Clinical Pharmacokinetics

, Volume 46, Issue 8, pp 681–696

General Framework for the Quantitative Prediction of CYP3A4-Mediated Oral Drug Interactions Based on the AUC Increase by Coadministration of Standard Drugs

Original Research Article



Cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 is the most prevalent metabolising enzyme in the human liver and is also a target for various drug interactions of significant clinical concern. Even though there are numerous reports regarding drug interactions involving CYP3A4, it is far from easy to estimate all potential interactions, since too many drugs are metabolised by CYP3A4. For this reason, a comprehensive framework for the prediction of CYP3A4-mediated drug interactions would be of considerable clinical importance.


The objective of this study was to provide a robust and practical method for the prediction of drug interactions mediated by CYP3A4 using minimal in vivo information from drug-interaction studies, which are often carried out early in the course of drug development.

Data sources

The analysis was based on 113 drug-interaction studies reported in 78 published articles over the period 1983–2006. The articles were used if they contained sufficient information about drug interactions. Information on drug names, doses and the magnitude of the increase in the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) were collected.


The ratio of the contribution of CYP3A4 to oral clearance (CRCYP3A4) was calculated for 14 substrates (midazolam, alprazolam, buspirone, cerivastatin, atorvastatin, ciclosporin, felodipine, lovastatin, nifedipine, nisoldipine, simvastatin, triazolam, zolpidem and telithromycin) based on AUC increases observed in interaction studies with itraconazole or ketoconazole. Similarly, the time-averaged apparent inhibition ratio of CYP3A4 (IRCYP3A4) was calculated for 18 inhibitors (ketoconazole, voriconazole, itraconazole, telithromycin, clarithromycin, saquinavir, nefazodone, erythromycin, diltiazem, fluconazole, verapamil, cimetidine, ranitidine, roxithromycin, fluvoxamine, azithromycin, gatifloxacin and fluoxetine) primarily based on AUC increases observed in drug-interaction studies with midazolam. The increases in the AUC of a substrate associated with coadministration of an inhibitor were estimated using the equation 1/(1 - CRCYP3A4 · IRCYP3A4), based on pharmacokinetic considerations.


The proposed method enabled predictions of the AUC increase by interactions with any combination of these substrates and inhibitors (total 251 matches). In order to validate the reliability of the method, the AUC increases in 60 additional studies were analysed. The method successfully predicted AUC increases within 67–150% of the observed increase for 50 studies (83%) and within 50–200% for 57 studies (95%). Midazolam is the most reliable standard substrate for evaluation of the in vivo inhibition of CYP3A4. The present analysis suggests that simvastatin, lovastatin and buspirone can be used as alternatives. To evaluate the in vivo contribution of CYP3A4, ketoconazole or itraconazole is the selective inhibitor of choice.


This method is applicable to (i) prioritise clinical trials for investigating drug interactions during the course of drug development and (ii) predict the clinical significance of unknown drug interactions. If a drug-interaction study is carefully designed using appropriate standard drugs, significant interactions involving CYP3A4 will not be missed. In addition, the extent of CYP3A4-mediated interactions between many other drugs can be predicted using the current method.


  1. 1.
    Rendic S, Di Carlo FJ. Human cytochrome P450 enzymes: a status report summarizing their reactions, substrates, inducers, and inhibitors. Drug Metab Rev 1997; 29: 413–580PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Rogers JF, Nafziger AN, Bertino Jr JS. Pharmacogenetics affects dosing, efficacy, and toxicity of cytochrome P450-metabolized drugs. Am J Med 2002; 113: 746–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Furberg CD, Pitt B. Withdrawal of cerivastatin from the world market. Curr Control Trials Cardiovasc Med 2001; 2: 205–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Estelle F, Simons R. H1-receptor antagonists: safety issues. Ann Allergy Asthma Immunol 1999; 83: 481–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Diasio R. Sorivudine and 5-fluorouracil; a clinically significant drug-drug interaction due to inhibition of dihydropyrimidine dehydrogenase. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1998; 46: 1–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    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: 336–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kanamitsu S, Ito K, Green CE, et al. Prediction of in vivo interaction between triazolam and erythromycin based on in vitro studies using human liver microsomes and recombinant human CYP3A4. Pharm Res 2000; 17: 419–26PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Yamano K, Yamamoto K, Katashima M, et al. Prediction of midazolam-CYP3A inhibitors interaction in the human liver from in vivo/in vitro absorption, distribution, and metabolism data. Drug Metab Dispos 2001; 29: 443–52PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    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: 473–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Galetin A, Ito K, Hallifax D, et al. CYP3A4 substrate selection and substitution in the prediction of potential drug-drug interactions. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 2005; 314: 180–90PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ito K, Hallifax D, Obach RS, et al. Impact of parallel pathways of drug elimination and multiple cytochrome P450 involvement on drug-drug interactions: CYP2D6 paradigm. Drug Metab Dispos 2005; 33: 837–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Isoherranen N, Kunze KL, Allen KE, et al. Role of itraconazole metabolites in CYP3A4 inhibition. Drug Metab Dispos 2004; 32: 1121–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Galetin A, Burt H, Gibbons L, et al. Prediction of time-dependent CYP3A4 drug-drug interactions: impact of enzyme degradation, parallel elimination pathways, and intestinal inhibition. Drug Metab Dispos 2006; 34: 166–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lennernas H. Human jejunal effective permeability and its correlation with preclinical drug absorption models. J Pharm Pharmacol 1997; 49: 627–38PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Paine MF, Khalighi M, Fisher JM, et al. Characterization of interintestinal and intraintestinal variations in human CYP3A-dependent metabolism. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1997; 283: 1552–62PubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Thummel KE, O’shea D, Paine MF, et al. Oral first-pass elimination of midazolam involves both gastrointestinal and hepatic CYP3A-mediated metabolism. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1996; 59: 491–502PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Saitoh H, Aungst BJ. Possible involvement of multiple P-glycoprotein-mediated efflux systems in the transport of verapamil and other organic cations across rat intestine. Pharm Res 1995; 12: 1304–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Wacher VJ, Silverman JA, Zhang Y, et al. Role of P-glycoprotein and cytochrome P450 3A in limiting oral absorption of peptides and peptidomimetics. J Pharm Sci 1998; 87: 1322–30PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bnet LZ, Izumi T, Zhang Y, et al. Intestinal MDR transport proteins and P-450 enzymes as barriers to oral drug delivery. J Control Release 1999; 62: 25–31CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Suzuki H, Sugiyama Y. Role of metabolic enzymes and efflux transporters in the absorption of drugs from the small intestine. Eur J Pharm Sci 2000; 12: 3–12PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Brady JM, Cherrington NJ, Hartley DP, et al. Tissue distribution and chemical induction of multiple drug resistance genes in rats. Drug Metab Dispos 2002; 30: 838–44PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Korzekwa KR, Krishnamachary NSM, Ogai A, et al. Evaluation of atypical cytochrome P450 kinetics with two-substrates-models: evidence that multiple substrates can simultaneously bind to cytochrome P450 active sites. Biochemistry 1998; 37: 4137–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wang RW, Newton DJ, Liu N, et al. Human cytochrome P-450 3A4: in vitro drug-drug interaction patterns are substrate-dependent. Drug Metab Dispos 2000; 28: 360–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Mayhew BS, Jones DR, Hall SD. An in vitro model for predicting in vivo inhibition of cytochrome P450 3A4 by metabolic intermediate complex formation. Drug Metab Dispos 2000; 28: 1031–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wang YH, Jones DR, Jones DR, et al. Prediction of cytochrome P450 3A inhibition by verapamil enantiomers and their metabolites. Drug Metab Dispos 2004; 32: 259–66PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wang YH, Jones DR, Hall SD. Differential mechanism-based inhibition of CYP3A4 and CYP3A5 by verapamil. Drug Metab Dispos 2005; 33: 664–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Amsden GW, Kuye O, Wei GC. A study of the interaction potential of azithromycin and clarithromycin with atorvastatin in healthy volunteers. J Clin Pharmacol 2002; 42: 444–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Backman JT, Olkkola KT, Neuvonen PJ. Zithromycin does not increase plasma concentrations of oral midazolam. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 1995; 33: 356–9PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Yeates RA, Laufen H, Zimmermann T. Interaction between midazolam and clarithromycin: comparison with azithromycin. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 1996; 34: 400–5PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zimmermann T, Yeates RA, Laufen H, et al. Influence of the antibiotics erythromycin and azithromycin on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of midazolam. Arzneimittelforschung 1996; 46: 213–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Greenblatt DJ, von Moltke LL, Harmatz JS, et al. Inhibition of triazolam clearance by macrolide antimicrobial agents: in vitro correlates and dynamic consequences. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1998; 64: 278–85PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Abernethy DR, Greenblatt DJ, Divoll M, et al. Interaction of cimetidine with the triazolobenzodiazepines alprazolam and triazolam. Psychopharmacology 1983; 80: 275–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Pourbaix S, Desager JP, Hulhoven R, et al. Pharmacokinetic consequences of long term coadministration of cimetidine and triazolobenzodiazepines, alprazolam and triazolam, in healthy subjects. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol 1985; 23: 447–51PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mück W, Ochmann K, Rohde G, et al. Influence of erythromycin pre- and co-treatment on single-dose pharmacokinetics of the HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor cerivastatin. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1998; 53: 469–73PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Elliott P, Dundee JW, Elwood RJ, et al. The influence of H2 receptor antagonists on the plasma concentrations of midazolam and temazepam. Eur J Anaesthesiol 1984; 1: 245–51PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Fee JP, Collier PS, Howard PJ, et al. Cimetidine and ranitidine increase midazolam bioavailability. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1987; 41: 80–4PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Khan A, Langley SJ, Mullins FG, et al. The pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of nifedipine at steady state during concomitant administration of cimetidine or high dose ranitidine. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1991; 32: 519–22PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Kirch W, Rämsch K, Janisch HD, et al. The influence of two histamine H2-receptor antagonists, cimetidine and ranitidine, on the plasma levels and clinical effect of nifedipine and metoprolol. Arch Toxicol Suppl 1984; 7: 256–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    van Harten J, van Brummelen P, Lodewijks MT, et al. Pharmacokinetics and hemodynamic effects of nisoldipine and its interaction with cimetidine. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1988; 43: 332–41PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Cox SR, Kroboth PD, Anderson PH, et al. Mechanism for the interaction between triazolam and cimetidine. Biopharm Drug Dispos 1986; 7: 567–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Friedman H, Greenblatt DJ, Burstein ES, et al. Triazolam kinetics: interaction with cimetidine, propranolol, and the combination. J Clin Pharmacol 1988; 28: 228–33PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Hulhoven R, Desager JP, Harvengt C, et al. Lack of interaction between zolpidem and H2 antagonists, cimetidine and ranitidine. Int J Clin Pharmacol Res 1988; 6: 471–76Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Jacobson TA. Comparative pharmacokinetic interaction profiles of pravastatin, simvastatin, and atorvastatin when coadministered with cytochrome P450 inhibitors. Am J Cardiol 2004; 94: 1140–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Gorski JC, Jones DR, Haehner-Daniels BD, et al. The contribution of intestinal and hepatic CYP3A to the interaction between midazolam and clarithromycin. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1998; 64: 133–43PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lamberg TS, Kivistö KT, Neuvonen PJ. Effects of verapamil and diltiazem on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of buspirone. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1998; 63: 640–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Asberg A, Christensen H, Hartmann A, et al. Pharmacokinetic interactions between microemulsion formulated cyclosporine A and diltiazem in renal transplant recipients. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1999; 55: 383–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Foradori A, Mezzano S, Videla C, et al. Modification of the pharmacokinetics of cyclosporine A and metabolites by the concomitant use of Neoral and diltiazem or ketoconazol in stable adult kidney transplants. Transplant Proc 1998; 30: 1685–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Azie NE, Brater DC, Becker PA, et al. The interaction of diltiazem with lovastatin and pravastatin. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1998; 64: 369–77PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Backman JT, Olkkola KT, Aranko K, et al. Dose of midazolam should be reduced during diltiazem and verapamil treatments. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1994; 37: 221–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Tateishi T, Ohashi K, Sudo T, et al. Dose dependent effect of diltiazem on the pharmacokinetics of nifedipine. J Clin Pharmacol 1989; 29: 994–7PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Mousa O, Brater DC, Sunblad KJ, et al. The interaction of diltiazem with simvastatin. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2000; 67: 267–74PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Kosuge K, Nishimoto M, Kimura M, et al. Enhanced effect of triazolam with diltiazem. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1997; 43: 367–72PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Varhe A, Olkkola KT, Neuvonen PJ. Diltiazem enhances the effects of triazolam by inhibiting its metabolism. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1996; 59: 369–75PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Yasui N, Otani K, Kaneko S, et al. A kinetic and dynamic study of oral alprazolam with and without erythromycin in humans: in vivo evidence for the involvement of CYP3A4 in alprazolam metabolism. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1996; 59: 514–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Siedlik PH, Olson SC, Yang BB, et al. Erythromycin coadministration increases plasma atorvastatin concentrations. J Clin Pharmacol 1999; 39: 501–4PubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Kivistö KT, Lamberg TS, Kantola T, et al. Plasma buspirone concentrations are greatly increased by erythromycin and itraconazole. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1997; 62: 348–54PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Freeman DJ, Martell R, Carruthers SG, et al. Cyclosporinerythromycin interaction in normal subjects. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1987; 23: 776–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Gupta SK, Bakran A, Johnson RW, et al. Cyclosporin-erythromycin interaction in renal transplant patients. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1989; 27: 475–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Bailey DG, Bend JR, Arnold JM, et al. Erythromycin-felodipine interaction: magnitude, mechanism, and comparison with grapefruit juice. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1996; 60: 25–33PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Olkkola KT, Aranko K, Luurila H, et al. A potentially hazardous interaction between erythromycin and midazolam. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1993; 53: 298–305PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Kantola T, Kivistö KT, Neuvonen PJ. Erythromycin and verapamil considerably increase serum simvastatin and simvastatin acid concentrations. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1998; 64: 177–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. 62.
    Phillips JP, Antal EJ, Smith RB. A pharmacokinetic drug interaction between erythromycin and triazolam. J Clin Psychopharmacol 1986; 6: 297–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Canafax DM, Graves NM, Hilligoss DM, et al. Interaction between cyclosporine and fluconazole in renal allograft recipients. Transplantation 1991; 51: 1014–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Olkkola KT, Ahonen J, Neuvonen PJ, et al. The effects of the systemic antimycotics, itraconazole and fluconazole, on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of intravenous and oral midazolam. Anesth Analg 1996; 82: 511–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Varhe A, Olkkola KT, Neuvonen PJ. Effect of fluconazole dose on the extent of fluconazole-triazolam interaction. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1996; 42: 465–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Greenblatt DJ, von Moltke LL, Harmatz JS, et al. Kinetic and dynamic interaction study of zolpidem with ketoconazole, itraconazole, and fluconazole. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1998; 64: 661–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. 67.
    Greenblatt DJ, Preskorn SH, Cotreau MM, et al. Fluoxetine impairs clearance of alprazolam but not of clonazepam. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1992; 52: 479–86PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Lasher TA, Fleishaker JC, Steenwyk RC, et al. Pharmacokinetic pharmacodynamic evaluation of the combined administration of alprazolam and fluoxetine. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1991; 104: 323–7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Lam YW, Alfaro CL, Ereshefsky L, et al. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions of oral midazolam with ketoconazole, fluoxetine, fluvoxamine, and nefazodone. J Clin Pharmacol 2003; 43: 1274–82PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Wright CE, Lasher-Sisson TA, Steenwyk RC, et al. A pharmacokinetic evaluation of the combined administration of triazolam and fluoxetine. Pharmacotherapy 1992; 12: 103–6PubMedGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Allard S, Sainati S, Roth-Schechter B, et al. Minimal interaction between fluoxetine and multiple-dose zolpidem in healthy women. Drug Metab Dispos 1998; 26: 617–22PubMedGoogle Scholar
  72. 72.
    Fleishaker JC, Hulst LK. A pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic evaluation of the combined administration of alprazolam and fluvoxamine. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1994; 46: 35–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Lamberg TS, Kivistö KT, Laitila J, et al. The effect of fluvoxamine on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of buspirone. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1998; 54: 761–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Grasela DM, LaCreta FP, Kollia GD, et al. Open-label, non-randomized study of the effects of gatifloxacin on the pharmacokinetics of midazolam in healthy male volunteers. Pharmacotherapy 2000; 20: 330–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Yasui N, Kondo T, Otani K, et al. Effect of itraconazole on the single oral dose pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of alprazolam. Psychopharmacology (Berl) 1998; 139: 269–73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    Kantola T, Kivistö KT, Neuvonen PJ. Effect of itraconazole on the pharmacokinetics of atorvastatin. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1998; 64: 58–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Mazzu AL, Lasseter KC, Shamblen EC, et al. Itraconazole alters the pharmacokinetics of atorvastatin to a greater extent than either cerivastatin or pravastatin. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2000; 68: 391–400PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Kivistö KT, Lamberg TS, Neuvonen PJ. Interactions of buspirone with itraconazole and rifampicin: effects on the pharmacokinetics of the active 1-(2-pyrimidinyl)-piperazine metabolite of buspirone. Pharmacol Toxicol 1999; 84: 94–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Kantola T, Kivistö KT, Neuvonen PJ. Effect of itraconazole on cerivastatin pharmacokinetics. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1999; 54: 851–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Jalava KM, Olkkola KT, Neuvonen PJ. Itraconazole greatly increases plasma concentrations and effects of felodipine. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1997; 61: 410–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Kivistö KT, Kantola T, Neuvonen PJ. Different effects of itraconazole on the pharmacokinetics of fluvastatin and lovastatin. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1998; 46: 49–53PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Neuvonen PJ, Jalava KM. Itraconazole drastically increases plasma concentrations of lovastatin and lovastatin acid. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1996; 60: 54–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Ahonen J, Olkkola KT, Neuvonen PJ. Effect of itraconazole and terbinafine on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of midazolam in healthy volunteers. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1995; 40: 270–2PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Backman JT, Kivistö KT, Olkkola KT, et al. The area under the plasma concentration-time curve for oral midazolam is 400-fold larger during treatment with itraconazole than with rifampicin. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1998; 54: 53–8PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Olkkola KT, Backman JT, Neuvonen PJ. Midazolam should be avoided in patients receiving the systemic antimycotics ketoconazole or itraconazole. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1994; 55: 481–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Aventis Pharmaceuticals Inc. Ketek (telithromycin) tablets [online]. Available from URL: [Accessed 2007 Jun 4]
  87. 87.
    Shi J, Montay G, Leroy B, et al. Effects of itraconazole or grapefruit juice on the pharmacokinetics of telithromycin. Pharmacotherapy 2005; 25: 42–51PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Varhe A, Olkkola KT, Neuvonen PJ, et al. Oral triazolam is potentially hazardous to patients receiving systemic antimycotics ketoconazole or itraconazole. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1994; 56: 601–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Luurila H, Kivistö KT, Neuvonen PJ, et al. Effect of itraconazole on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of zolpidem. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1998; 54: 163–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Greenblatt DJ, Wright CE, von Moltke LL, et al. Ketoconazole inhibition of triazolam and alprazolam clearance: differential kinetic and dynamic consequences. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1998; 64: 237–47PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Butman SM, Wild JC, Nolan PE, et al. Prospective study of the safety and financial benefit of ketoconazole as adjunctive therapy to cyclosporine after heart transplantation. J Heart Lung Transplant 1991; 10: 351–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    Gomez DY, Wacher VJ, Tomlanovich SJ, et al. The effects of ketoconazole on the intestinal metabolism and bioavailability of cyclosporine. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1995; 58: 15–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Chung E, Nafziger AN, Kazierad DJ, et al. Comparison of midazolam and simvastatin as cytochrome P450 3A probes. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2006; 79: 350–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Tsunoda SM, Velez RL, von Moltke LL, et al. Differentiation of intestinal and hepatic cytochrome P450 3A activity with use of midazolam as an in vivo probe: effect of ketoconazole. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1999; 66: 461–71PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Heinig R, Adelmann HG, Ahr G. The effect of ketoconazole on the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and safety of nisoldipine. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1999; 55: 57–60PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  96. 96.
    von Moltke LL, Greenblatt DJ, Harmatz JS, et al. Triazolam biotransformation by human liver microsomes in vitro: effects of metabolic inhibitors and clinical confirmation of a predicted interaction with ketoconazole. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1996; 276: 370–9Google Scholar
  97. 97.
    Greene DS, Salazar DE, Dockens RC, et al. Coadministration of nefazodone and benzodiazepines: III. A pharmacokinetic interaction study with alprazolam. J Clin Psychopharmacol 1995; 15: 399–408PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  98. 98.
    Barbhaiya RH, Shukla UA, Kroboth PD, et al. Coadministration of nefazodone and benzodiazepines: II. A pharmacokinetic interaction study with triazolam. J Clin Psychopharmacol 1995; 15: 320–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  99. 99.
    Elwood RJ, Hildebrand PJ, Dundee JW, et al. Ranitidine influences the uptake of oral midazolam. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1983; 15: 743–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  100. 100.
    Bucher M, Mair G, Kees F. Effect of roxithromycin on the pharmacokinetics of lovastatin in volunteers. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2002; 57: 787–91PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  101. 101.
    Backman JT, Aranko K, Himberg JJ, et al. A pharmacokinetic interaction between roxithromycin and midazolam. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1994; 46: 551–5PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  102. 102.
    Palkama VJ, Ahonen J, Neuvonen PJ, et al. Effect of saquinavir on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of oral and intravenous midazolam. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1999; 66: 33–9PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. 103.
    Romero AJ, Le Pogamp P, Nilsson LG, et al. Effect of voriconazole on the pharmacokinetics of cyclosporine in renal transplant patients. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2002; 71: 226–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  104. 104.
    Saari TI, Laine K, Leino K, et al. Effect of voriconazole on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of intravenous and oral midazolam. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2006; 79: 362–70PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  105. 105.
    Ahmad AB, Bennett PN, Rowland M. Models of hepatic drug clearance: discrimination between the ‘well stirred’ and ‘parallel-tube’ models. J Pharm Pharmacol 1983; 35: 219–24PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  106. 106.
    Brown HS, Galetin A, Hallifax D, et al. Prediction of in vivo drug-drug interactions from in vitro data: factors affecting prototypic drug-drug interactions involving CYP2C9, CYP2D6 and CYP3A4. Clin Pharmacokinet 2006; 45: 1035–50PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  107. 107.
    Brown HS, Ito K, Galetin A, et al. Prediction of in vivo drug-drug interactions from in vitro data: impact of incorporating parallel pathways of drug elimination and inhibitor absorption rate constant. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2005; 60: 508–18PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  108. 108.
    Bjornsson TD, Callaghan JT, Einolf HJ, et al. The conduct of in vitro and in vivo drug-drug interaction studies: a PhRMA perspective. Drug Metab Dispos 2003; 31: 815–32PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  109. 109.
    Williams JA, Hurst SI, Bauman J, et al. Reaction phenotyping in drug discovery: moving forward with confidence? Curr Drug Metab 2003; 4: 527–34PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  110. 110.
    Lamba JK, Lin YS, Schuetz EG, et al. Genetic contribution to variable human CYP3A-mediated metabolism. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2002; 54: 1271–94PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  111. 111.
    Villikka K, Kivisto KT, Backman JT, et al. Triazolam is ineffective in patients taking rifampin. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1997; 61: 8–14PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  112. 112.
    Villikka K, Kivisto KT, Maenpaa H, et al. Cytochrome P450-inducing antiepileptics increase the clearance of vincristine in patients with brain tumors. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1999; 66: 589–93PubMedGoogle Scholar
  113. 113.
    Gibson GG, Plant NJ, Swales KE, et al. Receptor-dependent transcriptional activation of cytochrome P4503A genes: induction mechanisms, species differences and interindividual variation in man. Xenobiotica 2002; 32: 165–206PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  114. 114.
    Wu CY, Benet LZ, Hebert MF, et al. Differentiation of absorption and first-pass gut and hepatic metabolism in humans: studies with cyclosporine. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1995; 58: 492–7PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. 115.
    Lampen A, Zhang Y, Hackbarth I, et al. Metabolism and transport of the macrolide immunosuppressant sirolimus in the small intestine. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1998; 285: 1104–12PubMedGoogle Scholar
  116. 116.
    Holtbecker N, Fromm MF, Kroemer HK, et al. The nifedipinerifampin interaction: evidence for induction of gut wall metabolism. Drug Metab Dispos 1996; 24: 1121–3PubMedGoogle Scholar
  117. 117.
    Kinirons MT, O’shea D, Kim RB, et al. Failure of erythromycin breath test to correlate with midazolam clearance as a probe of cytochrome P4503A. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1999; 66: 224–31PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  118. 118.
    Tanaka E, Kurata N, Yasuhara H. How useful is the ‘cocktail approach’ for evaluating human hepatic drug metabolizing capacity using cytochrome P450 phenotyping probes in vivo? J Clin Pharm Ther 2003; 28: 157–65PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  119. 119.
    Obach RS, Walsky RL, Venkatakrishnan K. Mechanism-based inactivation of human cytochrome p450 enzymes and the prediction of drug-drug interactions. Drug Metab Dispos 2007; 35: 246–55PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  120. 120.
    Ong CE, Coulter S, Birkett DJ, et al. The xenobiotic inhibitor profile of cytochrome P4502C8. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2000; 50: 573–80PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  121. 121.
    Park JY, Kim KA, Shin JG, et al. Effect of ketoconazole on the pharmacokinetics of rosiglitazone in healthy subjects. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2004; 58: 397–402PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  122. 122.
    Siegsmund MJ, Cardarelli C, Aksentijevich I, et al. Ketoconazole effectively reverses multidrug resistance in highly resistant KB cells. J Urol 1994; 151: 485–91PubMedGoogle Scholar
  123. 123.
    Watkins PB. Noninvasive test of CYP3A enzymes. Pharmacogenetics 1994; 4: 171–84PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  124. 124.
    Chung E, Nafziger AN, Kazierad DJ, et al. Comparison of midazolam and simvastatin as cytochrome P450 3A probes. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2006; 79: 350–61PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  125. 125.
    Kenworthy KE, Bloomer JC, Clarke SE, et al. CYP3A4 drug interactions: correlation of 10 in vitro probe substrates. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1999; 48: 716–27PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  126. 126.
    Obach RS, Walsky RL, Venkatakrishnan K, et al. The utility of in vitro cytochrome P450 inhibition data in the prediction of drug-drug interactions. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 2006; 316: 336–48PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis Data Information BV 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yoshiyuki Ohno
    • 1
  • Akihiro Hisaka
    • 1
  • Hiroshi Suzuki
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Pharmacy, University of Tokyo Hospital Faculty of MedicineUniversity of TokyoHongo 7-3-1, Bunkyo-ku, TokyoJapan
  2. 2.Center for Advanced Medical Engineering and InformaticsOsaka UniversityOsakaJapan

Personalised recommendations