Understanding drug–drug interaction and pharmacogenomic changes in pharmacokinetics for metabolized drugs

  • Leslie Z. BenetEmail author
  • Christine M. Bowman
  • Megan L. Koleske
  • Capria L. Rinaldi
  • Jasleen K. Sodhi
Original Paper


Here we characterize and summarize the pharmacokinetic changes for metabolized drugs when drug–drug interactions and pharmacogenomic variance are observed. Following multiple dosing to steady-state, oral systemic concentration–time curves appear to follow a one-compartment body model, with a shorter rate limiting half-life, often significantly shorter than the single dose terminal half-life. This simplified disposition model at steady-state allows comparisons of measurable parameters (i.e., area under the curve, half-life, maximum concentration and time to maximum concentration) following drug interaction or pharmacogenomic variant studies to be utilized to characterize whether a drug is low versus high hepatic extraction ratio, even without intravenous dosing. The characteristics of drugs based on the ratios of area under the curve, maximum concentration and half-life are identified with recognition that volume of distribution is essentially unchanged for drug interaction and pharmacogenomic variant studies where only metabolic outcomes are changed and transporters are not significantly involved. Comparison of maximum concentration changes following single dose interaction and pharmacogenomic variance studies may also identify the significance of intestinal first pass changes. The irrelevance of protein binding changes on pharmacodynamic outcomes following oral and intravenous dosing of low hepatic extraction ratio drugs, versus its relevance for high hepatic extraction ratio drugs is re-emphasized.


Drug-drug interactions Pharmacogenomics Area under the curve Operational half-lives Maximum systemic concentrations 



The authors thank the UCSF PharmD Class of 2021 for their understanding, questions and patience in the presentation of the material presented here. This work was supported in part by a Mary Ann Koda-Kimble Seed Award for Innovation. Dr. Benet is a member of the UCSF Liver Center supported by NIH grant P30 DK026743. Ms. Bowman was supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program (Grant 1144247) and a Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America Foundation Pre-doctoral Fellowship in Pharmaceutics. Ms. Koleske was supported in part by NIGMS grant R25 GM56847. Ms. Rinaldi was supported by the National Science Foundation Graduate Research Fellowship Program (Grant 1650113). Ms. Sodhi was supported in part by an American Foundation for Pharmaceutical Education Predoctoral Fellowship and NIGMS grant R25 GM56847.


  1. 1.
    Benet LZ, Bowman CM, Liu S, Sodhi JK (2018) The extended clearance concept following oral and intravenous dosing: theory and critical analyses. Pharm Res 35:242CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Grover A, Benet LZ (2009) Effects of drug transporters on volume of distribution. AAPS J 11:250–261CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Benet LZ, Galeazzi RJ (1979) Noncompartmental determination of the steady-state volume of distribution. J Pharm Sci 68:1071–1074CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Sahin S, Benet LZ (2008) The operational multiple dosing half-life: a key to defining drug accumulation in patients and to designing extended release dosage forms. Pharm Res 25:2869–2877CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Benet LZ, Liu S, Wolfe AR (2018) The universally unrecognized assumption in predicting drug clearance and organ extraction ratio. Clin Pharmacol Ther 103:521–525CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Benet LZ, B-a Hoener (2002) Changes in plasma protein binding have little clinical relevance. Clin Pharmacol Ther 71:115–121CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Alván G, Piafsky K, Lind M, von Bahr C (1977) Effect of pentobarbital on the disposition of alprenolol. Clin Pharmacol Ther 22:316–321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Blake CM, Kharasch ED, Schwab M, Nagele P (2013) Meta-analysis of CYP2D6 metabolizer phenotype and metoprolol pharmacokinetics. Clin Pharmacol Ther 94:394–399CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kharasch ED, Regina KJ, Blood J, Friedel C (2015) Methadone pharmacogenomics: CYP2B6 polymorphisms determine plasma concentrations, clearance and metabolism. Anesthesiology 123:1142–1153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hsu YC, Chen BG, Yang YS, Huang SP, Huang MH, Chen TJ, Liu HC, Lin DL, Jones AW (2013) Methadone concentrations in blood, plasma and oral fluid determined by isotope-dilution gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. Anal Bioanal Chem 405:3921–3928CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rogge MC, Solomon WR, Sedman AJ, Welling PG, Toothaker RD, Wagner JG (1988) The theophylline-enoxacin interaction: I. Effect of enoxacin dose size on theophylline disposition. Clin Pharmacol Ther 44:579–587CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kharasch ED, Walker A, Hoffer C, Sheffels P (2005) Sensitivity of intravenous and oral alfentanil and pupillary miosis as minimally invasive and noninvasive probes for hepatic and first-pass CYP3A activity. J Clin Pharmacol 45:1187–1197CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Backman JT, Kivistö KT, Olkkola KT, Neuvonen PJ (1998) The area under the plasma concentration-time curve for oral midazolam is 400-fold larger during treatment with itraconazole than with rifampin. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 54:53–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Wood AJJ, Kornhauser DM, Wilkinson GR, Shand DG, Branch RA (1978) The influence of cirrhosis on steady-state blood concentrations of unbound propranolol after oral administration. Clin Pharmacokinet 3:478–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Bioengineering and Therapeutic Sciences, Schools of Pharmacy and MedicineUniversity of California San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations