Back to Journals » Drug Design, Development and Therapy » Volume 11

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

DOI https://doi.org/10.2147/DDDT.S131797

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

Creative Commons License This work is published and licensed by Dove Medical Press Limited. The full terms of this license are available at https://www.dovepress.com/terms.php and incorporate the Creative Commons Attribution - Non Commercial (unported, v3.0) License. By accessing the work you hereby accept the Terms. Non-commercial uses of the work are permitted without any further permission from Dove Medical Press Limited, provided the work is properly attributed. For permission for commercial use of this work, please see paragraphs 4.2 and 5 of our Terms.

Download Article [PDF]  View Full Text [HTML][Machine readable]

 

Other articles by this author:

Comparison of oral absorption models for pregabalin: usefulness of transit compartment model

Hong T, Han S, Lee J, Jeon S, Yim DS

Drug Design, Development and Therapy 2016, 10:3995-4003

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

Drug Design, Development and Therapy 2015, 9:5185-5194

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

Drug Design, Development and Therapy 2015, 9:1233-1245

Published Date: 26 February 2015