Transporter-mediated drug-drug interactions.
ABSTRACT Drug-drug interactions are a serious clinical issue. An important mechanism underlying drug-drug interactions is induction or inhibition of drug transporters that mediate the cellular uptake and efflux of xenobiotics. Especially drug transporters of the small intestine, liver and kidney are major determinants of the pharmacokinetic profile of drugs. Transporter-mediated drug-drug interactions in these three organs can considerably influence the pharmacokinetics and clinical effects of drugs. In this article, we focus on probe drugs lacking significant metabolism to highlight mechanisms of interactions of selected intestinal, hepatic and renal drug transporters (e.g., organic anion transporting polypeptide [OATP] 1A2, OATP2B1, OATP1B1, OATP1B3, P-gp, organic anion transporter [OAT] 1, OAT3, breast cancer resistance protein [BCRP], organic cation transporter [OCT] 2 and multidrug and toxin extrusion protein [MATE] 1). Genotype-dependent drug-drug interactions are also discussed.
- SourceAvailable from: Claus-Michael Lehr[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: In contrast to drugs for therapeutic use, there are only few data available concerning interactions between P-glycoprotein (P-gp) and drugs of abuse (DOA). In this work, interactions between structurally diverse DOA and P-gp were investigated using different strategies. First, the effect on the P-gp ATPase activity was studied by monitoring of ATP consumption after addition to recombinant, human P-gp. Second, DOA showing an increased ATP consumption were further characterized regarding their transport across filter grown Caco-2- monolayers. Analyses were performed by luminescence and liquid chromatography-mass spectrometry, respectively. Among the nine DOA initially screened, benzedrone, diclofensine, glaucine, JWH-200, MDBC, WIN-55,212-2 showed an increase of ATP consumption in the ATPase stimulation assay. In Caco-2 transport studies, Glaucine, JWH-200, mitragynine, WIN-55,212-2 could moreover be identified as non-transported substrates, but inhibitors of P-gp activity. Thus, drug-drug or drug-food interactions should be very likely for these compoundsBiochemical Pharmacology 01/2015; 94(3). DOI:10.1016/j.bcp.2015.01.008 · 4.65 Impact Factor
- African journal of pharmacy and pharmacology 10/2012; 6(38):2710-2723,. DOI:10.5897/AJPP12.487 · 0.84 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Drug use in pregnancy is very common but may cause harm to the fetus. The teratogenic effect of a drug is partly dependent on the drug level in the fetal circulation, which is associated with the transport across the placenta. Many drugs are substrates of P-glycoprotein (P-gp), an efflux transporter that acts as a protective barrier for the fetus. We aim to identify whether drug interactions associated with P-gp promote any changes in fetal drug exposure, as measured by the risk of having children with congenital anomalies. In this study, cases (N = 4634) were mothers of children with congenital anomalies registered in the EUROCAT Northern Netherlands registry, and the reference population were mothers of children (N = 25,126) from a drug prescription database (IADB.nl). Drugs that are associated with P-gp transport were commonly used in pregnancy in cases (10 %) and population (12 %). Several drug classes, which are substrates for P-gp, were shown to have a higher user rate in mothers of cases with specific anomalies. The use of this subset of drugs in combination with other P-gp substrates increased the risk for specific anomalies (odds ratio [OR] 4.17, 95 % CI 1.75-9.91), and the addition of inhibitors further increased the risk (OR 13.03, 95 % CI 3.37-50.42). The same pattern of risk increment was observed when the drugs were analyzed separately according to substrate specificity. The use of drugs associated with P-gp transport was common during pregnancy. For several drug classes associated with specific anomalies, P-gp-mediated drug interactions are associated with an increased risk for those specific anomalies.Drug Safety 05/2015; DOI:10.1007/s40264-015-0299-3 · 2.62 Impact Factor