Rifampicin markedly decreases the exposure to oral and intravenous tramadol

Investigation of Drug-Interaction Potential for Arthritis Dietary Supplements: Chondroitin Sulfate, Glucosamine, and Methylsulfonylmethane

Osteoarthritis is one of the leading conditions that promote the consumption of these dietary supplements. Chondroitin sulfate, glucosamine, and methylsulfonylmethane are among the prominent alternative treatments for osteoarthritis. In this study, these dietary supplements were incubated with cytochrome P450 isozyme-specific substrates in human liver microsomes, and the formation of marker metabolites was measured to investigate their inhibitory potential on cytochrome P450 enzyme activities. The results revealed no significant inhibitory effects on seven CYPs, consistent with established related research data. Therefore, these substances are anticipated to have a low potential for cytochrome P450-mediated drug interactions with osteoarthritis medications that are likely to be co-administered. However, given the previous reports of interaction cases involving glucosamine, caution is advised regarding dietary supplement-drug interactions.

Tapentadol Versus Tramadol: A Narrative and Comparative Review of Their Pharmacological, Efficacy and Safety Profiles in Adult Patients

We conducted a narrative review of the literature to compare the pharmacological, efficacy and safety profiles of tapentadol and tramadol, and to assess the clinical interest of tapentadol in adult patients. Tapentadol and tramadol share a mixed mechanism of action, including both mu-agonist and monoaminergic properties. Tapentadol is approximately two to three times more potent than tramadol and two to three times less potent than morphine. It has no identified analgesically active metabolite and is not significantly metabolised by cytochrome P450 enzymes, thus overcoming some limitations of tramadol, including the potential for pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions and interindividual variability due to genetic polymorphisms of cytochrome P450 enzymes. The toxicity profiles of tramadol and tapentadol are similar; however tapentadol is likely to result in less exposure to serotoninergic adverse effects (nausea, vomiting, hypoglycaemia) but cause more opioid adverse effects (constipation, respiratory depression, abuse) than tramadol. The safety of tapentadol in real-world conditions remains poorly documented, particularly in at-risk patient subgroups and also in the ability to assess the risk associated with its residual serotonergic activity (serotonin syndrome, seizures). Because of an earlier market introduction, more real-world safety data are available for tramadol, including data from at-risk patient subgroups. The level of evidence on the efficacy of both tramadol and tapentadol for the treatment of chronic pain is globally low. The trials published to date show overall that tapentadol does not provide a clinically significant analgesic improvement compared to existing treatments, for which the safety profile is much better known. In conclusion, tapentadol is not a first-line opioid but represents an additional analgesic in the therapeutic choices, which some patients may benefit from after careful examination of their clinical situation, co-morbidities and co-medications.

Clinical outcomes of concomitant rifamycin and opioid therapy: A systematic review

Opioids are one of the most prescribed classes of analgesic medications. Their narrow therapeutic index and metabolism through cytochrome p450 (CYP) enzymes can result in a drug interaction when used concomitantly with rifamycins. In clinical scenarios where concurrent therapy with an opioid and a rifamycin occurs, there is no standardized guidance for managing the interaction. The objective of this review was to examine literature which evaluates the concomitant use of opioids and rifamycins with clinically relevant CYP-inducing properties. A systematic review following the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) criteria was performed. PubMed, Scopus, and OVID Embase were queried for studies from database inception to January 2020 related to rifamycin and opioid medications. Only full-text, peer-reviewed, English language articles addressing clinical outcomes from concomitant rifamycin and opioid therapy were included. The review isolated 12 articles for data extraction from an original 2260 citations identified. Rifampin (11; 92%) and rifabutin (2; 17%) were the rifamycins studied along with seven different opioids. Decreased effect of opioids with concomitant rifampin therapy manifested as withdrawal in numerous patients on methadone and a decreased analgesic effect from tramadol, morphine, and, most notably, oxycodone. Only the combinations of rifampin with buccal fentanyl and rifabutin with buprenorphine and methadone were found to have no clinically measurable interaction. Available literature suggests that a decrease in opioid clinical effects is appreciated with concomitant rifamycin therapy. Further research is needed to focus on specific mitigation strategies beyond opioid agent selection, such as dosing adjustment recommendations.

Rifampin Reduces the Plasma Concentrations of Oral and Intravenous Hydromorphone in Healthy Volunteers

Several opioids are metabolized by the inducible cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A isozymes. Coadministration with strong inducers of drug metabolism, such as rifampin, can dramatically reduce systemic exposure to these opioids. As the CYP metabolism of hydromorphone is of minor importance, we studied in healthy volunteers whether hydromorphone would be an effective analgesic for patients who concomitantly receive the prototypical enzyme inducer rifampin.

The effects of cytochrome P450 2D6 inhibitors on a high-dose tramadol taper for medically supervised opioid withdrawal: a retrospective chart review

Background: Tramadol is used off-label for medically supervised opioid withdrawal. Tramadol is metabolized by CYP2D6 to an active metabolite with significantly more pharmacologic activity compared to the parent compound.Objectives: The objective of this study is to evaluate the effects of CYP2D6 inhibitors on patient response to a tramadol taper for medically supervised opioid withdrawal.Methods: A retrospective chart review of patients who received a tramadol taper for medically supervised opioid withdrawal was conducted comparing patients who received concomitant moderate-to-strong CYP2D6 inhibitors to patients without concomitant therapy. The primary outcome was the change in Clinical Institute Narcotic Assessment (CINA) scores from baseline to discharge. Secondary outcomes included area under the curve of CINA scores over time, additional CINA outcomes, length of stay, and readmissions.Results: Of 100 charts reviewed, 30 patients received a concomitant moderate-to-strong CYP2D6 inhibitor. There were no statistically significant differences between the baseline demographics of the two groups. Change from baseline CINA to discharge did not differ significantly between the Non-2D6 group and the 2D6 group (-4.0 ± 3.83 and -4.5 ± 4.48 respectively; p = 0.606). The average CINA score for nausea and vomiting was significantly higher in the Non-2D6 group compared to the 2D6 group (0.34 ± 0.35 and 0.18 ± 0.33 respectively; p = 0.019). Otherwise there were no significant differences found in any secondary outcomes.Conclusions: Based on these results, moderate-to-strong CYP2D6 inhibitors do not appear to have a significant impact on the withdrawal course for patients treated with a high-dose tramadol taper.

ADME and toxicity considerations for tramadol: from basic research to clinical implications

INTRODUCTION

Tramadol is widely being used in chronic pain management for improving patients' life quality and reducing trauma. Although it is listed in several medicinal guidelines, its use is controversial because of the conflicting results obtained in pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic studies. This multi-receptor drug acts as µ₁ opioid receptor agonist, monoamine reuptake inhibitor, and inhibitor of ligand-gated ion channels and some special protein-coupled receptors.

AREAS COVERED

This review provides a comprehensive view on the pharmacokinetic, pharmacodynamic, and toxicity of tramadol with a deep look on its side effects, biochemical and pathological changes, and possible drug interactions. In addition, the main ways of tramadol poisoning management describe according to in vivo and clinical trial studies.

EXPERT OPINION

Given the broad spectrum of targets, increasing the cases of overdoses and toxicity, and probable drugs interaction, it is necessary to take another look at the pharmacology of tramadol. Regarding the adverse effects of tramadol on different tissues, especially the nervous system and liver tissue, more attentions to tramadol metabolites, their interaction with other drugs, and active agents seem critical. Seizure as the most cited effect of tramadol and its destructive effects on tissues would alleviate by co-administration with drugs with antioxidant properties.

Desmetramadol Has the Safety and Analgesic Profile of Tramadol Without Its Metabolic Liabilities: Consecutive Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo- and Active Comparator-Controlled Trials

Desmetramadol is an investigational analgesic consisting of (+) and (-) enantiomers of the tramadol metabolite O-desmethyltramadol (M1). Tramadol is racemic and exerts analgesia by monoaminergic effects of (-)-tramadol and (-)-M1, and by the opioid (+)-M1. Tramadol labeling indicates cytochrome P450 (CYP) isozyme 2D6 ultrarapid metabolizer can produce dangerous (+)-M1 levels, and CYP2D6 poor metabolizers insufficient (+)-M1 for analgesia. We hypothesized that desmetramadol could provide the safety and analgesia of tramadol without its metabolic liabilities. We conducted consecutive double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, 3 segment cross-over trials A and B to investigate the steady-state pharmacokinetics and analgesia of 20 mg desmetramadol and 50 mg tramadol in 103 healthy participants without (n = 43) and with (n = 60) cotreatment with the CYP inhibitor paroxetine. In the absence of CYP inhibition (trial A), 20 mg desmetramadol and 50 mg tramadol dosed every 6 hours gave equivalent steady-state (+)-M1, similar adverse events, and analgesia significantly greater than placebo, but equal to each other. In trial B, CYP inhibition significantly depressed tramadol steady-state (+)-M1, reduced its adverse events, and led to insignificant analgesia comparable with placebo. In contrast, CYP inhibition in trial B had no deleterious effect on desmetramadol (+)-M1 or (-)-M1, which gave significant analgesia as in trial A and superior to tramadol (P = .003). Desmetramadol has the safety and efficacy of tramadol without its metabolic liabilities. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV REGISTRATIONS: NCT02205554, NCT03312777 PERSPECTIVE: To our knowledge, this is the first study of desmetramadol in humans and the first to show it provides the same safety and analgesia as tramadol, but without tramadol's metabolic liabilities and related drug-drug interactions. Desmetramadol could potentially offer expanded safety and usefulness to clinicians seeking an alternative to schedule II opioids.

Efficacy of Tramadol for Pain Management in Patients Receiving Strong Cytochrome P450 2D6 Inhibitors

STUDY OBJECTIVE

Tramadol is metabolized by cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2D6 to form an active metabolite that exhibits its analgesic effect. Medications that inhibit this enzyme are used often in practice, yet the clinical impact of this interaction on the analgesic effects of tramadol has yet to be fully described. The objective was to determine whether a clinically relevant decrease in pain control is observed in patients taking scheduled tramadol concomitantly with a strong CYP2D6 inhibitor.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

SETTING

Large health care system.

PATIENTS

One hundred fifty-two adult inpatients who received scheduled tramadol for at least 24 hours with (76 patients) or without (76 patients) a strong CYP2D6 inhibitor between January 1, 2012, and February 28, 2017, were included in the analysis. Patients hospitalized for opioid use disorder or those receiving substandard dosing of tramadol were excluded.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The primary outcome was mean breakthrough opiate consumption in the presence and absence of CYP2D6 inhibitors. Secondary outcomes included mean pain scores, length of hospital stay, tramadol discontinuation rates, and prespecified subgroup analyses based on patient sex, race, and specific CYP2D6 inhibitor administered. Patients receiving concurrent CYP2D6 inhibitors required significantly more breakthrough morphine milligram equivalents per day compared with patients receiving scheduled tramadol without CYP2D6 inhibitors (geometric mean ± SD 18.2 ± 6.3 vs 5.7 ± 6.7 mg morphine milligram equivalents, p<0.001). No significant differences existed between cohorts for mean pain score, length of hospital stay, or tramadol discontinuation rate.

CONCLUSION

This study demonstrated a clinically relevant decrease in the efficacy of tramadol when used for pain control in patients receiving a strong CYP2D6 inhibitor. These results should encourage clinicians to review medication lists for this interaction and adjust regimens accordingly to ensure adequate pain control.

Simultaneously predict pharmacokinetic interaction of rifampicin with oral versus intravenous substrates of cytochrome P450 3A/P‑glycoprotein to healthy human using a semi-physiologically based pharmacokinetic model involving both enzyme and transporter turnover

Several reports demonstrated that rifampicin affected pharmacokinetics of victim drugs following oral more than intravenous administration. We aimed to establish a semi-physiologically based pharmacokinetic (semi-PBPK) model involving both enzyme and transporter turnover to simultaneously predict pharmacokinetic interaction of rifampicin with oral versus intravenous substrates of cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4/P‑glycoprotein (P-GP) in human. Rifampicin was chosen as the CYP3A /P-GP inducer. Thirteen victim drugs including P-GP substrates (digoxin and talinolol), CYP3A substrates (alfentanil, midazolam, nifedipine, ondansetron and oxycodone), dual substrates of CYP3A/P-GP (quinidine, cyclosporine A, tacrolimus and verapamil) and complex substrates (S-ketamine and tramadol) were chosen to investigate drug-drug interactions (DDIs) with rifampicin. Corresponding parameters were cited from literatures. Before and after multi-dose of oral rifampicin, the pharmacokinetic profiles of victim drugs for oral or intravenous administration to human were predicted using the semi-PBPK model and compared with the observed values. Contribution of both CYP3A and P-GP induction in intestine and liver by rifampicin to pharmacokinetic profiles of victim drugs was investigated. The predicted pharmacokinetic profiles of drugs before and after rifampicin administration accorded with the observations. The predicted pharmacokinetic parameters and DDIs were successful, whose fold-errors were within 2. It was consistent with observations that the DDIs of rifampicin with oral victim drugs were larger than those with intravenous victim drugs. DDIs of rifampicin with CYP3A or P-GP substrates following oral versus intravenous administration to human were successfully predicted using the developed semi-PBPK model.

When the Safe Alternative Is Not That Safe: Tramadol Prescribing in Children

Children represent a vulnerable population in which management of nociceptive pain is complex. Drug responses in children differ from adults due to age-related differences. Moreover, therapeutic choices are limited by the lack of indication for a number of analgesic drugs due to the challenge of conducting clinical trials in children. Furthermore the assessment of efficacy as well as tolerance may be complicated by children's inability to communicate properly. According to the World Health Organization, weak opioids such as tramadol and codeine, may be used in addition to paracetamol and ibuprofen for moderate nociceptive pain in both children and adults. However, codeine prescription has been restricted for the last 5 years in children because of the risk of fatal overdoses linked to the variable activity of cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2D6 which bioactivates codeine. Even though tramadol has been considered a safe alternative to codeine, it is well established that tramadol pharmacodynamic opioid effects, efficacy and safety, are also largely influenced by CYP2D6 activity. For this reason, the US Food and Drug Administration recently released a boxed warning regarding the use of tramadol in children. To provide safe and effective tramadol prescription in children, a personalized approach, with dose adaptation according to CYP2D6 activity, would certainly be the safest method. We therefore recommend this approach in children requiring chronic or recurrent nociceptive pain treatment with tramadol. In case of acute inpatients nociceptive pain management, prescribing tramadol at the minimal effective dose, in a child appropriate dosage form and after clear instructions are given to the parents, remains reasonable based on current data. In all other situations, morphine should be preferred for moderate to severe nociceptive pain conditions.

Strategies for Determining Correct Cytochrome P450 Contributions in Hepatic Clearance Predictions: In Vitro-In Vivo Extrapolation as Modelling Approach and Tramadol as Proof-of Concept Compound

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Although the measurement of cytochrome P450 (CYP) contributions in metabolism assays is straightforward, determination of actual in vivo contributions might be challenging. How representative are in vitro for in vivo CYP contributions? This article proposes an improved strategy for the determination of in vivo CYP enzyme-specific metabolic contributions, based on in vitro data, using an in vitro-in vivo extrapolation (IVIVE) approach. Approaches are exemplified using tramadol as model compound, and CYP2D6 and CYP3A4 as involved enzymes.

METHODS

Metabolism data for tramadol and for the probe substrates midazolam (CYP3A4) and dextromethorphan (CYP2D6) were gathered in human liver microsomes (HLM) and recombinant human enzyme systems (rhCYP). From these probe substrates, an activity-adjustment factor (AAF) was calculated per CYP enzyme, for the determination of correct hepatic clearance contributions. As a reference, tramadol CYP contributions were scaled-back from in vivo data (retrograde approach) and were compared with the ones derived in vitro. In this view, the AAF is an enzyme-specific factor, calculated from reference probe activity measurements in vitro and in vivo, that allows appropriate scaling of a test drug's in vitro activity to the 'healthy volunteer' population level. Calculation of an AAF, thus accounts for any 'experimental' or 'batch-specific' activity difference between in vitro HLM and in vivo derived activity.

RESULTS

In this specific HLM batch, for CYP3A4 and CYP2D6, an AAF of 0.91 and 1.97 was calculated, respectively. This implies that, in this batch, the in vitro CYP3A4 activity is 1.10-fold higher and the CYP2D6 activity 1.97-fold lower, compared to in vivo derived CYP activities.

CONCLUSION

This study shows that, in cases where the HLM pool does not represent the typical mean population CYP activities, AAF correction of in vitro metabolism data, optimizes CYP contributions in the prediction of hepatic clearance. Therefore, in vitro parameters for any test compound, obtained in a particular batch, should be corrected with the AAF for the respective enzymes. In the current study, especially the CYP2D6 contribution was found, to better reflect the average in vivo situation. It is recommended that this novel approach is further evaluated using a broader range of compounds.

Opioid-induced inhibition of the human 5-HT and noradrenaline transporters in vitro: link to clinical reports of serotonin syndrome

Background and Purpose

Opioids may inhibit the 5‐HT transporter (SERT) and the noradrenaline transporter (NET). NET inhibition may contribute to analgesia, and SERT inhibition or interactions with 5‐HT receptors may cause serotonergic toxicity. However, the effects of different opioids on the human SERT, NET and 5‐HT receptors have not been sufficiently studied.

Experimental Approach

We determined the potencies of different opioids to inhibit the SERT and NET in vitro using human transporter‐transfected HEK293 cells. We also tested binding affinities at 5‐HT_1A, 5‐HT_2A and 5‐HT_2C receptors. Additionally, we assessed clinical cases of the serotonin syndrome associated with each opioid reported by PubMed and a World Health Organization database.

Key Results

Dextromethorphan, l(R)‐methadone, racemic methadone, pethidine, tramadol and tapentadol inhibited the SERT at or close to observed drug plasma or estimated brain concentrations in patients. Tapentadol was the most potent NET inhibitor. Pethidine, tramadol, l(R)‐methadone, racemic methadone, dextromethorphan and O‐desmethyltramadol also inhibited the NET. 6‐Monoacetylmorphine, buprenorphine, codeine, dihydrocodeine, heroin, hydrocodone, hydromorphone, morphine, oxycodone and oxymorphone did not inhibit the SERT or NET. Fentanyl interacted with 5‐HT_1A receptors and methadone, pethidine and fentanyl with 5‐HT_2A receptors, in the low micromolar range. Opioids most frequently associated with the serotonin syndrome are tramadol, fentanyl, tapentadol, oxycodone, methadone and dextromethorphan.

Conclusions and Implications

Some synthetic opioids interact with the SERT and NET at potentially clinically relevant concentrations. SERT inhibition by tramadol, tapentadol, methadone, dextromethorphan and pethidine may contribute to the serotonin syndrome. Direct effects on 5‐HT_1A and/or 5‐HT_2A receptors could be involved with methadone and pethidine.

Opioid analgesics-related pharmacokinetic drug interactions: from the perspectives of evidence based on randomized controlled trials and clinical risk management

BACKGROUND

Multimorbidity results in complex polypharmacy which may bear a risk of drug interactions. A better understanding of opioid analgesics combination therapy used for pain management could help warrant medication safety, efficacy, and economic relevance. Until now there has been no review summarizing the opioid analgesics-related pharmacokinetic drug interactions from the perspective of evidence based on randomized controlled trials (RCTs).

METHOD

A literature search was performed using PubMed, MEDLINE, and the Cochrane Library, using a PRISMA flowchart.

RESULTS

Fifty-two RCTs were included for data interpretation. Forty-two RCTs (80.8%) were conducted in healthy volunteers, whereas 10 RCTs (19.2%) enrolled true patients. None of the opioid-drug/herb pairs was listed as contraindications of opioids involved in this review. Circumstances in which opioid is comedicated as a precipitant drug include morphine-P2Y12 inhibitors, morphine-gabapentin, and methadone-zidovudine. Circumstances in which opioid is comedicated as an object drug include rifampin-opioids (morphine, tramadol, oxycodone, methadone), quinidine-opioids (morphine, fentanyl, oxycodone, codeine, dihydrocodeine, methadone), antimycotics-opioids (buprenorphine, fentanyl, morphine, oxycodone, methadone, tilidine, tramadol), protease inhibitors-opioids (ritonavir, ritonavir/lopinavir-oxycodone, ritonavir-fentanyl, ritonavir-tilidine), grapefruit juice-opioids (oxycodone, fentanyl, methadone), antidepressants-opioids (paroxetine-tramadol, paroxetine-hydrocodone, paroxetine-oxycodone, escitalopram-tramadol), metoclopramide-morphine, amantadine-morphine, sumatriptan-butorphanol nasal sprays, ticlopidine-tramadol, St John's wort-oxycodone, macrolides/ketolides-oxycodone, and levomepromazine-codeine. RCTs investigating the same combination, almost unanimously, drew consistent conclusions, except two RCTs on amantadine-intravenous morphine combination where a different amantadine dose was used and two RCTs on morphine-ticagrelor combination where healthy volunteers and true patients were enrolled, respectively. RCTs investigating in true patients may reflect a realistic clinical scenario and overcome the limitation of RCTs performed in healthy volunteers under standardized conditions. Further research opportunities are also presented in this review.

CONCLUSION

Effective and safe combination therapy of opioids can be achieved by promoting the awareness of potential changes in therapeutic efficacy and toxicities, prescribing alternatives or changing administration strategy, tailoring dose, reviewing the appropriateness of orders, and paying attention to medication monitoring.

Rifampicin decreases exposure to sublingual buprenorphine in healthy subjects

Buprenorphine is mainly metabolized by the cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 enzyme. The aim of this study was to evaluate the role of first‐pass metabolism in the interaction of rifampicin and analgesic doses of buprenorphine. A four‐session paired cross‐over study design was used. Twelve subjects ingested either 600 mg oral rifampicin or placebo once daily in a randomized order for 7 days. In the first part of the study, subjects were given 0.6‐mg (placebo phase) or 0.8‐mg (rifampicin phase) buprenorphine sublingually on day 7. In the second part of the study, subjects received 0.4‐mg buprenorphine intravenously. Plasma concentrations of buprenorphine and urine concentrations of buprenorphine and its primary metabolite norbuprenorphine were measured over 18 h. Adverse effects were recorded. Rifampicin decreased the mean area under the dose‐corrected plasma concentration–time curve (AUC_0–18) of sublingual buprenorphine by 25% (geometric mean ratio (GMR): 0.75; 90% confidence interval (CI) of GMR: 0.60, 0.93) and tended to decrease the bioavailability of sublingual buprenorphine, from 22% to 16% (P = 0.31). Plasma concentrations of intravenously administered buprenorphine were not influenced by rifampicin. The amount of norbuprenorphine excreted in the urine was decreased by 65% (P < 0.001) and 52% (P < 0.001) after sublingual and intravenous administration, respectively, by rifampicin. Adverse effects were frequent. Rifampicin decreases the exposure to sublingual but not intravenous buprenorphine. This can be mainly explained by an enhancement of CYP3A‐mediated first‐pass metabolism, which sublingual buprenorphine only partially bypasses. Concomitant use of rifampicin and low‐dose sublingual buprenorphine may compromise the analgesic effect of buprenorphine.

Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Predictions of Tramadol Exposure Throughout Pediatric Life: an Analysis of the Different Clearance Contributors with Emphasis on CYP2D6 Maturation

This paper focuses on the retrospective evaluation of physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) techniques used to mechanistically predict clearance throughout pediatric life. An intravenous tramadol retrograde PBPK model was set up in Simcyp® using adult clearance values, qualified for CYP2D6, CYP3A4, CYP2B6, and renal contributions. Subsequently, the model was evaluated for mechanistic prediction of total, CYP2D6-related, and renal clearance predictions in very early life. In two in vitro pediatric human liver microsomal (HLM) batches (1 and 3 months), O-desmethyltramadol and N-desmethyltramadol formation rates were compared with CYP2D6 and CYP3A4 activity, respectively. O-desmethyltramadol formation was mediated only by CYP2D6, while N-desmethyltramadol was mediated in part by CYP3A4. Additionally, the clearance maturation of the PBPK model predictions was compared to two in vivo maturation models (Hill and exponential) based on plasma concentration data, and to clearance estimations from a WinNonlin® fit of plasma concentration and urinary excretion data. Maturation of renal and CYP2D6 clearance is captured well in the PBPK model predictions, but total tramadol clearance is underpredicted. The most pronounced underprediction of total and CYP2D6-mediated clearance was observed in the age range of 2-13 years. In conclusion, the PBPK technique showed to be a powerful mechanistic tool capable of predicting maturation of CYP2D6 and renal tramadol clearance in early infancy, although some underprediction occurs between 2 and 13 years for total and CYP2D6-mediated tramadol clearance.

Effects of terbinafine and itraconazole on the pharmacokinetics of orally administered tramadol

BACKGROUND

Tramadol is widely used for acute, chronic, and neuropathic pain. Its primary active metabolite is O-desmethyltramadol (M1), which is mainly accountable for the μ-opioid receptor-related analgesic effect. Tramadol is metabolized to M1 mainly by cytochrome P450 (CYP)2D6 enzyme and to other metabolites by CYP3A4 and CYP2B6. We investigated the possible interaction of tramadol with the antifungal agents terbinafine (CYP2D6 inhibitor) and itraconazole (CYP3A4 inhibitor).

METHODS

We used a randomized placebo-controlled crossover study design with 12 healthy subjects, of which 8 were extensive and 4 were ultrarapid CYP2D6 metabolizers. On the pretreatment day 4 with terbinafine (250 mg once daily), itraconazole (200 mg once daily) or placebo, subjects were given tramadol 50 mg orally. Plasma concentrations of tramadol and M1 were determined over 48 h and some pharmacodynamic effects over 12 h. Pharmacokinetic variables were calculated using standard non-compartmental methods.

RESULTS

Terbinafine increased the area under plasma concentration-time curve (AUC0-∞) of tramadol by 115 % and decreased the AUC0-∞ of M1 by 64 % (P < 0.001). Terbinafine increased the peak concentration (C max) of tramadol by 53 % (P < 0.001) and decreased the C max of M1 by 79 % (P < 0.001). After terbinafine pretreatment the elimination half-life of tramadol and M1 were increased by 48 and 50 %, respectively (P < 0.001). Terbinafine reduced subjective drug effect of tramadol (P < 0.001). Itraconazole had minor effects on tramadol pharmacokinetics.

CONCLUSIONS

Terbinafine may reduce the opioid effect of tramadol and increase the risk of its monoaminergic adverse effects. Itraconazole has no meaningful interaction with tramadol in subjects who have functional CYP2D6 enzyme.