European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

, Volume 74, Issue 7, pp 931–938 | Cite as

Drug-drug interaction of cefiderocol, a siderophore cephalosporin, via human drug transporters

  • Takayuki Katsube
  • Shiro Miyazaki
  • Yukitoshi Narukawa
  • Martha Hernandez-Illas
  • Toshihiro Wajima
Pharmacokinetics and Disposition



Cefiderocol, a siderophore cephalosporin, will be used concomitantly with other medications for treatment of bacterial infections. In vitro studies demonstrated inhibition potential of cefiderocol on organic anion transporter (OAT) 1, OAT3, organic cation transporter (OCT) 1, OCT2, multidrug and toxin extrusion (MATE) 2-K, and organic anion transporting polypeptide (OATP) 1B3. The aim of this study was to assess in vivo drug-drug interaction (DDI) potential of cefiderocol using probe substrates for these transporters.


DDI potentials of cefiderocol as inhibitors were assessed in a clinical study consisting of 3 cohorts. Twelve or 13 healthy adult subjects per cohort orally received a single dose of furosemide 20 mg (for OAT1/3), metformin 1000 mg (for OCT1/2 and MATE2-K), or rosuvastatin 10 mg (for OATP1B3) with or without co-administration with cefiderocol 2 g every 8 h with 3-h infusion (a total of 3, 6, and 9 doses of cefiderocol with furosemide, metformin, and rosuvastatin, respectively). DDI potentials were assessed based on the pharmacokinetics of the substrates.


Ratios (90% confidence intervals) of maximum plasma concentration and area under the plasma concentration-time curve were 1.00 (0.71–1.42) and 0.92 (0.73–1.16) for furosemide, 1.09 (0.92–1.28) and 1.03 (0.93–1.15) for metformin, and 1.28 (1.12–1.46) and 1.21 (1.08–1.35) for rosuvastatin, respectively. Exposures to furosemide or metformin did not change when co-administered with cefiderocol. Slight increase in rosuvastatin exposure was observed with co-administered with cefiderocol, which was not considered to be clinically significant. Each treatment was well tolerated.


Cefiderocol has no clinically significant DDI potential via drug transporters.


Cefiderocol S-649266 Siderophore cephalosporin Pharmacokinetics Drug interaction Drug transporter 



We thank Yoshihisa Ozaki of Shionogi & Co., Ltd. (Osaka, Japan) and Kenneth Hawke of QPS, LLC (Newark, DE, USA) for reviewing the bioanalytical methods.


This study was funded by Shionogi.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

Takayuki Katsube, Shiro Miyazaki, Yukitoshi Narukawa, and Toshihiro Wajima are employees of Shionogi. Martha Hernandez-Illas conducted this research at QPS Miami Research Associates, LLC (South Miami, FL, USA) in the course of their employment, and their employers were compensated by Shionogi for conducting this study.

Ethical approval

This study was conducted at QPS Miami Research Associates, South Miami, FL, in accordance with all appropriate regulatory requirements and under the protocol approved by an institutional review board, IntegReview IRB, Austin, TX. This study was conducted in accordance with current International Council for Harmonization (ICH) Good Clinical Practices (GCP), all appropriate subject privacy requirements, and the ethical principles outlined in the Declaration of Helsinki.

Informed consent

Prior to enrollment, subjects received a full explanation of the nature and the objectives of the study, the safety of the drugs under investigation, and that they were free to withdraw from the study at any time without prejudice. Prior to the initiation of any study related procedures the subjects provided written informed consent and received a copy of the signed consent form to keep as a reference.

Supplementary material

228_2018_2458_MOESM1_ESM.docx (26 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 25 kb)


  1. 1.
    Ito A, Kohira N, Bouchillon SK, West J, Rittenhouse S, Sader HS, Rhomberg PR, Jones RN, Yoshizawa H, Nakamura R, Tsuji M, Yamano Y (2016) In vitro antimicrobial activity of S-649266, a catechol-substituted siderophore cephalosporin, when tested against non-fermenting gram-negative bacteria. J Antimicrob Chemother 71:670–677CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kohira N, West J, Ito A, Ito-Horiyama T, Nakamura R, Sato T, Rittenhouse S, Tsuji M, Yamano Y (2015) In vitro antimicrobial activity of a siderophore cephalosporin, S-649266, against Enterobacteriaceae clinical isolates, including carbapenem-resistant strains. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 60:729–734CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Matsumoto S, Singley CM, Hoover J, Nakamura R, Echols R, Rittenhouse S, Tsuji M, Yamano Y (2017) Efficacy of cefiderocol against carbapenem-resistant gram-negative bacilli in immunocompetent-rat respiratory tract infection models recreating human plasma pharmacokinetics. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 61:e00700–e00717CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Portsmouth S, Veenhuyzen D, Echols R, Machida M, Arjona Ferreira JC, Ariyasu M, Nagata T (2017) Abstr 27th European Congress of Clinical Microbiology and Infectious Diseases (ECCMID), abstr ECCMD-7582. Cefiderocol Compared with Imipenem/Cilastatin in the Treatment of Adults with Complicated Urinary Tract Infections with or without Pyelonephritis or Acute Uncomplicated Pyelonephritis: Results from a Multicenter, Double-blind, Randomized Study (APEKS-cUTI)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Saisho Y, Katsube T, White S, Fukase H, Shimada J (2018) Pharmacokinetics, safety, and tolerability of cefiderocol, a novel siderophore cephalosporin for gram-negative Bacteria, in healthy subjects. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 62:e02163–e02117CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Katsube T, Echols R, Arjona Ferreira JC, Krenz HK, Berg JK, Galloway C (2017) Cefiderocol, a siderophore cephalosporin for gram-negative bacterial infections: pharmacokinetics and safety in subjects with renal impairment. J Clin Pharmacol 57:584–591CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bjornsson TD, Callaghan JT, Einolf HJ, Fischer V, Gan L, Grimm S, Kao J, King SP, Miwa G, Ni L, Kumar G, McLeod J, Obach RS, Roberts S, Roe A, Shah A, Snikeris F, Sullivan JT, Tweedie D, Vega JM, Walsh J, Wrighton SA, Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) Drug Metabolism/Clinical Pharmacology Technical Working Group; FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) (2003) The conduct of in vitro and in vivo drug-drug interaction studies: a Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) perspective. Drug Metab Dispos 31:815–832CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    US Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) (2017) In vitro metabolism- and transporter-mediated drug-drug interaction studiesGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    US Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER) (2017) Clinical drug interaction studies—study design, data analysis, and clinical implicationsGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    European Medicines Agency (2012) Guideline on the investigation of drug interactionsGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    FDA, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research. Clinical Pharmacology and Biopharmaceutics Review(s). ZERBAXA. Application Number: 206829Orig1s000Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Johansson S, Read J, Oliver S, Steinberg M, Li Y, Lisbon E, Mathews D, Leese PT, Martin P (2014) Pharmacokinetic evaluations of the co-administrations of vandetanib and metformin, digoxin, midazolam, omeprazole or ranitidine. Clin Pharmacokinet 53:837–847CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Busti AJ, Bain AM, Hall RG 2nd, Bedimo RG, Leff RD, Meek C, Mehvar R (2008) Effects of atazanavir/ritonavir or fosamprenavir/ritonavir on the pharmacokinetics of rosuvastatin. J Cardiovasc Pharmacol 51:605–610CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vree TB, van den Biggelaar-Martea M, Verwey-van Wissen CP. 1995. Probenecid inhibits the renal clearance of frusemide and its acyl glucuronide. Br J Clin Pharmacol 39:692–695Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Stage TB, Brøsen K, Christensen MM (2015) A comprehensive review of drug-drug interactions with metformin. Clin Pharmacokinet 54:811–824CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Simonson SG, Raza A, Martin PD, Mitchell PD, Jarcho JA, Brown CD, Windass AS, Schneck DW (2004) Rosuvastatin pharmacokinetics in heart transplant recipients administered an antirejection regimen including cyclosporine. Clin Pharmacol Ther 76:167–177CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kellick KA, Bottorff M, Toth PP (2014) A clinician’s guide to statin drug-drug interactions. J Clin Lipidol 8:S30–S46CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Katsube T, Wajima T, Ishibashi T, Arjona Ferreira JC, Echols R (2017) Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling and simulation of cefiderocol, a parenteral siderophore cephalosporin, for dose adjustment based on renal function. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 61:e01381-16, e01381, e01316Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Takayuki Katsube
    • 1
  • Shiro Miyazaki
    • 2
  • Yukitoshi Narukawa
    • 3
  • Martha Hernandez-Illas
    • 4
  • Toshihiro Wajima
    • 1
  1. 1.Clinical Pharmacology & PharmacokineticsShionogi & Co., Ltd.OsakaJapan
  2. 2.Drug Metabolism & Pharmacokinetics DepartmentShionogi & Co., Ltd.ToyonakaJapan
  3. 3.Project Management DepartmentShionogi & Co., Ltd.OsakaJapan
  4. 4.QPS Miami Research AssociatesSouth MiamiUSA

Personalised recommendations