Drug–drug interaction of microdose and regular-dose omeprazole with a CYP2C19 inhibitor and inducer
Authors Park G, Bae SH, Park W, Han S, Park M, Shin S, Shin YG, Yim DS
Received 10 January 2017
Accepted for publication 13 March 2017
Published 30 March 2017 Volume 2017:11 Pages 1043—1053
Checked for plagiarism Yes
Review by Single-blind
Peer reviewers approved by Dr Rasika Samarasinghe
Peer reviewer comments 2
Editor who approved publication: Professor Jianbo Sun
Gab-jin Park,1 Soo Hyeon Bae,1 Wan-Su Park,1 Seunghoon Han,1 Min-Ho Park,2 Seok-Ho Shin,2 Young G Shin,2 Dong-Seok Yim1,2
1Department of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Seoul St Mary’s Hospital, PIPET (Pharmacometrics Institute for Practical Education and Training), College of Medicine, Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, South Korea; 2College of Pharmacy, Chungnam National University, Daejeon, South Korea
Purpose: A microdose drug–drug interaction (DDI) study may be a valuable tool for anticipating drug interaction at therapeutic doses. This study aimed to compare the magnitude of DDIs at microdoses and regular doses to explore the applicability of a microdose DDI study.
Patients and methods: Six healthy male volunteer subjects were enrolled into each DDI study of omeprazole (victim) and known perpetrators: fluconazole (inhibitor) and rifampin (inducer). For both studies, the microdose (100 µg, cold compound) and the regular dose (20 mg) of omeprazole were given at days 0 and 1, respectively. On days 2–9, the inhibitor or inducer was given daily, and the microdose and regular dose of omeprazole were repeated at days 8 and 9, respectively. Full omeprazole pharmacokinetic samplings were performed at days 0, 1, 8, and 9 of both studies for noncompartmental analysis.
Results: The magnitude of the DDI, the geometric mean ratios (with perpetrator/omeprazole only) of maximum concentration (Cmax) and area under the curve to the last measurement (AUCt) of the microdose and the regular dose were compared. The geometric mean ratios in the inhibition study were: 2.17 (micro) and 2.68 (regular) for Cmax, and 4.07 (micro), 4.33 (regular) for AUCt. For the induction study, they were 0.26 (micro) and 0.21 (regular) for Cmax, and 0.16 (micro) and 0.15 (regular) for AUCt. There were no significant statistical differences in the magnitudes of DDIs between microdose and regular-dose conditions, regardless of induction or inhibition.
Conclusion: Our results may be used as partial evidence that microdose DDI studies may replace regular-dose studies, or at least be used for DDI-screening purposes.
Keywords: drug–drug interaction, microdose, CYP2C19
Other articles by this author:
Hong T, Han S, Lee J, Jeon S, Yim DS
Published Date: 7 December 2016
Exposure–response model for sibutramine and placebo: suggestion for application to long-term weight-control drug development
Han S, Jeon S, Hong T, Lee J, Bae SH, Park WS, Park G, Youn S, Jang DY, Kim KS, Yim DS
Published Date: 9 September 2015
Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic analysis to evaluate the effect of moxifloxacin on QT interval prolongation in healthy Korean male subjects
Hong T, Han S, Lee J, Jeon S, Park GJ, Park WS, Lim KS, Chung JY, Yu KS, Yim DS
Published Date: 26 February 2015