Advertisement

Drug Safety

, Volume 37, Issue 4, pp 201–211 | Cite as

Pharmacokinetic Drug Interaction Profiles of Proton Pump Inhibitors: An Update

  • Ralph-Steven WedemeyerEmail author
  • Henning Blume
Open Access
Review Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Clopidogrel Omeprazole Ritonavir Lansoprazole Mycophenolate Mofetil 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

1 Introduction

Proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) achieve a greater degree and longer duration of gastric acid suppression, and better healing rates in various gastric acid-related disorders, than histamine H2 receptor antagonists [1, 2, 3]. They are thus considered essential in the management of gastro-oesophageal reflux disease, peptic ulcer disease (PUD) and Zollinger–Ellison syndrome. PPIs are also a key part of triple therapy (with two antibiotics, such as clarithromycin, amoxicillin or metronidazole) for the eradication of H. pylori in PUD [4], and may be used in the prophylaxis of stress- and NSAID-induced PUD [5, 6]. Many of these disorders generally require long-term treatment, which increases the potential for clinically significant drug interactions in patients (such as hospitalised patients and community-dwelling older people [7, 8]) receiving PPIs and other medications [9].

A previous review published in 2006 highlighted the similarities and differences among the PPIs in terms of the likelihood, relevance and mechanisms of drug–drug interactions [10]. In the review, the authors discussed how, by elevating pH, PPIs can modify the intragastric release of other drugs from their dosage forms, and also how PPIs influence drug absorption and metabolism by interacting with adenosine triphosphate-dependent P-glycoprotein or with the cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzyme system [10]. At the time of the review, the interaction profiles of omeprazole and pantoprazole sodium (pantoprazole-Na) had been studied most extensively. The authors concluded that omeprazole carried a considerable potential for drug interactions because of its high affinity for CYP2C19 and moderate affinity for CYP3A4, whereas pantoprazole-Na appeared to have a lower potential for interactions than omeprazole based on extensive evidence. Lansoprazole and rabeprazole also seemed to have a weaker potential for interactions than omeprazole, but this was based on limited evidence only. Much of the review remains relevant today; however, several PPI drug interaction papers have been published since 2006. Thus, here we present an update of the 2006 review, which, when read in conjunction with the original article, provides a comprehensive overview of drug interactions associated with the use of PPIs [10].

This review is based on literature published from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2012 identified by searching (i) MEDLINE using Medical Subject Heading (MESH) terms for ‘drug-interactions’ and ‘proton pump inhibitors’; and (ii) EMBASE using (Omeprazole/drug interaction) OR (Esomeprazole/drug interaction) OR (Lansoprazole/drug interaction) OR (Pantoprazole/drug interaction) OR (Rabeprazole/drug interaction) OR (Proton-Pump-Inhibitor/drug interaction). Searches were limited to English language and excluded comments, editorials, letters, notes or conference papers or reviews. PUBMED and EMBASE results were combined and duplicates removed; the remaining results were divided into articles investigating PPI interactions with clopidogrel (where this term was used in the title, abstract or as CAS number for MEDLNE or as descriptor for EMBASE) and other drug interaction articles. Additional articles were also obtained from manual searches of the reference lists of relevant reviews and papers. In total, 132 articles for interactions with clopidogrel and 174 articles for interactions with other drugs were obtained. The two authors independently selected additional articles for inclusion based on appropriate study design for drug-interaction studies, and any discrepancies were discussed and agreed. Forty new references were identified and used in this updated review.

2 Mechanisms Involved in Proton Pump Inhibitor Drug Interactions

2.1 Modulation of Gastric pH

Group-specific interactions between PPIs and other drugs may result from a PPI-induced increase in gastric pH, which can decrease the soluble amount of other drug substances, alter drug release from products with pH-dependent dissolution properties, or indirectly impact bioavailability by changing the kinetics of pro-drugs. Examples of drug pharmacokinetics that are affected by gastric pH have been discussed extensively in the 2006 review [10]. These include the reduced bioavailability of oral ketoconazole when co-administered with omeprazole 60 mg [11], and the reduced mean area under the concentration-time curve at 24 hours (AUC24) and peak plasma concentration (C max) of oral itraconazole 200-mg capsules administered with concomitant omeprazole 40 mg [12].

Of importance since the publication of the 2006 review, new data are available for the interaction of PPIs and mycophenolate mofetil. Administration of PPIs increases intragastric pH, which slows down the hydrolysis of mycophenolate mofetil resulting in decreased maximum exposure and availability of mycophenolic acid, at least at early time points. Compared with mycophenolate mofetil alone, coadministration of mycophenolate mofetil with pantoprazole-Na resulted in persistently lower plasma concentrations of mycophenolic acid in heart transplant recipients [13] and a significant decrease in total and maximum exposure in patients with autoimmune disease. This correlated with a 42 % increase (p < 0.01) in the area of inosine monophosphate dehydrogenase activity [14]. However, coadministration of pantoprazole-Na and enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium did not result in any significant changes in pharmacokinetic parameters in heart or lung transplant recipients [15]. These findings from steady-state studies confirmed results from an earlier study in healthy individuals [16]. Being in steady state for pantoprazole-Na (40 mg/day) significantly lowered total and maximum exposure of mycophenolic acid after administration of mycophenolate mofetil, but had no relevant effect after administration of enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium. Other pharmacokinetic parameters were not affected [16], suggesting that interaction on the enzymatic level is unlikely.

Other interactions not discussed in the previous review include changes in the contact of the PPIs themselves to the gastric environment, which will change the exposure to the PPI. This predominantly results from the instability of PPIs at low pH and makes administration of PPIs by means of gastro-resistant formulations a necessity. Consistent with this, concomitant intake of the prokinetic mosapride led to increases of about 50 % in total and maximum exposure after administration of rabeprazole, which was explained by the increased transport time to the intestine [17]. These results substantiated earlier results for the combination of omeprazole and mosapride [18] and suggested that such an interaction would also benefit all other PPIs. However, this explanation does not address the fact that administration as a gastro-resistant formulation means no contact of PPI and gastric acid, suggesting that an undiscovered pharmacokinetic interaction with mosapride is also possible.

A group effect with clear clinical implications is assumed for several protease inhibitors that can have significantly altered bioavailability if coadministered with PPIs. For example, total and maximum exposure to single-dose atazanavir 400 mg was reduced by more than 90 % when administered with lansoprazole 60 mg [19]. The loss in solubility for atazanavir at increased pH values is considered responsible for this effect, as a CYP-mediated interaction is unlikely for this drug combination. For other combinations, the situation may be more complex. Exposure to nelfinavir, which is comparably pH-dependently soluble, was reduced at steady state after nelfinavir 1,250 mg twice daily for 4 days by about 35 % if coadministered with omeprazole 40 mg once daily for 4 days, but terminal elimination and clearance remained unaltered [20]. Nevertheless, nelfinavir is metabolised by CYP 2C19, whose inhibition by omeprazole probably counteracts the loss in exposure caused by solubility effects. This would also explain the decrease in the metabolic ratio of the main metabolite and nelfinavir.

In contrast, total and maximum exposure to single-dose raltegravir 400 mg are increased by a factor of 3 and 4, respectively, if administered with omeprazole 20 mg once daily for 4 days [21]. Enzyme-based interactions are unlikely given the metabolic pathway of raltegravir; however, raltegravir has greatly increased solubility at increased pH and is a substrate to P-glycoprotein, which is at least modestly inhibited by omeprazole, both effects probably being synergistic. As shown here, in addition to possible group effects of PPIs, individual interactions of each compound remain possible and should be considered.

The situation for protease inhibitors becomes even more complex with the common concomitant use of the booster ritonavir. Ritonavir itself has better solubility at a lower pH, boosts other protease inhibitors by inhibiting CYP3A4, is metabolised by CYP3A4 (similar to PPIs) and is a substrate and inhibitor of P-glycoprotein [22, 23, 24].

Total and maximum exposure of the non-ionizable lopinavir and ritonavir at steady state were both increased by about 25 % when administered with omeprazole, without obvious changes in the elimination [22]. These findings were explained by an increase in exposure to ritonavir resulting from inhibition of P-glycoprotein by omeprazole and a subsequent stronger inhibitory effect on CYP3A4 by ritonavir. Separation of protease inhibitor and omeprazole administration by 2 hours in another study largely prevented this effect; the increase in total and maximum exposure to ritonavir after dose separation was lowered from 14 to 3 % and from 16 to 8 %, respectively [23]. In contrast, exposure to concomitantly administered saquinavir remained increased by 50–70 % and, thus, was obviously not triggered by the change for ritonavir (i.e., another more systemic effect should account for this effect). Consistent with this, in another study, the increase in exposure to ritonavir was negligible, but exposure to saquinavir was increased by about 80 %, with a concomitant increase of omeprazole dose [24].

The combined effect of several factors was demonstrated in a study with a single dose of indinavir 800 mg, in which exposure to indinavir was decreased by 35 and 45 % with constant treatment with omeprazole 20 and 40 mg but was increased by 55 % when a single dose of ritonavir 200 mg was added to high-dose omeprazole [25].

2.2 Interactions with the Adenosine Triphosphate-Dependent Efflux Transporter P-Glycoprotein

Since the publication of the previous review [10], there have been no new studies involving PPIs and the P-glycoprotein transporter system. In the previous review, omeprazole, lansoprazole and pantoprazole-Na, which are substrates for the P-glycoprotein transporter system, were all reported to inhibit P-glycoprotein-mediated efflux of digoxin in an in vitro Caco-2 cell model [26]. Data were not available in this study for esomeprazole and rabeprazole.

2.3 The Cytochrome P450 Enzyme System

Discussion of interactions with intestinal and liver CYPs was extensive in the 2006 review [10] and is not reiterated here, except to remind readers that PPIs are predominantly metabolised in the liver by CYP2C19 and CYP3A4 [27].

Of significance since the previous review, there have been extensive discussions in recent reviews and meta-analyses on the drug interactions between certain PPIs and clopidogrel [28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34]. These interactions appear to be mediated by CYP2C19 and are of utmost clinical relevance. Although recent retrospective studies have suggested an attenuation of the beneficial effects of clopidogrel when administered concomitantly with PPIs in general, stratification of the analysis has indicated that such effects are not present in patients receiving pantoprazole-Na compared with those receiving omeprazole [35, 36]. Several studies demonstrated that being in steady state for omeprazole significantly increased total exposure to clopidogrel and decreased exposure to the active metabolite [37]. These effects continued to persist even after separating administrations of the drugs by 12 hours, or after administration of doubled doses of clopidogrel. However, differences became clearly smaller after substitution of omeprazole by pantoprazole-Na [37].

This is consistent with the finding that clopidogrel must be activated by CYP2C19, an enzyme inhibited by omeprazole but not pantoprazole-Na [38]. It is further confirmed by data showing that exposure to the active metabolite after administration of clopidogrel was significantly decreased, and inhibition of platelet function diminished, under coadministration of omeprazole or esomeprazole [39]. The relevance of CYP2C19 is further stressed by a study showing that only a small effect was observed from coadministration of lansoprazole with prasugrel, the latter being activated more dominantly by CYP isoenzymes other than CYP2C19 [40].

The situation for lansoprazole seems more complex; however, unlike for rabeprazole, at least some information, including pharmacokinetic data, is available. Coadministration of lansoprazole with clopidogrel had no effect on the formation of clopidogrel’s inactive carboxylic acid metabolite. Nonetheless, the pharmacodynamic effect was significantly lowered in good responders to clopidogrel, probably as a result of inhibition of clopidogrel activation via CYP2C19, which is without relevance for the formation of the carboxylic acid derivative via esterases [40]. However, evaluation of the total population in this study did not show more than a trend to a lowered efficacy of clopidogrel. This is consistent with findings reported from another study which found lansoprazole or dexlansoprazole exhibited no significant effect on the exposure to clopidogrel’s active metabolite or its pharmacodynamics [39].

In summary an interaction between clopidogrel and PPIs seems to exist for omeprazole and esomeprazole, whereas there are only limited data for rabeprazole. Dexlansoprazole, lansoprazole and pantoprazole-Na had less effect on the antiplatelet activity of clopidogrel than did omeprazole or esomeprazole, which is supported by the Plavix label [41].

3 Interaction Profiles of Proton Pump Inhibitors

The interaction profiles of omeprazole and pantoprazole-Na have been extensively studied, whereas those for esomeprazole, lansoprazole and rabeprazole are less well defined. The major findings of these studies are summarised in Table 1, which includes new data on drug interaction studies with bortezomib [42], ciprofloxacin extended release [43], citalopram [44], clarithromycin [45], clopidogrel [37, 39], etravirine [46], gemifloxacin [47] and ivabradine [48].
Table 1

Pharmacokinetic interaction profiles of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs)

Concomitant drug

Effect of PPI on concomitant drug

Esomeprazole

Lansoprazole

Omeprazole

Pantoprazole-Na

Rabeprazole

Antacid

Unknown

Conflicting results [108, 111]

None [64]

None [83]

None [123]

Phenazone (antipyrine)

Unknown

↑ Clearance [106]

↓ Clearance [125]

None [84]

Unknown

Bortezomib

Unknown

Unknown

None [42]

Unknown

Unknown

Caffeine

Unknown

None [126]

Conflicting results [126, 127]

None [85, 126]

Unknown

Carbamazepine

Unknown

Unknown

↓ Clearance [128]

None [86]

Unknown

Oral contraceptives

Unknown

Conflicting results [129]

Unknown [125]

None [98]

Unknown

Ciclosporin

Unknown

Unknown

Conflicting results [70, 71, 130]

None [88]

Unknown

Cinacalcet

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

None [87]

Unknown

Ciprofloxacin ER

Unknown

Unknown

None [43]

Unknown

Unknown

Citalopram

Unknown

Unknown

↓ Clearancea [44]

Unknown

Unknown

Clarithromycin

Unknown

Unknown

None [45]

None [45]

Unknown

Clopidogrel

↓ Absorption [39]

None [39]

↓ Absorption [37]

None [37]

Unknown

Diazepam

↓ Clearance [80, 81, 82, 131]

None [107]

↓ Clearance [53, 54]

None [82, 89]

Noneb [55]

Diclofenac

Unknown

Unknown

None [65]

None [90]

Unknown

Digoxin

Unknown

Unknown

↑ Absorption [132]

Nonec [91]

↑ Absorption [133]

Ethanol

Unknown

None [134]

None [134]

None [92]

Unknown

Etravirine

Unknown

Unknown

↓ Clearance [46]

Unknown

Unknown

Gemifloxacin

Unknown

Unknown

None [47]

Unknown

Unknown

Glibenclamide

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

None [93]

Unknown

Ivabradine

Unknown

None [48]

None [48]

Unknown

Unknown

Levothyroxine

Unknown

Unknown

Unknown

None [94]

Unknown

Metoprolol

Unknown

Unknown

None [66]

None [95]

Unknown

Naproxen

Unknown

Unknown

None [65]

None [96]

Unknown

Nifedipine

Unknown

Unknown

↑ Absorption

↓ Clearance [67]

Noned [97]

Unknown

Phenprocoumon

Unknown

Unknown

↓ Clearance [63]

None [99]

Unknown

Phenytoin

↓ Clearance [80, 131]

None [110]

↓ Clearance [54, 58, 135]

None [100]

None [120]

Piroxicam

Unknown

Unknown

None [65]

None [101]

Unknown

Tacrolimus

Unknown

↓ Clearance [117]

Unknown

None [102]

None [117, 122, 136]

Theophylline

Unknown

Conflicting results [113, 114]

None [68, 113]

None [103, 113]

None [121]

Warfarin

↓ Clearancee [80, 131]

None [111]

↓ Clearancee [59, 60, 61]

None [104]

None [121]

Table modified from Blume et al. [10]. Reprinted with permission (with additions for bortezomib [42], ciprofloxacin ER [43], citalopram [44], clarithromycin [45], clopidogrel [37, 39], etravirine [46], gemifloxacin [47] and ivabradine [48])

↓ decreases, ↑ increases, ER extended release

a(+)-(S) enantiomer only

bEffects were seen with the desmethyl metabolite of diazepam but were significant only in CYP2C19-deficient individuals

cβ-Acetyldigoxin

dOnly for nifedipine sustained-release

eOnly for R-warfarin; present in homozygous extensive metabolisers

Since 2006, a retrospective case-control study in patients with coronary artery disease indicated increased residual platelet aggregation and platelet activation during concomitant treatment with 75 mg/day non-enteric-coated acetylsalicylic acid and PPIs [49]. Coadministration of enteric-coated acetylsalicylic acid with pantoprazole-Na showed a decrease in platelet aggregation [50] and coadministration with lansoprazole showed no significant effect on platelet activity or in the levels of salicylates in the blood [51]. Thus, these prospective studies, which investigated the effects of the PPIs constituting concomitant treatment in about 70 % of patients in the case-control study, do not support the observed impairment of acetylsalicylic acid. Effects on platelet function with omeprazole and esomeprazole cannot be ruled out and monitoring of treatment efficacy might be recommended in cases of omeprazole or esomeprazole coadministration.

Case reports (from both the literature and the US Food and Drug Administration Adverse Events Reporting System) along with population pharmacokinetic studies suggest that coadministration of PPIs and methotrexate may elevate and prolong serum levels of methotrexate and/or its metabolite hydroxymethotrexate, although the mechanism for this interaction is not clearly understood (see Bezabeh et al. [52] for a comprehensive review).

3.1 Omeprazole

In the previous review [10], omeprazole was reported to interact with diazepam [53, 54, 55], proguanil [56] and the antidepressant moclobemide (in extensive metabolisers) [57] via competitive inhibition of CYP2C19. Omeprazole-induced competitive inhibition of CYP2C19 also has the potential to alter the metabolism of phenytoin [54, 58] and warfarin [59, 60, 61, 62, 63] (see the previous review for an extensive discussion) [10]. More recently, CYP2C19 inhibition by omeprazole was identified as the reason for a 50 % reduction in the oral clearance of (+)-(S) citalopram, with a corresponding increase of approximately 120 % in plasma concentrations in healthy volunteers [44]. Similarly, such inhibition was found most likely to increase the total exposure of etravirine by 41 % after a single dose of etravirine 100 mg and multiple-dose omeprazole, an effect that was not observed with multiple-dose ranitidine [46].

The effects of omeprazole on the pharmacokinetics of antacids, bortezomib, ciprofloxacin extended release, gemifloxacin, nifedipine, metoprolol, NSAIDs, iron and theophylline have also been investigated, with no clinically significant findings [42, 43, 47, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69]. Systematic clinical trials have shown conflicting results for interactions between omeprazole and ciclosporin, with elevated ciclosporin concentrations occurring in heart transplant patients [70] but not in renal transplant patients [71] following coadministration of these agents.

Compounds with a high affinity for CYP3A4 (e.g., ketoconazole or fluconazole [72, 73], clarithromycin [74] and moclobemide [75]) may affect the bioavailability of omeprazole by increasing its serum concentrations, but this is only likely to be clinically relevant in those with CYP2C19 deficiency who metabolise omeprazole via the CYP3A4 metabolic pathway.

Omeprazole kinetics are also affected via the CYP2C19 pathway. Decreased plasma concentrations of omeprazole and omeprazole sulphone occurred after administration of ginkgo biloba [76] or St. John’s wort [77]. Metabolism of omeprazole was reduced following administration of fluvoxamine (extensive metabolisers only) [78], and the omeprazole AUC was increased following use of a combined oral contraceptive containing ethinyloestradiol [79] (see previous review for details [10]).

In summary, several omeprazole-related drug interactions have been reported, although not all these interactions are considered significant. The number of reported interactions might be explained by the fact that omeprazole has been available longer than other PPIs (since 1989).

3.2 Esomeprazole

There are no additional new data for CYP-mediated interactions with esomeprazole. The 2006 review concluded that the interaction potentials of esomeprazole and racemic omeprazole seem not to differ significantly [10]. The authors reported that there were no apparent interactions between esomeprazole and drugs that are primarily metabolised by CYP1A2, CYP2A6, CYP2C9, CYP2D6 or CYP2E1 [80]. Esomeprazole, however, does interact with compounds metabolised by CYP2C19 as shown in studies using phenytoin and R-warfarin, although interactions did not reach clinical significance [80]. In addition, multiple doses of esomeprazole increased diazepam concentrations and reduced diazepam elimination, but no similar changes were reported with pantoprazole-Na [81, 82]. These effects with esomeprazole were manifested clinically as disrupted motor coordination and vigilance [81, 82].

3.3 Pantoprazole

Since the last review, pantoprazole-Na has been shown to have no significant interactions with clopidogrel [37]. The authors of the previous review concluded that extensive studies in healthy volunteers and patients have shown that pantoprazole-Na has a low potential to interact with other medications [10]. There were no significant metabolic interactions when combining pantoprazole-Na with antacids [83], phenazone (antipyrine) [84], caffeine [85], carbamazepine [86], cinacalcet [87], clarithromycin [45], ciclosporin [88], clopidogrel [37], diazepam [89], diclofenac [90], β-acetyldigoxin [91], ethanol [92], glibenclamide [93], levothyroxine sodium [94], metoprolol [95], naproxen [96], sustained-release nifedipine [97], oral contraceptives [98], phenprocoumon [99], phenytoin [100], piroxicam [101], tacrolimus [102], theophylline [103] or warfarin [104]. There was a slight, but clinically insignificant, interaction between pantoprazole-Na 40 mg and cisapride 20 mg [105].

Pantoprazole-magnesium (pantoprazole-Mg) is an improved formulation of pantoprazole that has been developed since the 2006 review. Pantoprazole-Mg was achieved by synthesizing a magnesium salt of the active ingredient, rather than a sodium salt as in pantoprazole-Na. Since pantoprazole-Na and pantoprazole-Mg are different salts of the same molecule, their drug interaction profiles are expected to be similar.

3.4 Lansoprazole

There have been no new CYP-mediated drug interaction studies with lansoprazole since the 2006 review [10]. As outlined previously, there are no clinically significant interactions reported between lansoprazole and phenazone [106], diazepam [107], ivabradine [48], magaldrate [108], oral contraceptives [109], phenytoin [110], prednisolone [111], propranolol [111] or warfarin [112]. Increases in theophylline bioavailability following lansoprazole administration are not considered to be clinically significant [113, 114], and increased clearance of theophylline following lansoprazole use [115] was not seen consistently [113]. Lansoprazole decreased oral tacrolimus clearance, significantly increasing blood tacrolimus concentration [116], particularly in those with CYP2C19 mutant alleles [116, 117]. Finally, the CYP2C19 inhibitor fluvoxamine had a significant effect on lansoprazole metabolism (increased plasma concentrations) in extensive metabolisers for CYP2C19 but not in poor metabolisers [118].

More recently, dexlansoprazole, the active enantiomer of lansoprazole, has been introduced into therapy. This compound is marketed with an innovative Dual Delayed Release™ technology, which is designed to release the entire dose in two separate portions to allow prolongation of plasma concentration-time profiles after once-daily administration. Considering the mechanism of action of PPI with irreversible inhibition of the proton pump, clinical advantages of such a biopharmaceutical profile should be carefully evaluated in therapeutic practice. Interactions of dexlansoprazole dual delayed release product have been investigated with diazepam, phenytoin, theophylline and warfarin as probe drugs (for interactions, e.g. with CYP2C19, 2C9, 1A2 and 3A) and no impact on pharmacokinetics of the compounds has been found [119].

The interaction profiles of lansoprazole and dexlansoprazole have not been as thoroughly investigated as those of omeprazole or pantoprazole-Na. Nonetheless, neither compound appears to be associated with major clinically relevant drug interactions.

3.5 Rabeprazole

Information on drug interactions with rabeprazole has not changed since the 2006 review [10]. Drug interactions with rabeprazole are less well studied than those with omeprazole or pantoprazole-Na, as evidenced by the large number of unknown results in Table 1. Most studies report interactions attributed to the group effect of all PPIs on gastric pH (e.g. interactions with digoxin [120] or ketoconazole [121]). Significant CYP-mediated drug interactions with rabeprazole are generally not likely because rabeprazole has a low affinity for a range of CYP isoenzymes [27]. Further studies will prove useful to confirm this. In the 2006 review, rabeprazole was not found to be involved in metabolic drug interactions with theophylline [121], warfarin [121], phenytoin [120], tacrolimus [122] or antacids [123]. Its effect on the pharmacokinetics of the desmethyl metabolite of diazepam was significant only in poor metabolisers of S-mephenytoin 4′-hydroxylation (i.e., those deficient in CYP2C19) [55].

The CYP2C19 inhibitor fluvoxamine had a significant effect on rabeprazole metabolism in extensive metabolisers of CYP2C19, with increased AUC(0,∞) and elimination half-life of rabeprazole and rabeprazole thioether in homozygous and heterozygous extensive metabolisers [124]. In contrast, there were no differences in any pharmacokinetic parameters in poor metabolisers (*2/*2).

4 Conclusions

A thorough review of the literature since 2006 has yielded additional PPI drug interactions modulated by gastric pH, such as those reported with mycophenolate mofetil [13, 14, 16], the instability of PPIs themselves at low pH [17], and the altered pharmacokinetics of several protease inhibitors (including atazanavir [19], nelfinavir [20], raltegravir [21], ritonavir [22, 23, 24], and indinavir [25]). There are, however, a few new CYP-mediated drug interaction studies, with the most notable being the new data on dexlansoprazole and data for interactions between some PPIs and clopidogrel. Of clinical importance in recent years, CYP2C19-mediated interaction seems to exist between clopidogrel and omeprazole or esomeprazole, an effect not seen in PPIs as a class [35, 36, 37, 39]. In addition, the effects of omeprazole and esomeprazole on platelet aggregation when coadministered with acetylsalicylic acid cannot be ruled out without additional research. Finally, coadministration of PPIs with methotrexate may affect methotrexate pharmacokinetics, although the mechanism of interaction is not well understood [52].

Overall, the conclusions from the 2006 review still remain relevant. Lansoprazole, pantoprazole-Na and rabeprazole appear to be associated with lower incidences of drug interactions than omeprazole and esomeprazole, resulting either from their lower affinity for specific CYP isoenzymes or the involvement of additional elimination processes. However, only the interaction profile of pantoprazole-Na has been well characterised.

With little difference among the PPIs in terms of clinical efficacy at equivalent doses, differences in drug interaction propensities become important factors in prescribing decisions, particularly in patients who are taking multiple concomitant medications (such as the elderly) or those receiving drugs with a narrow therapeutic window. A PPI with a well proven low risk of drug interactions would be the favourable choice in these patients.

Notes

Acknowledgements

Henning Blume and Ralph-Steven Wedemeyer declared no conflict of interest relevant to this manuscript.

HB and R-SW were responsible for writing and reviewing all drafts of the manuscript and approving the final draft.

Editorial support was provided by Susan Cheer, Freelance Writing Works, Queenstown, New Zealand, who received funding from Takeda Pharmaceuticals International GmbH. No other funding was provided for this manuscript.

References

  1. 1.
    Chiba N, De Gara CJ, Wilkinson JM, et al. Speed of healing and symptom relief in grade II to IV gastroesophageal reflux disease: a meta-analysis. Gastroenterology. 1997;112(6):1798–810.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dammann HG. Pantoprazole: a pharmacological and clinical profile. Today’s Ther Trends. 1997;15:109–36.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cheer SM, Prakash A, Faulds D, et al. Pantoprazole: an update of its pharmacological properties and therapeutic use in the management of acid-related disorders. Drugs. 2003;63(1):101–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Welage LS, Berardi RR. Evaluation of omeprazole, lansoprazole, pantoprazole, and rabeprazole in the treatment of acid-related diseases. J Am Pharm Assoc (Wash). 2000;40(1):52–62 quiz 121–3.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lanza FL, Members of the Ad Hoc Committee on Practice Parameters of the American College of Gastroenterology. A guideline for the treatment and prevention of NSAID-induced ulcers. Am J Gastroenterol. 1998;93(11):2037–46.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Singh G, Triadafilopoulos G. Appropriate choice of proton pump inhibitor therapy in the prevention and management of NSAID-related gastrointestinal damage. Int J Clin Pract. 2005;59(10):1210–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hanlon JT, Schmader KE, Koronkowski MJ, et al. Adverse drug events in high risk older outpatients. J Am Geriatr Soc. 1997;45(8):945–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lazarou J, Pomeranz BH, Corey PN. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in hospitalized patients: a meta-analysis of prospective studies. JAMA. 1998;279(15):1200–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ramirez FC. Diagnosis and treatment of gastroesophageal reflux disease in the elderly. Clevel Clin J Med. 2000;67(10):755–66.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Blume H, Donath F, Warnke A, et al. Pharmacokinetic drug interaction profiles of proton pump inhibitors. Drug Saf. 2006;29(9):769–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chin TW, Loeb M, Fong IW. Effects of an acidic beverage (Coca-Cola) on absorption of ketoconazole. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 1995;39(8):1671–5.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jaruratanasirikul S, Sriwiriyajan S. Effect of omeprazole on the pharmacokinetics of itraconazole. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1998;54(2):159–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kofler S, Deutsch MA, Bigdeli AK, et al. Proton pump inhibitor co-medication reduces mycophenolate acid drug exposure in heart transplant recipients. J Heart Lung Transpl. 2009;28(6):605–11.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Schaier M, Scholl C, Scharpf D, et al. Proton pump inhibitors interfere with the immunosuppressive potency of mycophenolate mofetil. Rheumatology (Oxford). 2010;49(11):2061–7.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kofler S, Wolf C, Shvets N, et al. The proton pump inhibitor pantoprazole and its interaction with enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium in transplant recipients. J Heart Lung Transpl. 2011;30(5):565–71.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rupprecht K, Schmidt C, Raspe A, et al. Bioavailability of mycophenolate mofetil and enteric-coated mycophenolate sodium is differentially affected by pantoprazole in healthy volunteers. J Clin Pharmacol. 2009;49(10):1196–201.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Arai K, Takeuchi Y, Watanabe H, et al. Prokinetics influence the pharmacokinetics of rabeprazole. Digestion. 2008;78:7–71.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Takeuchi Y, Watanabe H, Imawari M. Mosapride citrate, a serotonin HT 4 selective agonist, beneficially affects pharmacokinetics of proton pump inhibitor. Gastroenterology. 2005;128:A531.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Tomilo DL, Smith PF, Ogundele AB, et al. Inhibition of atazanavir oral absorption by lansoprazole gastric acid suppression in healthy volunteers. Pharmacotherapy. 2006;26(3):341–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Fang AF, Damle BD, LaBadie RR, et al. Significant decrease in nelfinavir systemic exposure after omeprazole coadministration in healthy subjects. Pharmacotherapy. 2008;28(1):42–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Iwamoto M, Wenning LA, Nguyen BY, et al. Effects of omeprazole on plasma levels of raltegravir. Clin Infect Dis. 2009;48(4):489–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Overton ET, Tschampa JM, Klebert M, et al. The effect of acid reduction with a proton pump inhibitor on the pharmacokinetics of lopinavir or ritonavir in HIV-infected patients on lopinavir/ritonavir-based therapy. J Clin Pharmacol. 2010;50(9):1050–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Singh K, Dickinson L, Chaikan A, et al. Pharmacokinetics and safety of saquinavir/ritonavir and omeprazole in HIV-infected subjects. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2008;83(6):867–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Winston A, Back D, Fletcher C, et al. Effect of omeprazole on the pharmacokinetics of saquinavir-500 mg formulation with ritonavir in healthy male and female volunteers. AIDS. 2006;20(10):1401–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tappouni HL, Rublein JC, Donovan BJ, et al. Effect of omeprazole on the plasma concentrations of indinavir when administered alone and in combination with ritonavir. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2008;65(5):422–8.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Pauli-Magnus C, Rekersbrink S, Klotz U, et al. Interaction of omeprazole, lansoprazole and pantoprazole with P-glycoprotein. Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol. 2001;364(6):551–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gerson LB, Triadafilopoulos G. Proton pump inhibitors and their drug interactions: an evidence-based approach. Eur J Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2001;13(5):611–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Laine L. Proton pump inhibitor co-therapy with clopidogrel: is there GI benefit or cardiovascular harm? Gastroenterology. 2011;140(3):769–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Kwok CS, Loke YK. Meta-analysis: the effects of proton pump inhibitors on cardiovascular events and mortality in patients receiving clopidogrel. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 2010;31(8):810–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Lima JP, Brophy JM. The potential interaction between clopidogrel and proton pump inhibitors: a systematic review. BMC Med. 2010;8:81.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Bates ER, Lau WC, Angiolillo DJ. Clopidogrel-drug interactions. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57(11):1251–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ogawa R, Echizen H. Drug–drug interaction profiles of proton pump inhibitors. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2010;49(8):509–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Chen J, Yuan YC, Leontiadis GI, et al. Recent safety concerns with proton pump inhibitors. J Clin Gastroenterol. 2012;46:93–114.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kwok CS, Loke YK. Effects of proton pump inhibitors on platelet function in patients receiving clopidogrel: a systematic review. Drug Saf. 2012;35(2):127–39.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ho PM, Maddox TM, Wang L, et al. Risk of adverse outcomes associated with concomitant use of clopidogrel and proton pump inhibitors following acute coronary syndrome. JAMA. 2009;301(9):937–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Juurlink DN, Gomes T, Ko DT, et al. A population-based study of the drug interaction between proton pump inhibitors and clopidogrel. CMAJ. 2009;180(7):713–8.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Angiolillo DJ, Gibson CM, Cheng S, et al. Differential effects of omeprazole and pantoprazole on the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of clopidogrel in healthy subjects: randomized, placebo-controlled, crossover comparison studies. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2011;89(1):65–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Li XQ, Andersson TB, Ahlstrom M, et al. Comparison of inhibitory effects of the proton pump-inhibiting drugs omeprazole, esomeprazole, lansoprazole, pantoprazole, and rabeprazole on human cytochrome P450 activities. Drug Metab Dispos. 2004;32(8):821–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Frelinger AL, Lee RD, Mulford DJ, et al. A randomized, 2-period, crossover design study to assess the effects of dexlansoprazole, lansoprazole, esomeprazole, and omeprazole on the steady-state pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of clopidogrel in healthy volunteers. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012;59:1304–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Small DS, Farid NA, Payne CD, et al. Effects of the proton pump inhibitor lansoprazole on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of prasugrel and clopidogrel. J Clin Pharmacol. 2008;48(4):475–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    BMS. Plavix prescribing information. 2011. http://products.sanofi.us/plavix/plavix.html. Last accessed 23 April 2012.
  42. 42.
    Quinn DI, Nemunaitis J, Fuloria J, et al. Effect of the cytochrome P450 2C19 inhibitor omeprazole on the pharmacokinetics and safety profile of bortezomib in patients with advanced solid tumours, non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma or multiple myeloma. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2009;48(3):199–209.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Washington C, Hou E, Hughes N, et al. Effect of omeprazole on bioavailability of an oral extended-release formulation of ciprofloxacin. Am J Health Syst Pharm. 2006;63(7):653–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rocha A, Coelho EB, Sampaio SA, et al. Omeprazole preferentially inhibits the metabolism of (+)-(S)-citalopram in healthy volunteers. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2010;70(1):43–51.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Calabresi L, Pazzucconi F, Ferrara S, et al. Pharmacokinetic interactions between omeprazole/pantoprazole and clarithromycin in health volunteers. Pharmacol Res. 2004;49(5):493–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Scholler-Gyure M, Kakuda TN, De Smedt G, et al. A pharmacokinetic study of etravirine (TMC125) co-administered with ranitidine and omeprazole in HIV-negative volunteers. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2008;66(4):508–16.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Allen A, Vousden M, Lewis A. Effect of omeprazole on the pharmacokinetics of oral gemifloxacin in healthy volunteers. Chemotherapy. 1999;45(6):496–503.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Portoles A, Calvo A, Terleira A, et al. Lack of pharmacokinetic interaction between omeprazole or lansoprazole and ivabradine in healthy volunteers: an open-label, randomized, crossover, pharmacokinetic interaction clinical trial. J Clin Pharmacol. 2006;46(10):1195–203.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Wurtz M, Grove EL, Kristensen SD, et al. The antiplatelet effect of aspirin is reduced by proton pump inhibitors in patients with coronary artery disease. Heart. 2010;96(5):368–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Kasprzak M, Kozinski M, Bielis L, et al. Pantoprazole may enhance antiplatelet effect of enteric-coated aspirin in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Cardiol J. 2009;16(6):535–44.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Adamopoulos AB, Sakizlis GN, Nasothimiou EG, et al. Do proton pump inhibitors attenuate the effect of aspirin on platelet aggregation? A randomized crossover study. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol. 2009;54(2):163–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Bezabeh S, Mackey AC, Kluetz P, et al. Accumulating evidence for a drug-drug interaction between methotrexate and proton pump inhibitors. Oncologist. 2012;17(4):550–4.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Andersson T, Cederberg C, Edvardsson G, et al. Effect of omeprazole treatment on diazepam plasma levels in slow versus normal rapid metabolizers of omeprazole. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1990;47(1):79–85.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Gugler R, Jensen JC. Omeprazole inhibits oxidative drug metabolism. Studies with diazepam and phenytoin in vivo and 7-ethoxycoumarin in vitro. Gastroenterology. 1985;89(6):1235–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Ishizaki T, Chiba K, Manabe K, et al. Comparison of the interaction potential of a new proton pump inhibitor, E3810, versus omeprazole with diazepam in extensive and poor metabolizers of S-mephenytoin 4′-hydroxylation. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1995;58(2):155–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Funck-Brentano C, Becquemont L, Lenevu A, et al. Inhibition by omeprazole of proguanil metabolism: mechanism of the interaction in vitro and prediction of in vivo results from the in vitro experiments. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1997;280(2):730–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Yu KS, Yim DS, Cho JY, et al. Effect of omeprazole on the pharmacokinetics of moclobemide according to the genetic polymorphism of CYP2C19. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2001;69(4):266–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Prichard PJ, Walt RP, Kitchingman GK, et al. Oral phenytoin pharmacokinetics during omeprazole therapy. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1987;24(4):543–5.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Sutfin T, Balmer K, Bostrom H, et al. Stereoselective interaction of omeprazole with warfarin in healthy men. Ther Drug Monit. 1989;11(2):176–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Unge P, Svedberg LE, Nordgren A, et al. A study of the interaction of omeprazole and warfarin in anticoagulated patients. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1992;34(6):509–12.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Uno T, Sugimoto K, Sugawara K, et al. The role of cytochrome P2C19 in R-warfarin pharmacokinetics and its interaction with omeprazole. Ther Drug Monit. 2008;30(3):276–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Grass U. Drug interactions with proton pump inhibitors: cases reported internationally from medical practice [in German]. Der Kassenarzt. 2000;43:32–9.Google Scholar
  63. 63.
    Enderle C, Muller W, Grass U. Drug interaction: omeprazole and phenprocoumon. BMC Gastroenterol. 2001;1:2.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Iwao K, Saitoh H, Takeda K, et al. Decreased plasma levels of omeprazole after coadministration with magnesium-aluminium hydroxide dry suspension granules. Yakugaku Zasshi. 1999;119(3):221–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Andersson T, Bredberg E, Lagerstrom PO, et al. Lack of drug-drug interaction between three different non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs and omeprazole. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1998;54(5):399–404.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Andersson T, Lundborg P, Regardh CG. Lack of effect of omeprazole treatment on steady-state plasma levels of metoprolol. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1991;40(1):61–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Soons PA, van den Berg G, Danhof M, et al. Influence of single- and multiple-dose omeprazole treatment on nifedipine pharmacokinetics and effects in healthy subjects. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1992;42(3):319–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Taburet AM, Geneve J, Bocquentin M, et al. Theophylline steady state pharmacokinetics is not altered by omeprazole. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1992;42(3):343–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Koop H, Bachem MG. Serum iron, ferritin, and vitamin B12 during prolonged omeprazole therapy. J Clin Gastroenterol. 1992;14(4):288–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Reichenspurner H, Meiser BM, Muschiol F, et al. The influence of gastrointestinal agents on resorption and metabolism of cyclosporine after heart transplantation: experimental and clinical results. J Heart Lung Transpl. 1993;12(6 Pt 1):987–92.Google Scholar
  71. 71.
    Blohme I, Idstrom JP, Andersson T. A study of the interaction between omeprazole and cyclosporine in renal transplant patients. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1993;35(2):156–60.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Bottiger Y, Tybring G, Gotharson E, et al. Inhibition of the sulfoxidation of omeprazole by ketoconazole in poor and extensive metabolizers of S-mephenytoin. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1997;62(4):384–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Kang BC, Yang CQ, Cho HK, et al. Influence of fluconazole on the pharmacokinetics of omeprazole in healthy volunteers. Biopharm Drug Dispos. 2002;23(2):77–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Furuta T, Ohashi K, Kobayashi K, et al. Effects of clarithromycin on the metabolism of omeprazole in relation to CYP2C19 genotype status in humans. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1999;66(3):265–74.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Cho JY, Yu KS, Jang IJ, et al. Omeprazole hydroxylation is inhibited by a single dose of moclobemide in homozygotic EM genotype for CYP2C19. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2002;53(4):393–7.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Yin OQ, Tomlinson B, Waye MM, et al. Pharmacogenetics and herb–drug interactions: experience with Ginkgo biloba and omeprazole. Pharmacogenetics. 2004;14(12):841–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Wang LS, Zhou G, Zhu B, et al. St John’s wort induces both cytochrome P450 3A4-catalyzed sulfoxidation and 2C19-dependent hydroxylation of omeprazole. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2004;75(3):191–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Yasui-Furukori N, Takahata T, Nakagami T, et al. Different inhibitory effect of fluvoxamine on omeprazole metabolism between CYP2C19 genotypes. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2004;57(4):487–94.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Palovaara S, Tybring G, Laine K. The effect of ethinyloestradiol and levonorgestrel on the CYP2C19-mediated metabolism of omeprazole in healthy female subjects. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2003;56(2):232–7.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Andersson T, Hassan-Alin M, Hasselgren G, et al. Drug interaction studies with esomeprazole, the (S)-isomer of omeprazole. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2001;40(7):523–37.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Drewelow B, Schaffler K, Reitmeir P. Superior interaction profile of pantoprazole vs esomeprazole after single dose diazepam regarding pharmacodynamic (PD) and kinetic (PK) parameters. Can J Gastroenterol. 2006;20(Suppl. A):144.Google Scholar
  82. 82.
    Drewelow B, Schaffler K, Reitmeir P, et al. Effects of multiple-dose esomeprazole and pantoprazole on diazepam pharmacokinetic profile and pharmacodynamic effects on cognitive and psychomotor function in healthy volunteers. Arzneimittelforschung. 2010;60(8):483–91.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Hartmann M, Bliesath H, Huber R, et al. Simultaneous intake of antacids has no influence on the pharmacokinetics of the gastric H+/K+-ATPase inhibitor pantoprazole. Gut. 1994;35(Suppl. 4):A76.Google Scholar
  84. 84.
    De Mey C, Meineke I, Steinijans VW, et al. Pantoprazole lacks interaction with antipyrine in man, either by inhibition or induction. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1994;32(2):98–106.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Hartmann M, Zech K, Bliesath H, et al. Pantoprazole lacks induction of CYP1A2 activity in man. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1999;37(4):159–64.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Huber R, Bliesath H, Hartmann M, et al. Pantoprazole does not interact with the pharmacokinetics of carbamazepine. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1998;36(10):521–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Padhi D, Harris R, Salfi M, et al. Cinacalcet HCl absorption in study subjects is not affected by coadministration of medications commonly prescribed to chronic kidney disease (CKD) patients (pantoprazole, sevelamer HCl, and calcium carbonate). J Am Soc Nephrol. 2003;14:SA-PO744.Google Scholar
  88. 88.
    Lorf T, Ramadori G, Ringe B, et al. Pantoprazole does not affect cyclosporin A blood concentration in kidney-transplant patients. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2000;55(10):733–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Gugler R, Hartmann M, Rudi J, et al. Lack of pharmacokinetic interaction of pantoprazole with diazepam in man. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1996;42(2):249–52.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Bliesath H, Huber R, Steinijans VW, et al. Lack of pharmacokinetic interaction between pantoprazole and diclofenac. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1996;34(4):152–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Hartmann M, Huber R, Bliesath H, et al. Lack of interaction between pantoprazole and digoxin at therapeutic doses in man. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1996;34(1 Suppl.):S67–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Heinze H, Fischer R, Pfutzer R, et al. Lack of interaction between pantoprazole and ethanol. Clin Drug Invest. 2001;2001(21):345–51.Google Scholar
  93. 93.
    Walter-Sack IE, Bliesath H, Stotzer F, et al. Lack of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interaction between pantoprazole and glibenclamide in humans. Clin Drug Invest. 1998;15:253–60.Google Scholar
  94. 94.
    Dietrich JW, Gieselbrecht K, Holl RW, et al. Absorption kinetics of levothyroxine is not altered by proton-pump inhibitor therapy. Horm Metab Res. 2006;38(1):57–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Koch HJ, Hartmann M, Bliesath H, et al. Pantoprazole has no influence on steady state pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of metoprolol in healthy volunteers. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1996;34(10):420–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    Hartmann M, Schulz HU, Krupp S, et al. Pantoprazole lacks interaction with the NSAID naproxen in man. Gut. 2000;47:A85.Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Bliesath H, Huber R, Steinijans VW, et al. Pantoprazole does not interact with nifedipine in man under steady-state conditions. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1996;34(2):51–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Middle MV, Muller FO, Schall R, et al. Effect of pantoprazole on ovulation suppression by a low-dose hormonal contraceptive. Clin Drug Invest. 1995;9:54–6.Google Scholar
  99. 99.
    Ehrlich A, Fuder H, Hartmann M, et al. Lack of pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic interaction between pantoprazole and phenprocoumon in man. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1996;51(3–4):277–81.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Middle MV, Muller FO, Schall R, et al. No influence of pantoprazole on the pharmacokinetics of phenytoin. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1995;33(5):304–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Bliesath H, Hartmann H, Maier J, et al. Lack of interaction between pantoprazole and piroxicam in man. Gut. 2000;47:A85.Google Scholar
  102. 102.
    Lorf T, Ramadori G, Ringe B, et al. The effect of pantoprazole on tacrolimus and cyclosporin A blood concentration in transplant recipients. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2000;56(5):439–40.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Schulz HU, Hartmann M, Steinijans VW, et al. Lack of influence of pantoprazole on the disposition kinetics of theophylline in man. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol. 1991;29(9):369–75.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Duursema L, Muller FO, Schall R, et al. Lack of effect of pantoprazole on the pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of warfarin. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1995;39(6):700–3.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Ferron GM, Paul JC, Fruncillo RJ, et al. Lack of pharmacokinetic interaction between oral pantoprazole and cisapride in healthy adults. J Clin Pharmacol. 1999;39(9):945–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    St Peter JV, Awni WM, Granneman GR, et al. The effects of lansoprazole on the disposition of antipyrine and indocyanine green in normal human subjects. Am J Ther. 1995;2(8):561–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Lefebvre RA, Flouvat B, Karolac-Tamisier S, et al. Influence of lansoprazole treatment on diazepam plasma concentrations. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1992;52(5):458–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Gerloff J, Barth H, Migot A, et al. Does the proton pump inhibitor lansoprazole interact with antacids. Arch Pharmacol. 1993;347:A124.Google Scholar
  109. 109.
    Fuchs W, Sennewald R, Klotz U. Lansoprazole does not affect the bioavailability of oral contraceptives. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1994;38(4):376–80.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Karol MD, Locke CS, Cavanaugh JH. Lack of pharmacokinetic interaction between lansoprazole and intravenously administered phenytoin. J Clin Pharmacol. 1999;39(12):1283–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Gremse DA. Lansoprazole: pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and clinical uses. Expert Opin Pharmacother. 2001;2(10):1663–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Landes BD, Petite JP, Flouvat B. Clinical pharmacokinetics of lansoprazole. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1995;28(6):458–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Dilger K, Zheng Z, Klotz U. Lack of drug interaction between omeprazole, lansoprazole, pantoprazole and theophylline. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1999;48(3):438–44.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Granneman GR, Karol MD, Locke CS, et al. Pharmacokinetic interaction between lansoprazole and theophylline. Ther Drug Monit. 1995;17(5):460–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Kokufu T, Ihara N, Sugioka N, et al. Effects of lansoprazole on pharmacokinetics and metabolism of theophylline. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1995;48(5):391–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Takahashi K, Motohashi H, Yonezawa A, et al. Lansoprazole-tacrolimus interaction in Japanese transplant recipient with CYP2C19 polymorphism. Ann Pharmacother. 2004;38(5):791–4.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Itagaki F, Homma M, Yuzawa K, et al. Effect of lansoprazole and rabeprazole on tacrolimus pharmacokinetics in healthy volunteers with CYP2C19 mutations. J Pharm Pharmacol. 2004;56(8):1055–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Yasui-Furukori N, Saito M, Uno T, et al. Effects of fluvoxamine on lansoprazole pharmacokinetics in relation to CYP2C19 genotypes. J Clin Pharmacol. 2004;44(11):1223–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Vakily M, Lee RD, Wu J, et al. Drug interaction studies with dexlansoprazole modified release (TAK-390MR), a proton pump inhibitor with a dual delayed-release formulation: results of four randomized, double-blind, crossover, placebo-controlled, single-centre studies. Clin Drug Investig. 2009;29(1):35–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Humphries TJ. A review of the drug–drug interaction potential of rabeprazole sodium based on CYP-450 interference or absorption effects. Digestion. 1998;59(Suppl. 3):76.Google Scholar
  121. 121.
    Humphries TJ, Nardi RV, Spera AC, et al. Coadministration of rabeprazole sodium (E3810) does not affect the pharmacokinetics of anhydrous theophylline or warfarin. Gastroenterology. 1996;110:A138.Google Scholar
  122. 122.
    Itagaki F, Homma M, Yuzawa K, et al. Drug interaction of tacrolimus and proton pump inhibitors in renal transplant recipients with CYP2C19 gene mutation. Transpl Proc. 2002;34(7):2777–8.Google Scholar
  123. 123.
    Yasuda S, Higashi S, Murakami M, et al. Antacids have no influence on the pharmacokinetics of rabeprazole, a new proton pump inhibitor, in healthy volunteers. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1999;37(5):249–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Uno T, Shimizu M, Yasui-Furukori N, et al. Different effects of fluvoxamine on rabeprazole pharmacokinetics in relation to CYP2C19 genotype status. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2006;61(3):309–14.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Humphries TJ, Merritt GJ. Review article: drug interactions with agents used to treat acid-related diseases. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 1999;13(Suppl. 3):18–26.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Andersson T, Holmberg J, Rohss K, et al. Pharmacokinetics and effect on caffeine metabolism of the proton pump inhibitors, omeprazole, lansoprazole, and pantoprazole. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1998;45(4):369–75.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  127. 127.
    Rost KL, Roots I. Accelerated caffeine metabolism after omeprazole treatment is indicated by urinary metabolite ratios: coincidence with plasma clearance and breath test. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1994;55(4):402–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  128. 128.
    Naidu MUR, Shobha JC, Dixit VK, et al. Effect of multiple dose omeprazole on the pharmacokinetics of carbamazepine. Drug Invest. 1994;7:8–12.Google Scholar
  129. 129.
    Colin-Jones DG. Safety of lansoprazole. Aliment Pharmacol Ther. 1993;7(Suppl. 1):56–60 discussion 1–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  130. 130.
    Schouler L, Dumas F, Couzigou P, et al. Omeprazole-cyclosporin interaction. Am J Gastroenterol. 1991;86(8):1097.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  131. 131.
    Andersson T, Hassan-Alin M, Hasselgren G, et al. Pharmacokinetic studies with esomeprazole, the (S)-isomer of omeprazole. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2001;40(6):411–26.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  132. 132.
    Oosterhuis B, Jonkman JH, Andersson T, et al. Minor effect of multiple dose omeprazole on the pharmacokinetics of digoxin after a single oral dose. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1991;32(5):569–72.PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  133. 133.
    Fuhr U, Jetter A. Rabeprazole: pharmacokinetics and pharmacokinetic drug interactions. Pharmazie. 2002;57(9):595–601.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  134. 134.
    Battison L, Tulissi P, Moretti M, et al. Lansoprazole and ethanol metabolism: comparison with omeprazole and cimetidine. Pharmacol Toxicol. 1997;81:247–52.Google Scholar
  135. 135.
    Andersson T, Lagerstrom PO, Unge P. A study of the interaction between omeprazole and phenytoin in epileptic patients. Ther Drug Monit. 1990;12(4):329–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  136. 136.
    Hosohata K, Masuda S, Yonezawa A, et al. Absence of influence of concomitant administration of rabeprazole on the pharmacokinetics of tacrolimus in adult living-donor liver transplant patients: a case-control study. Drug Metab Pharmacokinet. 2009;24(5):458–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2014

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Noncommercial License which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author(s) and the source are credited.

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.SocraTec CSC GmbHOberurselGermany

Personalised recommendations