amidon GL. Segmental dependent transport of low permeability compounds along the small intestine due to P-glycoprotein: the role of efflux transport in the oral absorption of BCS class III drugs. Mol Pharm. 2009;6(1):19–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Lin JH. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of histamine H2-receptor antagonists. Relationship between intrinsic potency and effective plasma concentrations. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1991;20(3):218–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fulco PP, Vora UB, Bearman GM. Acid suppressive therapy and the effects on protease inhibitors. Ann Pharmacother. 2006;40(11):1974–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Volpe DA, Faustino PJ, Ciavarella AB, Asafu-Adjaye EB, Ellison CD, Yu LX, et al. Classification of drug permeability with a Caco-2 cell monolayer assay. Clin Res Regul Aff. 2007;24(1):39–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Volpe DA. Application of method suitability for drug permeability classification. AAPS J. 2010;12(4):670–8.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zakeri-Milani P, Valizadeh H, Tajerzadeh H, Islambulchilar Z. The utility of rat jejunal permeability for biopharmaceutics classification system. Drug Dev Ind Pharm. 2009;35(12):1496–502.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kim JS, Mitchell S, Kijek P, Tsume Y, Hilfinger J, Amidon GL. The suitability of an in situ perfusion model for permeability determinations: utility for BCS class I biowaiver requests. Mol Pharm. 2006;3(6):686–94.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Benet LZ. Predicting drug disposition via application of a Biopharmaceutics Drug Disposition Classification System. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2010;106(3):162–7.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Taipalensuu J, Tornblom H, Lindberg G, Einarsson C, Sjoqvist F, Melhus H, et al. Correlation of gene expression of ten drug efflux proteins of the ATP-binding cassette transporter family in normal human jejunum and in human intestinal epithelial Caco-2 cell monolayers. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2001;299(1):164–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zastre JA, Chan GN, Ronaldson PT, Ramaswamy M, Couraud PO, Romero IA, et al. Up-regulation of P-glycoprotein by HIV protease inhibitors in a human brain microvessel endothelial cell line. J Neurosci Res. 2009;87(4):1023–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Simon S, Roy D, Schindler M. Intracellular pH and the control of multidrug resistance. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 1994;91(3):1128–32.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Aller SG, Yu J, Ward A, Weng Y, Chittaboina S, Zhuo R, et al. Structure of P-glycoprotein reveals a molecular basis for poly-specific drug binding. Science. 2009;323(5922):1718–22.PubMedCrossRefPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Clay AT, Sharom FJ. Lipid bilayer properties control membrane partitioning, binding, and transport of p-glycoprotein substrates. Biochemistry. 2013;52(2):343–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Thews O, Dillenburg W, Fellner M, Buchholz HG, Bausbacher N, Schreckenberger M, et al. Activation of P-glycoprotein (Pgp)-mediated drug efflux by extracellular acidosis: in vivo imaging with 68Ga-labelled PET tracer. Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging. 2010;37(10):1935–42.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Thews O, Dillenburg W, Rosch F, Fellner M. PET imaging of the impact of extracellular pH and MAP kinases on the p-glycoprotein (Pgp) activity. Adv Exp Med Biol. 2013;765:279–86.Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Lotz C, Kelleher DK, Gassner B, Gekle M, Vaupel P, Thews O. Role of the tumor microenvironment in the activity and expression of the p-glycoprotein in human colon carcinoma cells. Oncol Rep. 2007;17(1):239–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    MacLean C, Moenning U, Reichel A, Fricker G. Closing the gaps: a full scan of the intestinal expression of p-glycoprotein, breast cancer resistance protein, and multidrug resistance-associated protein 2 in male and female rats. Drug Metab Dispos. 2008;36(7):1249–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Dahan A, Sabit H, Amidon GL. Multiple efflux pumps are involved in the transepithelial transport of colchicine: combined effect of p-glycoprotein and multidrug resistance-associated protein 2 leads to decreased intestinal absorption throughout the entire small intestine. Drug Metab Dispos. 2009;37(10):2028–36.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Stephens RH, O’Neill CA, Warhurst A, Carlson GL, Rowland M, Warhurst G. Kinetic profiling of P-glycoprotein-mediated drug efflux in rat and human intestinal epithelia. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2001;296(2):584–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Pauli-Magnus C, Rekersbrink S, Klotz U, Fromm MF. Interaction of omeprazole, lansoprazole and pantoprazole with P-glycoprotein. Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol. 2001;364(6):551–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Collett A, Tanianis-Hughes J, Carlson GL, Harwood MD, Warhurst G. Comparison of P-glycoprotein-mediated drug-digoxin interactions in Caco-2 with human and rodent intestine: relevance to in vivo prediction. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2005;26(5):386–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Hilgendorf C, Ahlin G, Seithel A, Artursson P, Ungell AL, Karlsson J. Expression of thirty-six drug transporter genes in human intestine, liver, kidney, and organotypic cell lines. Drug Metab Dispos. 2007;35(8):1333–40.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Carey MC, Small DM. Micelle formation by bile salts. Physical-chemical and thermodynamic considerations. Arch Intern Med. 1972;130(4):506–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ilback NG, Nyblom M, Carlfors J, Fagerlund-Aspenstrom B, Tavelin S, Glynn AW. Do surface-active lipids in food increase the intestinal permeability to toxic substances and allergenic agents? Med Hypotheses. 2004;63(4):724–30.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Cao X, Yu L, Sun D. Drug absorption principles. In: Krishna R, Yu L, editors. Biopharmaceutics applications in drug development. USA: Springer; 2008. p. 75–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Urquhart BL, Tirona RG, Kim RB. Nuclear receptors and the regulation of drug-metabolizing enzymes and drug transporters: implications for interindividual variability in response to drugs. J Clin Pharmacol. 2007;47(5):566–78.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Koutsounas I, Theocharis S, Patsouris E, Giaginis C. Pregnane X receptor (PXR) at the crossroads of human metabolism and disease. Curr Drug Metab. 2013;14(3):341–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Olena Kis
    • 1
  • Sharon L. Walmsley
    • 2
    • 3
  • Reina Bendayan
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Pharmaceutical Sciences, Leslie Dan Faculty of PharmacyUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  2. 2.Department of MedicineUniversity of TorontoTorontoCanada
  3. 3.Division of Infectious DiseasesUniversity Health NetworkTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations