Significant decrease in nelfinavir systemic exposure after omeprazole coadministration in healthy subjects

Drug-Drug Interactions Between HIV Antivirals and Concomitant Drugs in HIV Patients: What We Know and What We Need to Know

Highly active antiretroviral therapy has led to a significant increase in the life expectancy of people living with HIV. The trade-off is that HIV-infected patients often suffer from comorbidities that require additional treatment, increasing the risk of Drug-Drug Interactions (DDIs), the clinical relevance of which has often not been determined during registration trials of the drugs involved. Therefore, it is important to identify potential clinically relevant DDIs in order to establish the most appropriate therapeutic approaches. This review aims to summarize and analyze data from studies published over the last two decades on DDI-related adverse clinical outcomes involving anti-HIV drugs and those used to treat comorbidities. Several studies have examined the pharmacokinetics and tolerability of different drug combinations. Protease inhibitors, followed by nonnucleoside reverse transcriptase inhibitors and integrase inhibitors have been recognized as the main players in DDIs with antivirals used to control co-infection, such as Hepatitis C virus, or with drugs commonly used to treat HIV comorbidities, such as lipid-lowering agents, proton pump inhibitors and anticancer drugs. However, the studies do not seem to be consistent with regard to sample size and follow-up, the drugs involved, or the results obtained. It should be noted that most of the available studies were conducted in healthy volunteers without being replicated in patients. This hampered the assessment of the clinical burden of DDIs and, consequently, the optimal pharmacological management of people living with HIV.

Effects of Proton Pump Inhibitors Intake During Chemoradiotherapy for Rectal Cancer: a Retrospective Cohort Study

PURPOSE

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are one of the most widely used drugs worldwide and are involved in several drug interactions. Recently, several studies have suggested that PPIs may interfere with the efficacy of capecitabine. This study primarily aimed to investigate the effects of PPI intake on the pathologic response rate of patients with locally advanced rectal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy with capecitabine.

METHOD

A retrospective study was conducted at a French Comprehensive Cancer Center. Patients with locally advanced rectal cancer treated with neoadjuvant chemoradiotherapy followed by surgery were included in the study. Demographic parameters, treatment characteristics, survival data, and PPI intake data were collected. Frequencies and percentages were reported for categorical variables and medians and interquartile ranges for continuous variables. Distribution of variables was compared according to PPI treatment using the chi-square test or Fisher's exact test for categorical data and nonparametric Wilcoxon tests for continuous variables. Survival data were estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method and compared using the log-rank test.

RESULTS

In total, 215 patients were included, of whom 135 (62.8%) were men. The PPI intake frequency was 16.1%. The rate of complete pathological response was not significantly lower in patients on PPIs than in those not on PPIs (8.7% vs. 19%, p = 0.36). PPI intake was not associated with a statistically significant decrease in recurrence-free survival (hazard ratio [HR] = 1.26, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.61-2.60, p = 0.54) or overall survival (HR = 0.95, 95% CI 0.33-2.76, p = 0.93).

CONCLUSION

No significant association was observed between PPI co-medication and complete pathological response or survival in patients treated for locally advanced rectal cancer. However, the safety of PPIs could not be confirmed. Further ancillary studies of prospective clinical trials or studies using the Health Data Hub are necessary to explore the effects of PPIs on rectal cancer more accurately.

An Open Label, Phase 1, Randomized, Seven-treatment, Seven-period, Crossover Study to Assess the Relative Bioavailability, pH Effect, Food Effect, and Dose Proportionality of CC-292, a Potent and Orally Available Bruton's Tyrosine Kinase Inhibitor

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

CC-292 is a potent, selective, orally administered small molecule inhibitor of Bruton's tyrosine kinase (BTK). To support the clinical investigation of CC-292, a randomized, seven-treatment, seven-period, crossover study was conducted to assess the relative bioavailability, pH effect, food effect, and dose-proportionality of two formulated tablets of CC-292.

METHODS

Healthy subjects (n = 24) were enrolled in the study and randomly assigned into different treatment sequences. Blood samples were collected at pre-specified time points to measure the drug concentrations in plasma. Statistical analyses were performed to compare the pharmacokinetics of CC-292 under different conditions.

RESULTS

The relative bioavailability of the newly developed formulation [spray-dried dispersion (SDD)] to the reference formulation (P22) was 1.24. When a single dose of CC-292 SDD tablet was administered under fed conditions, the area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to infinity (AUC_∞) increased by 10.9% and the maximum plasma drug concentration C_max) decreased by 19.4% compared to when CC-292 was administered under fasted conditions. When a single dose of CC-292 SDD tablet was administered after multiple doses of omeprazole, the area under the plasma concentration-time curve from time zero to infinity (AUC_∞) decreased by 36.8% and the maximum plasma drug concentration C_max) decreased by 48.1% compared to when CC-292 was administered alone. Over a dose range of 100-300 mg (SDD formulation), CC-292 exhibited more than dose-proportional increases of drug exposures.

CONCLUSIONS

CC-292 was well tolerated when administered to healthy subjects as single oral doses under all conditions. Food intake had no clinically relevant impact on CC-292 pharmacokinetics compared to fasted conditions. Therefore, CC-292 can be administered with or without food. Co-administration of CC-292 with multiple doses of omeprazole (40 mg) decreased the pharmacokinetic exposure of CC-292. However, the effect was not clinically relevant.

CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION

NCT02433457.

Drug-Drug Interactions With Over-The-Counter Medicines: Mind the Unprescribed

BACKGROUND

This review provides a summary of the currently available clinical data on drug-drug interactions (DDIs) involving over-the-counter (OTC) medicines. It aims to educate and increase awareness among health care providers and to support decisions in daily practice.

METHODS

An extensive literature search was performed using bibliographic databases available through PubMed.gov. An initial structured search was performed using the keywords "drug-drug-interaction AND (over-the-counter OR OTC)," without further restrictions except for the language. The initial results were screened for all described DDIs involving OTC drugs, and further information was gathered specifically on these drugs using dedicated database searches and references found in the bibliography from the initial hits.

RESULTS

From more than 1200 initial hits (1972-June 2021), 408 relevant publications were screened for DDIs involving OTC drugs, leading to 2 major findings: first, certain types of drug regimens are more prone to DDIs or have more serious DDI-related consequences, such as antiretroviral, anti-infective, and oral anticancer therapies. Second, although most DDIs involve OTC drugs as the perpetrators, some prescription drugs (statins or phosphodiesterase-5 inhibitors) that currently have OTC status can be identified as the victims in DDIs. The following groups were identified to be frequently involved in DDIs: nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, food supplements, antacids, proton-pump inhibitors, H2 antihistamines, laxatives, antidiarrheal drugs, and herbal drugs.

CONCLUSIONS

The most significant finding was the lack of high-quality evidence for commonly acknowledged interactions. High-quality interaction studies involving different phenotypes in drug metabolism (cytochrome P450) and distribution (transporters) are urgently needed. This should include modern and critical drugs, such as oral anticancer medications and direct oral anticoagulants.

Evaluation of CYP2C19 activity using microdosed oral omeprazole in humans

Purpose

To investigate the suitability of microdosed oral omeprazole for predicting CYP2C19 activity in vivo in combination with simultaneous assessment of CYP3A and CYP2D6 activity using both microdosed midazolam and yohimbine.

Methods

An open, fixed-sequence study was carried out in 20 healthy participants. Single microdosed (100 µg) and therapeutic (20 mg) doses of omeprazole were evaluated without comedication and after administration of established CYP2C19 perpetrators fluconazole (inhibition) and rifampicin (induction). To prevent degradation of the uncoated omeprazole microdose, sodium bicarbonate buffer was administered. The pharmacokinetics of omeprazole and its 5-hydroxy-metabolite were assessed as well as the pharmacokinetics of midazolam and yohimbine to estimate CYP3A4 and CYP2D6 activity.

Results

Calculated pharmacokinetic parameters after administration of 100 µg and 20 mg omeprazole in healthy subjects suggest dose proportionality. Omeprazole clearance was significantly decreased by fluconazole from 388 [95% CI: 266–565] to 47.2 [42.8–52.0] mL/min after 20 mg omeprazole and even further after 100 µg omeprazole (29.4 [24.5–35.1] mL/min). Rifampicin increased CYP2C19-mediated omeprazole metabolism. The omeprazole hydroxylation index was significantly related to omeprazole clearance for both doses. Both fluconazole and rifampicin altered CYP3A4 activity whereas no change of CYP2D6 activity was observed at all.

Conclusions

Microdosed oral omeprazole is suitable to determine CYP2C19 activity, also during enzyme inhibition and induction. However, the administration of sodium bicarbonate buffer also had a small influence on all victim drugs used.

Trial registration

EudraCT: 2017–004270-34.

Supplementary information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00228-022-03304-3.

An annotated corpus from biomedical articles to construct a drug-food interaction database

MOTIVATION

While drug-food interaction (DFI) may undermine the efficacy and safety of drugs, DFI detection has been difficult because a well-organized database for DFI did not exist. To construct a DFI database and build a natural language processing system extracting DFI from biomedical articles, we formulated the DFI extraction tasks and manually annotated texts that could have contained DFI information. In this article, we introduced a new annotated corpus for extracting DFI, the DFI corpus.

RESULTS

The DFI corpus contains 2270 abstracts of biomedical articles accessible through PubMed and 2498 sentences that contain DFI and/or drug-drug information (DDI), a substantial amount of information about drug/food entities, evidence-levels of abstracts and relations between named entities. BERT models pre-trained on the biomedical domain achieved a F1 score 55.0% in extracting DFI key-sentences. To the best of our knowledge, the DFI corpus is the largest public corpus for drug-food interaction.

AVAILABILITY AND IMPLEMENTATION

Our corpus is available at https://github.com/ccadd-snu/corpus-for-DFI-extraction.

Effects of medicines used to treat gastrointestinal diseases on the pharmacokinetics of coadministered drugs: a PEARRL Review

OBJECTIVES

Drugs used to treat gastrointestinal diseases (GI drugs) are widely used either as prescription or over-the-counter (OTC) medications and belong to both the 10 most prescribed and 10 most sold OTC medications worldwide. The objective of this review article is to discuss the most frequent interactions between GI and other drugs, including identification of the mechanisms behind these interactions, where possible.

KEY FINDINGS

Current clinical practice shows that in many cases, these drugs are administered concomitantly with other drug products. Due to their metabolic properties and mechanisms of action, the drugs used to treat gastrointestinal diseases can change the pharmacokinetics of some coadministered drugs. In certain cases, these interactions can lead to failure of treatment or to the occurrence of serious adverse events. The mechanism of interaction depends highly on drug properties and differs among therapeutic categories. Understanding these interactions is essential to providing recommendations for optimal drug therapy.

SUMMARY

Interactions with GI drugs are numerous and can be highly significant clinically in some cases. While alterations in bioavailability due to changes in solubility, dissolution rate, GI transit and metabolic interactions can be (for the most part) easily identified, interactions that are mediated through other mechanisms, such as permeability or microbiota, are less well-understood. Future work should focus on characterising these aspects.

Adverse drug reactions due to drug-drug interactions with proton pump inhibitors: assessment of systematic reviews with AMSTAR method

INTRODUCTION

Many systematic reviews resulted in claims on drug-drug interactions (DDIs) with proton pump inhibitors (PPIs). Such a large number begs for consensus on the clinical significance of findings.

AREAS COVERED

We critically evaluated the safety of PPI use with respect to DDIs with a meta-review of systematic reviews published between 1978 and 2015. We assessed the evidence by their reliability, repeatability, transparency, and objectivity according to the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) criteria.

EXPERT OPINION

Clinicians must assess risks for each PPI for certain comorbid conditions. DDIs don't substantiate class effect for PPIs; each PPI could induce unique DDIs. Concomitant use of PPIs with thienopyridines (e.g. clopidogrel) could be justified in patients without strong affinity to cytochrome CYP2C19 and with high risk of bleeding (e.g. patients with prior upper gastrointestinal bleeding, Helicobacter pylori infection, advanced age, steroid treatment, and nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug use). DDIs could occur in an AIDS subpopulation treated with highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART). DDIs exist for cancer patients undergoing targeted therapy. Hypomagnesemia could increase in the setting of advanced age and polypharmacy. Omeprazole poses high risks owing to its pharmacokinetic DDI profile. Future systematic reviews should incorporate these additional risks for better clinical guidance.

Pharmacokinetic drug interaction profiles of proton pump inhibitors: an update

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) are used extensively for the treatment of gastric acid-related disorders, often over the long term, which raises the potential for clinically significant drug interactions in patients receiving concomitant medications. These drug–drug interactions have been previously reviewed. However, the current knowledge is likely to have advanced, so a thorough review of the literature published since 2006 was conducted. This identified new studies of drug interactions that are modulated by gastric pH. These studies showed the effect of a PPI-induced increase in intragastric pH on mycophenolate mofetil pharmacokinetics, which were characterised by a decrease in the maximum exposure and availability of mycophenolic acid, at least at early time points. Post-2006 data were also available outlining the altered pharmacokinetics of protease inhibitors with concomitant PPI exposure. New data for the more recently marketed dexlansoprazole suggest it has no impact on the pharmacokinetics of diazepam, phenytoin, theophylline and warfarin. The CYP2C19-mediated interaction that seems to exist between clopidogrel and omeprazole or esomeprazole has been shown to be clinically important in research published since the 2006 review; this effect is not seen as a class effect of PPIs. Finally, data suggest that coadministration of PPIs with methotrexate may affect methotrexate pharmacokinetics, although the mechanism of interaction is not well understood. As was shown in the previous review, individual PPIs differ in their propensities to interact with other drugs and the extent to which their interaction profiles have been defined. The interaction profiles of omeprazole and pantoprazole sodium (pantoprazole-Na) have been studied most extensively. Several studies have shown that omeprazole carries a considerable potential for drug interactions because of its high affinity for CYP2C19 and moderate affinity for CYP3A4. In contrast, pantoprazole-Na appears to have lower potential for interactions with other medications. Lansoprazole and rabeprazole also seem to have a weaker potential for interactions than omeprazole, although their interaction profiles, along with those of esomeprazole and dexlansoprazole, have been less extensively investigated. Only a few drug interactions involving PPIs are of clinical significance. Nonetheless, the potential for drug interactions should be considered when choosing a PPI to manage gastric acid-related disorders. This is particularly relevant for elderly patients taking multiple medications, or for those receiving a concomitant medication with a narrow therapeutic index.

One size fits one: pharmacogenetics in gastroenterology

Individual variability in response and development of adverse effects to drugs is a major challenge in clinical practice. Pharmacogenomics refers to the aspect of personalized medicine where the patient's genetic information instructs the selection and dosage of therapy while also predicting its adverse effects profile. Sequencing of the entire human genome has given us the opportunity to study commonly used drugs as well as newer therapeutic agents in a new light, opening up opportunities for better drug efficacy and decreased adverse effects. This article highlights developments in pharmacogenomics, relates these to practice of gastroenterology, and outlines roadblocks in translation of this knowledge into clinical practice.

Physiologically based pharmacokinetic models for the optimization of antiretroviral therapy: recent progress and future perspective

Anti-HIV therapy is characterized by the chronic administration of antiretrovirals (ARVs), and consequently, several problems can arise during the management of HIV-positive patients. ARV disposition can be simulated by combining system data describing a population of patients and in vitro drug data through physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models, which mathematically describe absorption, distribution, metabolism and elimination. PBPK modeling can find application in the investigation of clinically relevant scenarios, while providing the opportunity for a better understanding of the mechanisms regulating drug distribution. In this review, we have analyzed the most recent applications of PBPK models for ARVs and highlighted some of the most interesting areas of use, such as drug–drug interaction, pharmacogenetics, factors regulating absorption and tissue penetration, as well as therapy optimization in special populations. The application of the PBPK modeling approach might not be limited to the investigation of hypothetical clinical issues, but could be used to inform future prospective clinical trials.

Pharmacokinetic drug interaction profile of omeprazole with adverse consequences and clinical risk management

BACKGROUND

Omeprazole, a proton pump inhibitor (PPI), is widely used for the treatment of dyspepsia, peptic ulcer, gastroesophageal reflux disease, and functional dyspepsia. Polypharmacy is common in patients receiving omeprazole. Drug toxicity and treatment failure resulting from inappropriate combination therapy with omeprazole have been reported sporadically. Systematic review has not been available to address the pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction (DDI) profile of omeprazole with adverse consequences, the factors determining the degree of DDI between omeprazole and comedication, and the corresponding clinical risk management.

METHODS

Literature was identified by performing a PubMed search covering the period from January 1988 to March 2013. The full text of each article was critically reviewed, and data interpretation was performed.

RESULTS

Omeprazole has actual adverse influences on the pharmacokinetics of medications such as diazepam, carbamazepine, clozapine, indinavir, nelfinavir, atazanavir, rilpivirine, methotrexate, tacrolimus, mycophenolate mofetil, clopidogrel, digoxin, itraconazole, posaconazole, and oral iron supplementation. Meanwhile, low efficacy of omeprazole treatment would be anticipated, as omeprazole elimination could be significantly induced by comedicated efavirenz and herb medicines such as St John's wort, Ginkgo biloba, and yin zhi huang. The mechanism for DDI involves induction or inhibition of cytochrome P450, inhibition of P-glycoprotein or breast cancer resistance protein-mediated drug transport, and inhibition of oral absorption by gastric acid suppression. Sometimes, DDIs of omeprazole do not exhibit a PPI class effect. Other suitable PPIs or histamine 2 antagonists may be therapeutic alternatives that can be used to avoid adverse consequences. The degree of DDIs associated with omeprazole and clinical outcomes depend on factors such as genotype status of CYP2C19 and CYP1A2, ethnicity, dose and treatment course of precipitant omeprazole, pharmaceutical formulation of object drug (eg, mycophenolate mofetil versus enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium), other concomitant medication (eg, omeprazole-indinavir versus omeprazole-indinavir-ritonavir), and administration schedule (eg, intensified dosing of mycophenolate mofetil versus standard dosing).

CONCLUSION

Despite the fact that omeprazole is one of the most widely prescribed drugs internationally, clinical professionals should enhance clinical risk management on adverse DDIs associated with omeprazole and ensure safe combination use of omeprazole by rationally prescribing alternatives, checking the appropriateness of physician orders before dispensing, and performing therapeutic drug monitoring.

Lack of a clinically significant drug-drug interaction in healthy volunteers between the HCV protease inhibitor boceprevir and the proton pump inhibitor omeprazole

OBJECTIVES

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) can limit the solubility of concomitant drugs, which can lead to decreased absorption and exposure. Reduced efficacy can be a consequence and in the case of an antimicrobial agent this may contribute to development of resistance. Patients chronically infected with the hepatitis C virus can be treated with a boceprevir-containing regimen and it is relevant to know if interactions between PPIs and boceprevir exist. This study was designed to investigate the influence of a frequently used PPI, omeprazole, on the pharmacokinetics of boceprevir and vice versa.

METHODS

In this open-label, three-period, randomized, cross-over, Phase I study, healthy subjects were randomly assigned to 40 mg of omeprazole once daily for 5 days, 800 mg of boceprevir three times daily for 5 days and 40 mg of omeprazole once daily + 800 mg of boceprevir three times daily for 5 days, or the same treatment in a different order. Every treatment was followed by a wash-out period. At day 5 of every treatment pharmacokinetic blood sampling was performed for 8 h after medication intake. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01470690.

RESULTS

All 24 subjects (15 males) completed the study and no serious adverse events were reported. Geometric mean ratios (90% CI) of the area under the plasma concentration-time curve up to 8 h (AUC0-8) and maximum plasma concentration (Cmax) of boceprevir with omeprazole versus boceprevir alone were 0.92 (0.87-0.97) and 0.94 (0.86-1.02), respectively. For omeprazole these values were 1.06 (0.90-1.25) for AUC0-8 and 1.03 (0.85-1.26) for Cmax for the combination versus omeprazole alone.

CONCLUSIONS

Omeprazole did not have a clinically significant effect on boceprevir exposure, and boceprevir did not affect omeprazole exposure.

In vivo quantitative prediction of the effect of gene polymorphisms and drug interactions on drug exposure for CYP2C19 substrates

We present a unified quantitative approach to predict the in vivo alteration in drug exposure caused by either cytochrome P450 (CYP) gene polymorphisms or CYP-mediated drug-drug interactions (DDI). An application to drugs metabolized by CYP2C19 is presented. The metrics used is the ratio of altered drug area under the curve (AUC) to the AUC in extensive metabolizers with no mutation or no interaction. Data from 42 pharmacokinetic studies performed in CYP2C19 genetic subgroups and 18 DDI studies were used to estimate model parameters and predicted AUC ratios by using Bayesian approach. Pharmacogenetic information was used to estimate a parameter of the model which was then used to predict DDI. The method adequately predicted the AUC ratios published in the literature, with mean errors of -0.15 and -0.62 and mean absolute errors of 0.62 and 1.05 for genotype and DDI data, respectively. The approach provides quantitative prediction of the effect of five genotype variants and 10 inhibitors on the exposure to 25 CYP2C19 substrates, including a number of unobserved cases. A quantitative approach for predicting the effect of gene polymorphisms and drug interactions on drug exposure has been successfully applied for CYP2C19 substrates. This study shows that pharmacogenetic information can be used to predict DDI. This may have important implications for the development of personalized medicine and drug development.

Risk assessment of mechanism-based inactivation in drug-drug interactions

Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) that occur via mechanism-based inactivation of cytochrome P450 are of serious concern. Although several predictive models have been published, early risk assessment of MBIs is still challenging. For reversible inhibitors, the DDI risk categorization using [I]/K(i) ([I], the inhibitor concentration; K(i), the inhibition constant) is widely used in drug discovery and development. Although a simple and reliable methodology such as [I]/K(i) categorization for reversible inhibitors would be useful for mechanism-based inhibitors (MBIs), comprehensive analysis of an analogous measure reflecting in vitro potency for inactivation has not been reported. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether the term λ/k(deg) (λ, first-order inactivation rate at a given MBI concentration; k(deg), enzyme degradation rate constant) would be useful in the prediction of the in vivo DDI risk of MBIs. Twenty-one MBIs with both in vivo area under the curve (AUC) change of marker substrates and in vitro inactivation parameters were identified in the literature and analyzed. The results of this analysis show that in vivo DDIs with >2-fold change of object drug AUC can be identified with the cutoff value of λ/k(deg) = 1, where unbound steady-state C(max) is used for inhibitor concentration. However, the use of total C(max) led to great overprediction of DDI risk. The risk assessment using λ/k(deg) coupled with unbound C(max) can be useful for the DDI risk evaluation of MBIs in drug discovery and development.

Antiretroviral therapy adherence and drug-drug interactions in the aging HIV population

It is estimated that by 2015 more than half of all HIV-infected individuals in the United States will be 50 years of age or older. As this population ages, the frequency of non-AIDS related comorbidities increases, which includes cardiovascular, metabolic, gastrointestinal, genitourinary and psychiatric disorders. As a result, medical management of the aging HIV population can be complicated by polypharmacy and higher pill burden, leading to poorer antiretroviral therapy (ART) adherence. Adherence to ART is generally better in older populations when compared to younger populations; however, cognitive impairment in elderly patients can impair adherence, leading to worse treatment outcomes. Practical monitoring tools can improve adherence and increase rates of viral load suppression. Several antiretroviral drugs exhibit inhibitory and/or inducing effects on cytochrome P450 isoenzymes, which are responsible for the metabolism of many medications used for the treatment of comorbidities in the aging HIV population. The combination of ART with polypharmacy significantly increases the chance of potentially serious drug-drug interactions (DDIs), which can lead to drug toxicity, poorer ART adherence, loss of efficacy of the coadministered medication, or virologic breakthrough. Increasing clinicians awareness of common DDIs and the use of DDI programs can prevent coadministration of potentially harmful combinations in elderly HIV-infected individuals. Well designed ART adherence interventions and DDI studies are needed in the elderly HIV population.

[Adverse effects of proton pump inhibitors: should we worry about long-term exposure?]

Long-term treatment with proton pump inhibitors (PPI) is becoming more prevalent. Although they are well tolerated in the short term, serious concerns about long-term use have arisen. Recent data suggest that the latter is associated with an increased risk for osteoporotic fracture (especially vertebral), Clostridium difficile infection and rebound acid hypersecretion after treatment discontinuation. Acute interstitial nephritis is rare but may progress to chronic renal failure. An increased risk of community-acquired pneumonia has not been established in the general population and seems limited to the most vulnerable patients. Consistent data are still missing to correctly assess the risk of iron deficiency, vitamin B12 deficiency or hypomagnesaemia and the risk of digestive malignant diseases, despite the pathophysiological basis that exists concerning gastric malignancy. Many drug interactions can occur on long-term treatment, including some that imply the cytochrome P450 enzymes. Finally, the risk-benefit balance for a chronic PPI use in children seems unfavorable in most cases.

Antiretroviral drug interactions: overview of interactions involving new and investigational agents and the role of therapeutic drug monitoring for management

Antiretrovirals are prone to drug-drug and drug-food interactions that can result in subtherapeutic or supratherapeutic concentrations. Interactions between antiretrovirals and medications for other diseases are common due to shared metabolism through cytochrome P450 (CYP450) and uridine diphosphate glucuronosyltransferase (UGT) enzymes and transport by membrane proteins (e.g., p-glycoprotein, organic anion-transporting polypeptide). The clinical significance of antiretroviral drug interactions is reviewed, with a focus on new and investigational agents. An overview of the mechanistic basis for drug interactions and the effect of individual antiretrovirals on CYP450 and UGT isoforms are provided. Interactions between antiretrovirals and medications for other co-morbidities are summarized. The role of therapeutic drug monitoring in the detection and management of antiretroviral drug interactions is also briefly discussed.

Clinical implications of the nelfinavir-proton pump inhibitor drug interaction in patients with human immunodeficiency virus

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To determine if the concomitant use of nelfinavir and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) in patients with human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection results in the loss of virologic control.

DESIGN

Retrospective cohort study.

DATA SOURCE

Pharmacy, laboratory, and administrative databases of a large integrated health care system in northern California.

PATIENTS

A total of 1147 HIV-positive adults who started nelfinavir therapy between November 1, 1998, and June 20, 2003; within this cohort, 141 patients (12.3%) were also prescribed PPIs.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The effects on two virologic outcomes--achievement of undetectable HIV viral load and subsequent virologic rebound--were compared between patients receiving nelfinavir alone and those receiving nelfinavir with PPIs. Cox proportional hazards models were used, with adjustments for age, sex, race, HIV risk factors, hepatitis B or C coinfection, and other concurrent drugs known to affect the metabolism of nelfinavir. The use of PPIs had little effect on the ability to achieve an undetectable HIV viral load (adjusted hazard ratio [HR] 0.82, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.58-1.19, p=0.29), but there was an approximate 50% increased risk of virologic rebound with the concurrent use of PPIs (adjusted HR 1.53, 95% CI 1.06-2.19, p=0.02). Short-term use of PPIs (defined as within 30 days of initial PPI dispensation) was not associated with increased risk of virologic rebound (HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.26-4.41, p=0.93) compared with no use of PPIs.

CONCLUSION

Use of PPIs should be minimized or avoided in patients who have attained an undetectable HIV viral load while taking a nelfinavir-based antiretroviral regimen. However, concomitant use of these drugs may be acceptable for indications where PPIs are required for fewer than 30 days.

[AIDS Study Group/Spanish AIDS Plan consensus document on antiretroviral therapy in adults with human immunodeficiency virus infection (updated January 2010)]

OBJECTIVE

This consensus document is an update of antiretroviral therapy recommendations for adult patients with human immunodeficiency virus infection.

METHODS

To formulate these recommendations a panel made up of members of the Grupo de Estudio de Sida (Gesida, AIDS Study Group) and the Plan Nacional sobre el Sida (PNS, Spanish AIDS Plan) reviewed the advances in the current understanding of the pathophysiology of human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) infection, the efficacy and safety of clinical trials, and cohort and pharmacokinetic studies published in biomedical journals or presented at scientific meetings. Three levels of evidence were defined according to the data source: randomized studies (level A), cohort or case-control studies (level B), and expert opinion (level C). The decision to recommend, consider or not to recommend ART was established in each situation.

RESULTS

Currently, the treatment of choice for chronic HIV infection is the combination of three drugs of two different classes, including 2 nucleosides or nucleotide analogs (NRTI) plus 1 non-nucleoside (NNRTI) or 1 boosted protease inhibitor (PI/r), but other combinations are possible. Initiation of ART is recommended in patients with symptomatic HIV infection. In asymptomatic patients, initiation of ART is recommended on the basis of CD4 lymphocyte counts, plasma viral load and patient co-morbidities, as follows: 1) therapy should be started in patients with CD4 counts below 350 cells/microl; 2) When CD4 counts are between 350 and 500 cells/microl, therapy should be started in case of cirrhosis, chronic hepatitis C, high cardiovascular risk, HIV nephropathy, HIV viral load above 100,000 copies/ml, proportion of CD4 cells under 14%, and in people aged over 55; 3) Therapy should be deferred when CD4 are above 500 cells/microl, but could be considered if any of previous considerations concurs. Treatment should be initiated in case of hepatitis B requiring treatment and should be considered for reduce sexual transmission. The objective of ART is to achieve an undetectable viral load. Adherence to therapy plays an essential role in maintaining antiviral response. Therapeutic options are limited after ART failures but undetectable viral loads maybe possible with the new drugs even in highly drug experienced patients. Genotype studies are useful in these situations. Drug toxicity of ART therapy is losing importance as benefits exceed adverse effects. Criteria for antiretroviral treatment in acute infection, pregnancy and post-exposure prophylaxis are mentioned as well as the management of HIV co-infection with hepatitis B or C.

CONCLUSIONS

CD4 cells counts, viral load and patient co-morbidities are the most important reference factors to consider when initiating ART in asymptomatic patients. The large number of available drugs, the increased sensitivity of tests to monitor viral load, and the ability to determine viral resistance is leading to a more individualized therapy approach in order to achieve undetectable viral load under any circumstances.

Influence of CYP2C19 polymorphism on the pharmacokinetics of nelfinavir and its active metabolite

AIMS

This study reports the pharmacokinetics of nelfinavir, its active metabolite, M8, and active moiety (nelfinavir + M8) in volunteers genotyped for CYP2C19 as extensive metabolizer (*1*1; n = 38), heterozygous poor metabolizer (PM) (*1*2; n = 22) and homozygous PM (*2*2; n = 6).

METHODS

Subjects received nelfinavir at normal dose (3.5 days of 1250 mg q12h) or high dose (1250 mg q12h for 3 days and single dose of 3125 mg on day 4). Steady-state plasma samples were analysed by high-performance liquid chromatography/ultraviolet assay to determine pharmacokinetics.

RESULTS

At steady state, the mean C(max) was 42% [95% confidence interval (CI) 19, 69] and 63% (95% CI 20, 122) higher, and mean AUC was 51% (95% CI 24, 83) and 85% (95% CI 32, 159) higher for *1*2 and *2*2 compared with *1*1 subjects, respectively. For M8, the mean C(max) and AUC were 35% (95% CI 6, 55) and 33% (95% CI -3, 56), respectively, lower for *1*2 compared with *1*1 subjects. M8 was not detectable in *2*2 subjects. The mean C(max) and AUC values for the active moiety were higher by 30-35% for the *1*2 and *2*2 compared with *1*1 subjects.

CONCLUSIONS

Mutation in CYP2C19 increased the systemic exposure of nelfinavir and reduced the exposure of M8. No significant differences were noted among the heterozygous (*1*2) and homozygous (*2*2) PMs. These changes are not considered to be clinically relevant and hence the use of nelfinavir does not require prior assessment of CYP2C19 genotype.

Relevance of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) for clinical toxicology

INTRODUCTION

The aryl hydrocarbon receptor (AhR) is a cellular signaling molecule infamous for mediating the toxicity of dioxins and related compounds.

AIM

The aim of this review is to provide a background of AhR and to examine critically its role in chemical toxicity, in physiological systems, and its interaction with drugs and other compounds.

TOXICITY

The AhR is essential for the toxicity of dioxins and related chemicals. The AhR mediates the exquisite sensitivity of animals to dioxins, where as little as 2 ng/kg/day can yield striking adverse effects. PHYSIOLOGICAL ROLE OF AHR: The wide variety of adverse effects of dioxin argues for an important role of the AhR in a variety of physiological systems. Recent investigations have highlighted the role of AhR in the development of the brain and vasculature. DRUGS AND OTHER CHEMICAL ACTIVATORS OF AHR: The development of AhR agonists during drug development programs is sometimes inadvertent, but sometimes the target of development, and is yet further confirmation of the likely importance of AhR signaling in constitutive physiology. The presence of AhR agonists in the diet such as indolo-(3,2-b)-carbazole and 3,3'-diindolylmethane (metabolized from indole 3-carbinol), flavonoids, and sulforaphane and of endogenous activators of this signaling system such as eicosanoids, indirubin, bilirubin, cAMP, and tryptophan are suggestive that AhR activation is a normal physiological process and that it is the persistent and high-level stimulation of AhR by dioxins that is responsible for toxicity.

CONCLUSIONS

AhR-mediated toxicity and physiology are highly relevant to clinical toxicology and drug development.

Effects of standard and supratherapeutic doses of nelfinavir on cardiac repolarization: a thorough QT study

This was a randomized, 4-way crossover, third-party-blinded study in 68 healthy subjects to assess the effect of nelfinavir on QTc interval. Treatments included (A) nelfinavir 1250 mg every 12 hours on days 1-4, (B) nelfinavir 1250 mg every 12 hours on days 1-3 plus 3125 mg on day 4, (C) placebo, and (D) moxifloxacin 400 mg every 24 hours on days 1-4. Pharmacokinetics and triplicate 12-lead electrocardiograms were performed over 12 hours on days 1 and 4. Time-matched, placebo-subtracted, baseline-adjusted changes in QT intervals with Fridericia's (QTcF) correction were determined following nelfinavir and moxifloxacin administration. Neither dose of nelfinavir had a clinically relevant effect on the QTcF interval on day 4 (primary endpoint) and day 1 because at every time point the upper 90% confidence limit was below 10 milliseconds and, furthermore, the mean difference was below 5 milliseconds. Additionally, there was no clinically relevant effect on QTcB (Bazett's correction), uncorrected QT, or the RR interval on days 1 or 4. Pharmacokinetics confirmed adequate systemic exposure to nelfinavir and moxifloxacin. While nelfinavir exposure was higher in poor compared with extensive metabolizers of CYP2C19 isozyme, there were no corresponding significant differences in QTcF change from placebo. At clinically relevant, doses nelfinavir is unlikely to cause QTc prolongation.

Substrate-dependent breast cancer resistance protein (Bcrp1/Abcg2)-mediated interactions: consideration of multiple binding sites in in vitro assay design

In vitro assays are frequently used for the screening of substrates and inhibitors of transporter-mediated efflux. Examining directional flux across Madin-Darby canine kidney (MDCK) II cell monolayers that overexpress a transporter protein is particularly useful in identifying whether or not a candidate compound is an inhibitor or substrate for that transport system. Studies that use a single substrate or inhibitor in competition assays can be challenging to interpret because of the possible multiple mechanisms involved in substrate/inhibitor-protein interactions. During our previous studies of substrate-inhibitor-transporter interactions, we observed differences in breast cancer resistance protein (BCRP) inhibition, depending on the substrate and the inhibitor. Therefore, we investigated BCRP-mediated interactions with a 4 x 4 matrix of substrates and inhibitors using monolayers formed from MDCKII cells transfected with murine BCRP (Bcrp1/Abcg2). The selective BCRP inhibitor 3-(6-isobutyl-9-methoxy-1,4-dioxo-1,2,3,4,6,7,12,12a-octahydropyrazino [1',2':1,6] pyrido [3,4-b]indol-3-yl)-propionic acid tert-butyl ester (Ko143) effectively inhibited the Bcrp1-mediated transport of all substrates examined. However, N-(4-[2-(1,2,3,4-tetrahydro-6,7-dimethoxy-2-isoquinolinyl)ethyl]-phenyl)-9,10-dihydro-5-methoxy-9-oxo-4-acridine carboxamide (GF120918), nelfinavir, and Pluronic P85 exhibited differences in inhibition depending on the substrate examined. Our findings support recent reports suggesting that the interactions of substrate molecules with BCRP involve multiple binding regions in the protein. The nucleoside substrates zidovudine and abacavir seem to bind to a region on BCRP that may have little or no overlap with the binding regions of either prazosin or imatinib. In conclusion, the choice of substrate or inhibitor molecules for an in vitro assay system can be crucial for the optimal design of experiments to evaluate transporter-mediated drug-drug interactions.