Predicting Drug–Drug Interactions: An FDA Perspective
Pharmacokinetic drug interactions can lead to serious adverse events, and the evaluation of a new molecular entity’s drug–drug interaction potential is an integral part of drug development and regulatory review prior to its market approval. Alteration of enzyme and/or transporter activities involved in the absorption, distribution, metabolism, or excretion of a new molecular entity by other concomitant drugs may lead to a change in exposure leading to altered response (safety or efficacy). Over the years, various in vitro methodologies have been developed to predict drug interaction potential in vivo. In vitro study has become a critical first step in the assessment of drug interactions. Well-executed in vitro studies can be used as a screening tool for the need for further in vivo assessment and can provide the basis for the design of subsequent in vivo drug interaction studies. Besides in vitro experiments, in silico modeling and simulation may also assist in the prediction of drug interactions. The recent FDA draft drug interaction guidance highlighted the in vitro models and criteria that may be used to guide further in vivo drug interaction studies and to construct informative labeling. This report summarizes critical elements in the in vitro evaluation of drug interaction potential during drug development and uses a case study to highlight the impact of in vitro information on drug labeling.
Key wordsdrug development drug–drug interaction new drug application prediction regulatory and guidance
Absorption, distribution, metabolism or excretion
Aryl hydrocarbon receptor
Breast cancer resistance protein
Constitutive androstane receptor
Investigational new drug
New drug application
New molecular entity
Organic anion transporter
Organic anion transporting polypeptide
Organic cation transporter
- 3.Huang SM, Strong JM, Zhang L, Reynolds KS, Nallani S, Temple R, Abraham S, Al HS, Baweja RK, Burckart GJ, Chung S, Colangelo P, Frucht D, Green MD, Hepp P, Karnaukhova E, Ko HS, Lee JI, Marroum PJ, Norden JM, Qiu W, Rahman A, Sobel S, Stifano T, Thummel K, Wei XX, Yasuda S, Zheng JH, Zhao H, Lesko LJ. New era in drug interaction evaluation: US food and drug administration update on CYP enzymes, transporters, and the guidance process. J Clin Pharmacol 2008;48(6):662–70.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 4.Guidance for Industry: Drug metabolism/drug interactions in the drug development process: studies in vitro. http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance.
- 5.In vivo drug metabolism/drug interaction studies—study design, data analysis, and recommendations for dosing and labeling. http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance.
- 6.Draft guidance for industry: drug interaction studies—study design, data analysis, and implications for dosing and labeling. http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/6695dft.pdf.
- 7.CDER Drug Development and Drug Interactions website. http://www.fda.gov/cder/drug/drugInteractions/default.htm.
- 12.FDA Talk Paper “ROCHE LABORATORIES ANNOUNCES WITHDRAWAL OF POSICOR FROM THE MARKET”. http://www.fda.gov/bbs/topics/ANSWERS/ANS00876.html (accessed 12-29-2008).
- 17.Faucette SR, Zhang TC, Moore R, Sueyoshi T, Omiecinski CJ, LeCluyse EL, Negishi M, Wang H. Relative activation of human pregnane X receptor versus constitutive androstane receptor defines distinct classes of CYP2B6 and CYP3A4 inducers. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 2007;320(1):72–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 21.CAMPTOSAR Labeling. http://www.fda.gov/cder/foi/label/2006/020571s030lbl.pdf.
- 23.Guidance for Industry: waiver of in vivo bioavailability and bioequivalence studies for immediate-release solid oral dosage forms based on a Biopharmaceutics Classification System. http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance.
- 33.Ito K, Chiba K, Horikawa M, Ishigami M, Mizuno N, Aoki J, Gotoh Y, Iwatsubo T, Kanamitsu S, Kato M, Kawahara I, Niinuma K, Nishino A, Sato N, Tsukamoto Y, Ueda K, Itoh T, Sugiyama Y. Which concentration of the inhibitor should be used to predict in vivo drug interactions from in vitro data? AAPS PharmSci 2002;4(4):E25.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 43.Youdim KA, Zayed A, Dickins M, Phipps A, Griffiths M, Darekar A, Hyland R, Fahmi O, Hurst S, Plowchalk DR, Cook J, Guo F, Obach RS. Application of CYP3A4 in vitro data to predict clinical drug–drug interactions; predictions of compounds as objects of interaction. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2008;65(5):680–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 45.Vossen M, Sevestre M, Niederalt C, Jang IJ, Willmann S, Edginton AN. Dynamically simulating the interaction of midazolam and the CYP3A4 inhibitor itraconazole using individual coupled whole-body physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (WB-PBPK) models. Theor Biol Med Model 2007;4:13.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 48.Drug Information in Drugs@FDA (http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/drugsatfda/index.cfm).