The AAPS Journal

, Volume 11, Issue 2, pp 300–306 | Cite as

Predicting Drug–Drug Interactions: An FDA Perspective

  • Lei Zhang
  • Yuanchao (Derek) Zhang
  • Ping Zhao
  • Shiew-Mei Huang
Regulatory Note Theme: Towards Integrated ADME Prediction: Past, Present, and Future Directions


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 words

drug 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






  1. 1.
    Huang SM, Temple R. Is this the drug or dose for you? Impact and consideration of ethnic factors in global drug development, regulatory review, and clinical practice. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2008;84(3):287–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Huang SM, Temple R, Throckmorton DC, Lesko LJ. Drug interaction studies: study design, data analysis, and implications for dosing and labeling. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2007;81(2):298–304.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 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. 4.
    Guidance for Industry: Drug metabolism/drug interactions in the drug development process: studies in vitro.
  5. 5.
    In vivo drug metabolism/drug interaction studies—study design, data analysis, and recommendations for dosing and labeling.
  6. 6.
    Draft guidance for industry: drug interaction studies—study design, data analysis, and implications for dosing and labeling.
  7. 7.
    CDER Drug Development and Drug Interactions website.
  8. 8.
    Hosea NA, Miller GP, Guengerich FP. Elucidation of distinct ligand binding sites for cytochrome P450 3A4. Biochemistry 2000;39(20):5929–39.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kenworthy KE, Bloomer JC, Clarke SE, Houston JB. CYP3A4 drug interactions: correlation of 10 in vitro probe substrates. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1999;48(5):716–27.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Venkatakrishnan K, Obach RS. Drug–drug interactions via mechanism-based cytochrome P450 inactivation: points to consider for risk assessment from in vitro data and clinical pharmacologic evaluation. Curr Drug Metab 2007;8(5):449–62.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wandel C, Kim RB, Guengerich FP, Wood AJ. Mibefradil is a P-glycoprotein substrate and a potent inhibitor of both P-glycoprotein and CYP3A in vitro. Drug Metab Dispos 2000;28(8):895–98.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
  13. 13.
    Zhao P. The use of hepatocytes in evaluating time-dependent inactivation of P450 in vivo. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 2008;4(2):151–64.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Grime KH, Bird J, Ferguson D, Riley RJ. Mechanism-based inhibition of cytochrome P450 enzymes: an evaluation of early decision making in vitro approaches and drug–drug interaction prediction methods. Eur J Pharm Sci 2009;36:175–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hewitt NJ, de Kanter R, LeCluyse E. Induction of drug metabolizing enzymes: a survey of in vitro methodologies and interpretations used in the pharmaceutical industry—do they comply with FDA recommendations? Chem Biol Interact 2007;168(1):51–65.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fahmi OA, Boldt S, Kish M, Obach RS, Tremaine LM. Prediction of drug–drug interactions from in vitro induction data: application of the relative induction score approach using cryopreserved human hepatocytes. Drug Metab Dispos 2008;36(9):1971–4.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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
  18. 18.
    Hein DW, Doll MA, Fretland AJ, Leff MA, Webb SJ, Xiao GH, Devanaboyina US, Nangju NA, Feng Y. Molecular genetics and epidemiology of the NAT1 and NAT2 acetylation polymorphisms. Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev 2000;9(1):29–42.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Aithal GP, Day CP. Nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug-induced hepatotoxicity. Clin Liver Dis 2007;11(3):563–75, vi-vii.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hahn KK, Wolff JJ, Kolesar JM. Pharmacogenetics and irinotecan therapy. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2006;63(22):2211–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
  22. 22.
    Mackenzie PI, Bock KW, Burchell B, Guillemette C, Ikushiro S, Iyanagi T, Miners JO, Owens IS, Nebert DW. Nomenclature update for the mammalian UDP glycosyltransferase (UGT) gene superfamily. Pharmacogenet Genomics 2005;15(10):677–85.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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.
  24. 24.
    Wu CY, Benet LZ. Predicting drug disposition via application of BCS: transport/absorption/ elimination interplay and development of a biopharmaceutics drug disposition classification system. Pharm Res 2005;22(1):11–23.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Zhang L, Zhang YD, Strong JM, Reynolds KS, Huang SM. A regulatory viewpoint on transporter-based drug interactions. Xenobiotica 2008;38(7–8):709–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Fenner K, Troutman M, Kempshall S, Cook J, Ware J, Smith D, Lee C. Drug–drug interactions mediated through P-glycoprotein: clinical relevance and in vitro–in vivo correlation using digoxin as a probe drug. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2009;85:173–81.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Simonson SG, Raza A, Martin PD, Mitchell PD, Jarcho JA, Brown CD, Windass AS, Schneck DW. Rosuvastatin pharmacokinetics in heart transplant recipients administered an antirejection regimen including cyclosporine. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2004;76(2):167–77.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ho RH, Tirona RG, Leake BF, Glaeser H, Lee W, Lemke CJ, Wang Y, Kim RB. Drug and bile acid transporters in rosuvastatin hepatic uptake: function, expression, and pharmacogenetics. Gastroenterology 2006;130(6):1793–806.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Shu Y, Brown C, Castro RA, Shi RJ, Lin ET, Owen RP, Sheardown SA, Yue L, Burchard EG, Brett CM, Giacomini KM. Effect of genetic variation in the organic cation transporter 1, OCT1, on metformin pharmacokinetics. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2008;83(2):273–80.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Shu Y, Sheardown SA, Brown C, Owen RP, Zhang S, Castro RA, Ianculescu AG, Yue L, Lo JC, Burchard EG, Brett CM, Giacomini KM. Effect of genetic variation in the organic cation transporter 1 (OCT1) on metformin action. J Clin Invest 2007;117(5):1422–31.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Ito K, Brown HS, Houston JB. Database analyses for the prediction of in vivo drug–drug interactions from in vitro data. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2004;57(4):473–86.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Ito K, Iwatsubo T, Kanamitsu S, Nakajima Y, Sugiyama Y. Quantitative prediction of in vivo drug clearance and drug interactions from in vitro data on metabolism, together with binding and transport. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 1998;38:461–99.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 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
  34. 34.
    Kanamitsu S, Ito K, Sugiyama Y. Quantitative prediction of in vivo drug–drug interactions from in vitro data based on physiological pharmacokinetics: use of maximum unbound concentration of inhibitor at the inlet to the liver. Pharm Res 2000;17(3):336–43.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Houston JB, Galetin A. Methods for predicting in vivo pharmacokinetics using data from in vitro assays. Curr Drug Metab 2008;9(9):940–51.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kato M, Shitara Y, Sato H, Yoshisue K, Hirano M, Ikeda T, Sugiyama Y. The quantitative prediction of CYP-mediated drug interaction by physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling. Pharm Res 2008;25(8):1891–901.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yao C, Kunze KL, Kharasch ED, Wang Y, Trager WF, Ragueneau I, Levy RH. Fluvoxamine-theophylline interaction: gap between in vitro and in vivo inhibition constants toward cytochrome P4501A2. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2001;70(5):415–24.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Dickins M, van de Waterbeemd H. Simulation models for drug disposition and drug interactions. Drug Discovery Today: BIOSILICO 2004;2(1):38–45.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    McGinnity DF, Waters NJ, Tucker J, Riley RJ. Integrated in vitro analysis for the in vivo prediction of cytochrome P450-mediated drug–drug interactions. Drug Metab Dispos 2008;36(6):1126–34.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Obach RS, Walsky RL, Venkatakrishnan K, Gaman EA, Houston JB, Tremaine LM. The utility of in vitro cytochrome P450 inhibition data in the prediction of drug–drug interactions. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 2006;316(1):336–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Venkatakrishnan K, von Moltke LL, Obach RS, Greenblatt DJ. Drug metabolism and drug interactions: application and clinical value of in vitro models. Curr Drug Metab 2003;4(5):423–59.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Rostami-Hodjegan A, Tucker GT. Simulation and prediction of in vivo drug metabolism in human populations from in vitro data. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2007;6(2):140–48.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 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
  44. 44.
    Chien JY, Lucksiri A, Ernest CS 2nd, Gorski JC, Wrighton SA, Hall SD. Stochastic prediction of CYP3A-mediated inhibition of midazolam clearance by ketoconazole. Drug Metab Dispos 2006;34(7):1208–19.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 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
  46. 46.
    Yang J, Kjellsson M, Rostami-Hodjegan A, Tucker GT. The effects of dose staggering on metabolic drug–drug interactions. Eur J Pharm Sci 2003;20(2):223–32.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Zhao P, Ragueneau-Majlessi I, Zhang L, Strong JM, Reynolds KS, Levy RH, Thummel KE, Huang SM. Quantitative evaluation of pharmacokinetic inhibition of CYP3A substrates by ketoconazole: a simulation study. J Clin Pharmacol 2009;49(3):351–59.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.

Copyright information

© American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Lei Zhang
    • 1
  • Yuanchao (Derek) Zhang
    • 1
  • Ping Zhao
    • 1
  • Shiew-Mei Huang
    • 1
  1. 1.Office of Clinical Pharmacology, Office of Translational Sciences, Center for Drug Evaluation and ResearchFood and Drug AdministrationSilver SpringUSA

Personalised recommendations