Advertisement

Design and Data Analysis in Drug Interaction Studies

  • David Nix
  • Keith Gallicano
Part of the Infectious Disease book series (ID)

Abstract

Drug interaction studies should be considered for drugs that are likely to be administered concomitantly to large numbers of patients. The drugs may be indicated for the same disease process and their use in combination is considered therapeutically rational. Alternatively, the drugs may have different indications, but the two disease processes occur frequently in the same population. Drugs involved in interactions are divided into precipitant drugs (drugs that cause a change in the pharmacokinetics and/or pharmacodynamics of another drug) and object drugs (drugs affected by the precipitant drug). A drug can act as a precipitant drug and an object drug at the same time when two drugs effect each other during concomitant administration.

Keywords

Drug Interaction Renal Clearance Antimicrob Agent Tubular Secretion Bioequivalence Study 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Ekins S. Past, present, and future applications of precision-cut liver slices for in vitro xenobiotic metabolism. Drug Metabol Rev 1996; 28: 591–623.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Decker CJ, Laitinen LM, Bridson GW, Raybuck SA, Tung RD, Chaturvedi PR. Metabolism of amprenavir in liver microsomes: role of CYP3A4 inhibition for drug interactions. J Pharm Sci 1998; 87: 803–807.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bonnabry P, Sievering J, Leemann T, Dayer P. Quantitative drug interactions prediction system (Q-DIPS): a computer-based prediction and management support system for drug metabolism interactions. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1999; 55: 341–347.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rodrigues AD, Wong SL. Application of human liver microsomes in metabolism-based drug-drug interactions: in vitro-in vivo correlations and the Abbott Laboratories experience. Adv Pharmacol 1997; 43: 65–101.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Koudriakova T, Iatsimirskaia E, Utkin I, et al. Metabolism of the human immunodeficiency virus protease inhibitors indinavir and ritonavir by human intestinal microsomes and expressed cytochrome P4503A4/3A5: mechanism-based inactivation of cytochrome P4503A by ritonavir. Drug Metab Dispos 1998; 26: 552–561.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rolan PE. Plasma protein binding displacement interactions—why are they still regarded as clinically important? Br J Clin Pharmacol 1994; 37: 125–128.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sansom LN, Evans AM. What is the true clinical significance of plasma protein binding displacement interactions? Drug Safety 1995; 12: 227–233.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Gallicano KD, Sahai J, Shukla VK, et al. Induction of zidovudine glucuronidation and amination pathways by rifampicin in HIV-infected patients. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1999; 48: 168–179.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ormsby E. Statistical methods in bioequivalence. In: Jackson AJ (ed.). Generics and Bioequivalence. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, 1994, pp. 1–27.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fleiss JL. A critique of recent research on the two-treatment crossover design. Controlled Clin. Trials 1989; 10: 237–243.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Vuorinen J. A practical approach for the assessment of bioequivalence under selected higher-order cross-over design. Stat Med 1997; 16: 2229–2243.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Chow SC, Liu JP. On assessment of bioequivalence under a higher-order crossover design. J Biopharm Stat 1992; 2: 239–256.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nix DE, Di Cicco RA, Miller AK, et al. The effect of low-dose cimetidine (200 mg twice daily) on the pharmacokinetics of theophylline. J Clin Pharmacol 1999; 39: 855–865.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grasela TH Jr, Antal EJ, Ereshefsky L, et al. An evaluation of population pharmacokinetics in therapeutic trials. Part II. Detection of a drug-drug interaction. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1987; 42: 433–441.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cadieux RJ. Drug interactions in the elderly. How multiple drug use increases risk exponentially. Postgrad Med 1989; 86: 179–186.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Piscitelli SC, Goss TF, Wilton JH, D’Andrea DT, Goldstein H, Schentag JJ. Effects of ranitidine and sucralfate on ketoconazole bioavailability. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1991; 35: 1765–771.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Blum RA, D’Andrea DT, Florentino BM, et al. Increased gastric pH and the bioavailability of fluconazole and ketoconazole. Ann Intern Med 1991; 114: 755–757.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Lebsack ME, Nix D, Ryerson B, et al. Effect of gastric acidity on enoxacin absorption. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1992; 52: 252–256.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Lehto P, Kivisto KT, Neuvonen PJ. The effect of ferrous sulphate on the absorption of norfloxacin, ciprofloxacin and ofloxacin. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1994; 37: 82–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nix DE, Watson WA, Lener ME, et al. Effects of aluminum and magnesium antacids and ranitidine on the absorption of ciprofloxacin. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1989; 46: 700–705.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Parpia SH, Nix DE, Hejmanowski LG, Goldstein, HR, Wilton, JH, Schentag JJ. Sucralfate reduces the gastrointestinal absorption of norfloxacin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1989; 33: 99–102.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Jungbluth GL, Pasko MT, Beam TR, Jusko WJ. Ceftriaxone disposition in open-heart surgery patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1989; 33: 850–856.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Megran DW, Lefebvre K, Willetts V, Bowie WR. Single-dose oral cefixime versus amoxicillin plus probenecid for the treatment of uncomplicated gonorrhea in men. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1990; 34: 355–357.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gaspari F, Perico N, Remuzzi G. Measurement of glomerular filtration rate. Kidney Int 1997; 63 (suppl.):S 151–5154.Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Brochner-Mortensen J. Current status on assessment and measurement of glomerular filtration rate. Clin Physiol 1985; 5: 1–17.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Hellerstein S, Berenbom M, Alon US, Warady BA. Creatinine clearance following cimetidine for estimation of glomerular filtration rate. Pediatr Nephrol 1998; 12: 49–54.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Levey AS, Bosch JP, Breyer-Lewis J, Greene T, Rogers N, Roth D. A more accurate method to estimate glomerular filtration rate from serum creatinine: a new prediction equation. Ann Intern Med 1999; 130: 461–470.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Baciewicz AM, Self TH. Rifampin drug interactions. Arch Intern Med 1984; 144: 1667–1671.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Wandel C, Bocker R, Bohrer H, Browne A, Rugheimer E, Martin E. Midazolam is metabolized by at least three different cytochrome P450 enzymes. Br J Anaesth 1994; 73: 658–661.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Thummel KE, Shen DD, Podoll TD, et al. Use of midazolam as a human cytochrome P450 3A probe: II. Characterization of inter-and intraindividual hepatic CYP3A variability after liver transplantation. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1994; 271: 557–566.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Lown KS, Thummel KE, Benedict PE, et al. The erythromycin breath test predicts the clearance of midazolam. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1995; 57: 16–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Watkins PB, Turgeon DK, Saenger P, et al. Comparison of urinary 6-beta-cortisol and the erythromycin breath test as measures of hepatic P450IIIA (CYP3A) activity. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1992; 52: 265–273.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Hunt CM, Watkins PB, Saenger P, et al. Heterogeneity of CYP3A isoforms metabolizing erythromycin and cortisol. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1992; 51: 18–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sarkar MA, Jackson BJ. Theophylline N-demethylations as probes for P4501A1 and P4501A2. Drug Metab Dispos 1994; 22: 827–834.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ziebell J, Shaw-Stiffel T. Update on the use of metabolic probes to quantify liver function: caffeine versus lidocaine. Digest Dis 1995; 13: 239–250.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Anthony LB, Boeve TJ, Hande KR. Cytochrome P-450I1D6 phenotyping in cancer patients: debrisoquin and dextromethorphan as probes. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 1995; 36: 125–128.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Flockhart DA. Drug interactions and the cytochrome P450 system. The role of cytochrome P450 2C19. Clin Pharmacokin 1995; 29 (suppl. 1): 45–52.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Fuhr U, Rost KL, Engelhardt R, et al. Evaluation of caffeine as a test drug for CYP1A2, NAT2 and CYP2E1 phenotyping in man by in vivo versus in vitro correlations. Pharmacogenetics 1996; 6: 159–176.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Brockmoller J, Rost KL, Gross D, Schenkel A, Roots I. Phenotyping of CYP2C19 with enantiospecific HPLC-quantification of R- and S-mephenytoin and comparison with the intron4/exon5 G-*A-splice site mutation. Pharmacogenetics 1995; 5: 80–88.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Tanaka E. Clinically important pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions: role of cytochrome P450 enzymes. J Clin Pharm Ther 1998; 23: 403–416.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Lomaestro BM, Piatek MA. Update on drug interactions with azole antifungal agents. Ann Pharmacother 1998; 32: 915–928.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Caraco Y. Genetic determinants of drug responsiveness and drug interactions. Ther Drug Monitor 1998; 20: 517–524.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Shannon M. Drug-drug interactions and the cytochrome P450 system: an update. Pediatr Emerg Care 1997; 13: 350–353.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Guengerich FP. Role of cytochrome P450 enzymes in drug-drug interactions. Adv Pharmacol 1997; 43: 7–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Zachariasen RD. Loss of oral contraceptive efficacy by concurrent antibiotic administration. Women Health 1994; 22: 17–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Nguyen VX, Nix DE, Gillikin S, Schentag JJ. Effect of oral antacid administration on the pharmacokinetics of intravenous doxycycline. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1989; 33: 434–436.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Neuvonen PJ, Penttila O. Effect of oral ferrous sulphate on the half-life of doxycycline in man. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1974; 7: 361–363.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Sorgel F, Granneman GR, Mahr G, Kujath P, Fabian W, Nickel P. Hepatobiliary elimination of temafloxacin. Clin Pharmacokin 1992; 22 (suppl 1): 33–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Guidance for Industry. In vivo drug metabolism/drug interaction studies-study design, data analysis, and recommendations for dosing and labeling. November 1999. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration. Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Note for Guidance on the investigation of drug interactions (December 1997). Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP), The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products Human Medicines Evaluation Unit.Google Scholar
  51. 51.
    Müller H-J, Gundert-Remy U. The regulatory view on drug-drug interactions. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 1994; 32: 269–273.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Hitzenberger G, Steinijans VW. To reject or not to reject recent experience with bioequivalence papers. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 1994; 32: 161–164.Google Scholar
  53. 53.
    Waller PC, Jackson PR, Tucker GT, Ramsay LE. Clinical pharmacology with confidence. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1994; 37: 309–310.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Fuhr U, Weiss M, Kroemer HK, Systematic screening for pharmacokinetic interactions during drug development. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 1996; 34: 139–151.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Kuhlmann J. Drug interaction studies during drug development: which, when, how? Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 1994; 32: 305–311.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Pidgen AW. Statistical aspects of bioequivalence-a review. Xenobiotica 1992; 22: 881–893.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Steinijans VW, Hartmanns M, Huber R, Radtke HW. Lack of pharmacokinetic interaction as an equivalence problem. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol 1991; 29: 323–328.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Gallicano KD, Sahai J, Swick L, Seguin I, Pakuts A, Cameron DW. Effect of rifabutin on the pharmacokinetics of zidovudine in patients infected with human immunodeficiency virus. Clin Infect Dis 1995; 21: 1008–1011.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    De Wit S, Debier M, De Smet M, et al. Effect of fluconazole on indinavir pharmacokinetics in human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1998; 42: 223–227.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Huang S-M, Lesko LJ, Williams RL. Assessment of the quality and quantity of drug-drug interaction studies in recent NDA submissions: study design and data analysis issues. J Clin Pharmacol 1999; 39: 1006–1014.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Chow S-C, Liu J-P. (eds). Design and analysis of bioavailability and bioequivalence studies. New York, NY: Marcel Dekker, 1992.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Wijnand HP. Some nonparametric confidence intervals are non-informative, notably in bioequivalence studies. Clin Res Reg Affairs 1996; 13: 65–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Midha KK, Ormsby ED, Hubbard JW, et al. Logarithmic transformation in bioequivalence: application with two formulations of perphenazine. J Pharm Sci 1993; 82: 138–144.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Hauschke D, Steinijans VW, Diletti E, et al. Presentation of the intrasubject coefficient of variation for sample size planning in bioequivalence studies. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 1994; 32: 376–378.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Steinijans VW, Sauter R, Hauschke D, et al. Reference tables for the intrasubject coefficient of variation in bioequivalence studies. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 1995; 33: 427–430.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Diletti E, Hauschke D, Steinijans VW. Sample size determination: extended tables for the multiplicative model and bioequivalence ranges of 0.9 to 1.11 and 0.7 to 1.43. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol 1992; 8: 287–290.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Hauschke D, Steinijans VW, Diletti E, Burke M. Sample size determination for bioequivalence assessment using a multiplicative model. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 1992; 20: 557–561.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Lui J-P, Chow S-C. Sample size determination for the two one-sided tests procedure in bioequivalence. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 1992; 20: 101–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Gallicano K, Sahai J, Zaror-Behrens G, Pakuts A. Effect of antacids in didanosine tablet on bioavailability of isoniazid. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1994; 38: 894–897.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Schall R, Hundt HKL, Luus HG. Pharmacokinetic characteristics for extent of absorption and clearance in drug/drug interaction studies. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 1994; 32: 633–637.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Tozer TN, Bois FY, Hauck WW, Chen M-L, Williams RL. Absorption rate vs. exposure: which is more useful for bioequivalence testing? Pharm Res 1996; 13: 453–456.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Hsu A, Granneman GR, Cao G, et al. Pharmacokinetic interaction between ritonavir and indinavir in healthy volunteers. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 1998; 42: 2784–2791.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2001

Authors and Affiliations

  • David Nix
  • Keith Gallicano

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations