Predicting the clinical relevance of drug interactions from pre-approval studies

Drug Safety

Volumn 32, Issue 11, 2009, Pages 1017-1039

  Caccia, Silvio ^a   Garattini, Silvio ^a   Pasina, Luca ^a   Nobili, Alessandro ^a  

^a MARIO NEGRI INSTITUTE FOR PHARMACOLOGICAL RESEARCH   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

ASTEMIZOLE; BETA ADRENERGIC RECEPTOR BLOCKING AGENT; BUSPIRONE; CALCIUM CHANNEL BLOCKING AGENT; CERIVASTATIN; CISAPRIDE; CLARITHROMYCIN; CONSTITUTIVE ANDROSTANE RECEPTOR; COTRIMOXAZOLE; CYCLOSPORIN; CYTOCHROME P450 ISOENZYME; DERAMCICLANE FUMARATE; DIGOXIN; DIPEPTIDYL CARBOXYPEPTIDASE INHIBITOR; FLUOXETINE; GEMFIBROZIL; GLIBENCLAMIDE; HALOPERIDOL; HYDROXYMETHYLGLUTARYL COENZYME A REDUCTASE INHIBITOR; MIBEFRADIL; MIDAZOLAM; NEFAZODONE; POTASSIUM SPARING DIURETIC AGENT; PREGNANE X RECEPTOR; RIFAMPICIN; SIMVASTATIN; TERFENADINE; TRAZODONE; UNINDEXED DRUG;

ADVERSE OUTCOME; CARDIOGENIC SHOCK; CELL ASSAY; CELL LINE; CLINICAL EDUCATION; CLINICAL PRACTICE; COMPUTER MODEL; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DEPRESSION; DRUG BIOAVAILABILITY; DRUG BLOOD LEVEL; DRUG DISTRIBUTION; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG ELIMINATION; DRUG HALF LIFE; DRUG INHIBITION; DRUG INTERACTION; DRUG MARKETING; DRUG MECHANISM; DRUG MEGADOSE; DRUG METABOLISM; DRUG SAFETY; DRUG SCREENING; DRUG SURVEILLANCE PROGRAM; DRUG TRANSFORMATION; ENZYME INDUCTION; ENZYME INHIBITION; GASTROESOPHAGEAL REFLUX; GROUPS BY AGE; HIGH RISK POPULATION; HUMAN; HYPERICUM PERFORATUM; HYPOGLYCEMIA; IN VITRO STUDY; INFORMATION RETRIEVAL; LIVER MICROSOME; LOW DRUG DOSE; MACHINE LEARNING; MULTIDRUG RESISTANCE; MYOPATHY; NONHUMAN; POLYPHARMACY; PREDICTIVE VALIDITY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QT PROLONGATION; REVIEW; RHABDOMYOLYSIS; SEX DIFFERENCE; SPECIES DIFFERENCE; TORSADE DES POINTES; TRANSGENICS; UPREGULATION;

ANIMALS; CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; DRUG EVALUATION, PRECLINICAL; DRUG INTERACTIONS; DRUG THERAPY, COMBINATION; HUMANS; MODELS, ANIMAL; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS;

EID: 70349970564     PISSN: 01145916     EISSN: 11791942     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2165/11316630-000000000-00000     Document Type: Review

References (177)

1. Glasshuman PA, Simin B, Belperio P, et al. Improving recognition of drug interactions: benefits and barriers to using automated drug alerts. Med Care 2002; 40: 1161-1171
2. Kuhlhumann J, Muck W. Clinical-pharmacological stra-tegies to assess drug interaction potential during drug development. Drug Saf 2001; 24: 715-725
3. Kraft WK, Waldam SA. Humanufacturer?s drug interac-tion and postmarketing adverse event data. What are appropriate uses? Drug Saf 2001; 24: 637-643
4. Giacomini KM. When good drugs go bad. Nature 2007; 446: 975-977
5. DRUG: Alert: allergy drug Astemizole withdrawn in the U.S. [online]. Available from URL http://lists.essential. org/pharm-policy/msg00130.html [Accessed 2009 Sep 3].
6. Gonzalez MA, Estes KS. Pharmacokinetic overview of oral second-generation H1 antihistamines. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther 1998 May; 36 (5): 292-300
7. Backhuman JT, Kyrklund C, Neuvonen M, et al. Gemfi-brozil greatly increases plasma concentrations of cer-ivastatin. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2002; 72 (6): 685-691
8. Graham DJ, Staffa JA, Shatin D, et al. Incidence of hos-pitalized rhabdomyolysis in patients treated with lipid-lowering drugs. JAMA 2004; 292: 2585-2590
9. Wysowski DK, Corken A, Gallo-Torres H, et al. Post-marketing reports of QT prolongation and ventricular arrhythmia in association with cisapride and Food and Drug Administration regulatory actions. Am J Gastro-enterol 2001; 96 (6): 1698-1703
10. SoRelle R. Withdrawal of Posicor from market. Circula-tion 1998; 98 (9): 831-832
11. Backhuman JT, Wang JS, Wen X, et al. Mibefradil but not isradipine substantially elevates the plasma concentrations of the CYP3A4 substrate triazolam. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1999; 66 (4): 401-407
12. Vazquez E, Whitfield L. Seldane warnings. Posit Aware 1997; 8 (6): 12
13. Lin JH. Sense and nonsense in the prediction of drug-drug interactions. Curr Drug Metab 2000; 1 (4): 305-331
14. Bjerrum L, Andersen M, Petersen G, et al. Exposure to potential drug interactions in primary health care. Scand J Prim Health Care 2003; 21: 153-158
15. Boyd CM, Darer J, Boult C, et al. Clinical practice guide-lines and quality of care for older patients with multiple comorbid diseases: implications for pay for perforhu-mance. JAMA 2005; 294: 716-724
16. Gagne JJ, Maio V, Rabinowitz C. Prevalence and predic-tion of potential drug-drug interactions in Regione Emilia-Romagna, Italy. J Clin Pharm Ther 2008; 33: 141-151
17. Becker ML, Kallewaard M, Caspers PW, et al. Hospitali-sations and emergency department visits due to drug-drug interactions: a literature review. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf 2007; 16 (6): 641-651
18. Juurlink DN, Mamdani M, Kopp A, et al. Drug-drug in-teractions among elderly patients hospitalized for drug toxicity. JAMA 2003; 289 (13): 1652-1658
19. Ingelhuman-Sundberg M. Genetic susceptibility to adverse effects of drugs and environmental toxicants: the role of the CYP family of enzymes. Mutat Res 2001; 482 (1-2): 11-19
20. Alfaro CL. Emerging role of drug interaction studies in drug development: the good, the bad, and the unknown. Psychopharmacol Bull 2001; 35: 80-93
21. Huang SM, Stifano T. Guidance for industry: drug inter-action studies. Study design, data analysis, and implications for dosing and labelling. Draft guidance (2006) [online]. Available from URL: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM072101.pdf [Accessed 2009 Sep 3]
22. European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Pro-ducts (EMEA), Human Medicines Evaluation Unit. Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP). Note for guidance on the investigation of drug interactions. London: EMEA, 1998. CPMP/EWP/560/95
23. US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Guidance for industry. In vivo drug metabolism/drug interaction studies: study design, data analysis, and recommendations for dosing and labeling. Rockville (MD): US Food and Drug Administration, 1999 Nov: 1-16
24. Dresser GK, Spence JD, Bailey DG. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic consequences and clinical relevance of cytochrome P4503A4 inhibition. Clin Pharmacokinet 2000; 38: 41-57
25. Venkatakrishnan K, Von Moltke LL, Greenblatt DJ. Human drug metabolism and the cytochromes P450: application and relevance of in vitro models. J Clin Pharmacol 2001; 41 (11): 1149-1179
26. Atuah KN, Hughes D, Pirmohamed M. Clinical pharma-cology: special safety considerations in drug development and pharmacovigilance. Drug Saf 2004; 27: 535-554
27. Wienkers LC, Heath TG. Predicting in vivo drug interac-tions from in vitro drug discovery data. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2005; 4 (10): 825-833
28. Bergk V, Haefeli WE, Gasse C, et al. Information deficits in the summary of product characteristics preclude an optimal humanagement of drug interactions: a comparison with evidence from literature. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2005; 61: 327-335
29. Bergk V, Gasse C, Rothenbacher D, et al. Drug interaction in primary care: impact of a new algorithm on risk determination. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2004; 76: 85-96
30. Blix HS, Viktil KK, Moger TA, et al. Identification of drug interactions in hospitals: computerized screening vs bedside recording. J Clin Parm Therapeutics 2008; 33: 131-139
31. Hohl CM, Dankoff J, Colacone A, et al. Polypharmacy, adverse drug-related events, and potential adverse drug interactions in elderly patients presenting to an emergency department. Ann Emerg Med 2001; 38: 666-671
32. Gurwitz JH. Polypharmacy: a new paradigm for quality drug therapy in the elderly. Arch Intern Med 2004; 164: 1957-1959
33. Trifiro G, Corrao S, Alacqua M, et al. Interaction risk with proton pump inhibitors in general practice: significant disagreement between different drug-related information sources. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2006; 62: 582-590
34. Mallet L, Spinewine A, Huang A. The challenge of huma-naging drug interactions in elderly people. Lancet 2007; 370: 185-191
35. Fuhr U. Improvement in the handling of drug-drug inter-actions. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2008; 64: 167-171
36. Lin JH. CYP induction-mediated drug interactions: in vitro assessment and clinical implications. Pharm Res 2006; 23 (6): 1089-1116
37. DuBuske LM. The role of P-glycoprotein and organic anion-transporting polypeptides in drug interactions. Drug Saf 2005; 28 (9): 789-801
38. Lin JH. Transporter-mediated drug interactions: clinical implications and in vitro assessment. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 2007; 3 (1): 81-92
39. Donato MT, Castell JV. Strategies and molecular probes to investigate the role of cytochrome P450 in drug metabolism: focus on in vitro studies. Clin Pharmacokinet 2003; 42 (2): 153-178
40. Martignoni M, Grothuis GMM, de Kanter R. Species dif-ferences between mouse, rat, dog, monkey and human CYP-mediated drug metabolism, inhibition and induction. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 2006; 6: 875-894
41. Ingelhuman-Sundberg M. The human genome project and novel aspects of cytochrome P450 research. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 2005; 207 (2 Suppl.): 52-56
42. Homepage of the Human Cytochrome P450 (CYP) Allele Nomenclature Committee [online]. Available from URL http://www.imm.ki.se/CYPalleles [Accessed 2009 Sep 3].
43. Kobayashi S, Murray S, Watson D, et al. The specificity of inhibition of debrisoquine 4-hydroxylase activity by qui-nidine and quinine in the rat is the inverse of that in human. Biochem Pharmacol 1989; 38 (17): 2795-2799
44. Masubuchi Y, Iwasa T, Hosokawa S, et al. Selective defici-ency of debrisoquine 4-hydroxylase activity in mouse liver microsomes. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 1997; 282 (3): 1435-1441
45. Yu AM, Idle JR, Gonzalez FJ. Polymorphic cytochrome P4502D6: humanized mouse model and endogenous substrates. Drug Metab Rev 2004; 36: 243-277
46. Pascussi JM, Dvorak Z, Gerbal-Chaloin S, et al. Patho-physiological factors affecting CAR gene expression. Drug Metab Rev 2003; 35 (4): 255-268
47. 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
48. Hewitt NJ, Lecluyse EL, Ferguson SS. Induction of hepatic cytochrome P450 enzymes: methods, mechanisms, recommendations, and in vitro-in vivo correlations. Xeno-biotica 2007; 37 (10-11): 1196-1224
49. Liu YT, Hao HP, Liu CX, et al. Drugs as CYP3A probes, inducers, and inhibitors. Drug Metab Rev 2007; 39 (4): 699-721
50. Niemi M, Backhuman JT, Fromm MF, et al. Pharmaco-kinetic interactions with rifampicin: clinical relevance. Clin Pharmacokine 2003; 42 (9): 819-850
51. Caccia S. Antidepressant-like components of Hypericum per-foratum extracts: an overview of their pharmacokinetics and metabolism. Curr Drug Metab 2005; 6 (6): 531-543
52. Henderson L, Yue QY, Bergquist C, et al. St John?s wort (Hypericum perforatum): drug interactions and clinical outcomes. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2002; 54 (4): 349-356
53. Humannel M. Drug interactions with St John?s wort: me-chanisms and clinical implications. Drug Saf 2004; 27 (11): 773-797
54. Kocarek TA, Schuetz EG, Strom SC, et al. Comparative analysis of cytochrome P4503A induction in primary cultures of rat, rabbit, and human hepatocytes. Drug Metab Dispos 1995; 23 (3): 415-421
55. Moore LB, Maglich JM, McKee DD, et al. Pregnane X receptor (PXR), constitutive androstane receptor (CAR), and benzoate X receptor (BXR) define three pharmacologically distinct classes of nuclear receptors. Mol En-docrinol 2002; 16 (5): 977-986
56. Willson TM, Kliewer SA. PXR, CAR and drug metabo-lism. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2002; 1 (4): 259-266
57. Jones SA, Moore LB, Shenk JL, et al. The pregnane X receptor: a promiscuous xenobiotic receptor that has diverged during evolution. Mol Endocrinol 2000; 14 (1): 27-39
58. Tirona RG, Leake BF, Podust LM, et al. Identification of amino acids in rat pregnane X receptor that determine species-specific activation. Mol Pharmacol 2004; 65 (1): 36-44
59. Bjornsson TD, Callaghan JT, Einolf HJ, et al. The conduct of in vitro and in vivo drug-drug interaction studies: a PhRMA perspective. J Clin Pharmacol 2003; 43: 443-469
60. Karpen SJ. Nuclear receptor regulation of hepatic func-tion. J Hepatol 2002; 36 (6): 832-850
61. Moore LB, Parks DJ, Jones SA, et al. Orphan nuclear re-ceptors constitutive androstane receptor and pregnane X receptor share xenobiotic and steroid ligands. J Biol Chem 2000; 275 (20): 15122-15127
62. Tucker GT, Houston JB, Huang SM. Optimizing drug development: strategies to assess drug metabolism/ transporter interaction potential. Toward a consensus. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2001; 70 (2): 103-114
63. Houston JB, Galetin A. Progress towards prediction of human pharmacokinetic parameters from in vitro technologies. Drug Metab Rev 2003; 35 (4): 393-415
64. 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 (2): 246-255 (Pubitemid 46148737)
65. Bertz RJ, Grannehuman GR. Use of in vitro and in vivo data to estimate the likelihood of metabolic pharmaco-kinetic interactions. Clin Pharmacokinet 1997; 32 (3): 210-258
66. Ito K, Iwatsubo T, Kanamitsu S, et al. Prediction of pharmacokinetic alterations caused by drug-drug interactions: metabolic interaction in the liver. Pharmacol Rev 1998; 50 (3): 387-412
67. Houston JB, Kenworthy KE. In vitro-in vivo scaling of CYP kinetic data not consistent with the classical Michaelis-Menten model. Drug Metab Dispos 2000; 28 (3): 246-254
68. Schuetz EG, Schinkel AH, Relling MV, et al. P-glyco-protein: a major determinant of rifampicin-inducible expression of cytochrome P4503A in mice and humans. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 1996; 93 (9): 4001-4005
69. Caccia S. Metabolism of the newer antidepressants: an overview of the pharmacological and pharmacokinetic implications. Clin Pharmacokinet 1998; 34 (4): 281-302
70. Caccia S. N-dealkylation of arylpiperazine derivatives: disposition and metabolism of the 1-aryl-piperazines formed. Curr Drug Metab 2007; 8 (6): 612-622
71. Ito K, Brown HS, Houston JB. Database analyses for the prediction of in vivo drug-drug interactions from in vitro data [published erratum appears in Br J Clin Pharmacol 2004 Nov; 58 (5): 565-8]. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2004; 57 (4): 473-486
72. 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 (10): 1035-1050
73. The Simcyp population-based ADME simulator. Simcyp Consortium provides a platform for modelling and simulation of drug absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion (ADME) in virtual populations. The Sim-cyp Consortium includes pharmaceutical companies, academic institutes and regulatory authorities [online]. Available from URL http://www.SIMCYP.com [Accessed 2009 Sep 3].
74. Youdim KA, Zayed A, Dickins M, et al. 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): 680-692
75. Gomez-Lechon MJ, Donato MT, Castell JV, et al. Human hepatocytes in primary culture: the choice to investigate drug metabolism in human. Curr Drug Metab 2004; 5 (5): 443-462
76. Guidance for industry in vivo drug metabolism/drug in-teraction studies: study design, data analysis, and recommendations for dosing and labelling. Draft guidance [online]. Available from URL http://www.fda.gov/ohrms/dockets/98fr/ 981001gd.pdf
77. Hamilton GA, Jolley SL, Gilbert D, et al. Regulation of cell morphology and cytochrome P450 expression in human hepatocytes by extracellular matrix and cell-cell interactions. Cell Tissue Res 2001; 306: 85-99
78. LeCluyse EL. Human hepatocyte culture systems for the in vitro evaluation of cytochrome P450 expression and regulation. Eur J Pharm Sci 2001; 13 (4): 343-368
79. Katoh M, Tateno C, Yoshizato K, et al. Chimeric mice with humanized liver. Toxicology 2008; 246 (1): 9-17
80. Azuma H, Paulk N, Ranade A, et al. Robust expansion of human hepatocytes in Fah-/-/Rag2-/-/Il2rg-/-mice. Nat Biotechnol 2007; 25 (8): 903-910
81. Buring JE. Women in clinical trials: a portfolio for success. N Engl J Med 2000; 343 (7): 505-506
82. Heiat A, Gross CP, Krumholz HM. Representation of the elderly, women and minority in heart failure clinical trials. Arch Intern Med 2002; 162: 1682-1688
83. Fleish J, Fleish MC, Thurhumann PA. Women in early-phase clinical drug trials: have things changed over the past 20 years? Clin Pharmacol Ther 2005; 78: 445-452
84. Kaiser J. Gender in pharmacy: does it matter? Nature 2005; 308: 1572-1574
85. Anderson GD. Sex and racial differences in pharmacolo-gical response: where is the evidence? Pharmacogenetics, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics. J Womens Health (Larchmt) 2005; 14 (1): 19-29
86. Schwartz JB. The influence of sex on pharmacokinetics [published erratum appears in Clin Pharmacokinet 2004; 43 (11): 732]. Clin Pharmacokinet 2003; 42 (2): 107-121
87. Chen ML, Lee SC, Ng MJ, et al. Pharmacokinetic analysis of bioequivalence trials: implications for sex-related issues in clinical pharmacology and biopharmaceutics. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2000; 68 (5): 510-521
88. Cummins CL, Wu CY, Benet LZ. Sex-related differences in the clearance of cytochrome P450 3A4 substrates may be caused by P-glycoprotein. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2002; 72 (5): 474-489
89. Wolbold R, Klein K, Burk O, et al. Sex is a major de-terminant of CYP3A4 expression in human liver. Hepa-tology 2003; 38 (4): 978-988
90. Morris ME, Lee HJ, Predko LM. Gender differences in the membrane transport of endogenous and exogenous compounds. Pharmacol Rev 2003; 55 (2): 229-240
91. Shah RR. Drug development and use in the elderly: search for the right dose and dosing regimen (parts I and II). Br J Clin Pharmacol 2004; 58 (5): 452-469
92. Goldberg RM, Mabee J, Chan L, et al. Drug-drug and drug-disease interactions in ED: analysis of a high-risk population. Am J Emerg Med 1996; 14: 447-450
93. Bjorkhumann IK, Fastbom J, Smith IK, et al. Drug-drug interactions in the elderly. Ann Pharmacother 2002; 36: 1675-1681
94. Klarin I, Wimo A, Fastom J. The association of in-appropriate drug use with hospitalisation and mortality: a population-based study of the very old. Drugs Aging 2005; 22: 69-82
95. Johnell K, Klarin I. The relationship between number of drugs and potential drug-drug interactions in the elderly: a study of over 600,000 elderly patients from the Swedish Prescribed Drug Register. Drug Saf 2007; 30 (10): 911-918
96. Sotaniemi EA, Arranto AJ, Pelkonen O, et al. Age and cytochrome P450-linked drug metabolism in humans: an analysis of 226 subjects with equal histopathologic conditions. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1997; 61 (3): 331-339
97. Humangoni AA, Jackson SHD. Age-related changes in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics: basic principles and practical applications. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2003; 57: 6-14
98. Krayenbul JC, Vozeh S, Kondo-Oestreicher M, et al. Drug-drug interactions of new active substances: mibe-fradil example. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1999; 55: 559-565
99. Psaty BM, Furberg CD, Ray WA, et al. Potential for con-flict of interest in the evaluation of suspected adverse drug reactions: use of cerivastatin and risk of rhabdomyolysis. JAMA 2004; 292: 2622-2631
100. Bursztyn M, Kadr H, Tilvis R, et al. Mibefradil, a novel calcium antagonist, in elderly patients with hypertension: favorable hemodynamics and pharmacokinetics. Am Heart J 1997; 134 (2 Pt 1): 238-247
101. Kobrin I, Charlon V, Lindberg E, et al. Safety of mibe-fradil, a new once-a-day, selective T-type calcium channel antagonist. Am J Cardiol 1997; 80 (4B): 40-6C
102. Mullins ME, Horowitz Z, Linden DHJ, et al. Life-threa-tening interaction of mibefradil and beta-blockers with dihydropyridine calcium channel blockers. JAMA 1998; 280: 157-158
103. Muck W. Metabolic interactions between mibefradil and HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors: linking in vitro with in vivo information. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2000; 49: 87-90
104. Xie W, Barwick JL, Downes M, et al. Humanized xeno-biotic response in mice expressing nuclear receptor SXR. Nature 2000; 406 (6794): 435-439
105. Ma X, Shah Y, Cheung C, et al. The pregnane X receptor gene-humanized mouse: a model for investigating drug-drug interactions mediated by cytochromes P4503A. Drug Metab Dispos 2007; 35 (2): 194-200
106. Liddle C, Robertson GR. Predicting inductive drug-drug interactions. Pharmacogenomics 2003; 4 (2): 141-152
107. Scheer N, Ross J, Rode A, et al. A novel panel of mouse models to evaluate the role of human pregnane X receptor and constitutive androstane receptor in drug response. J Clin Invest 2008; 118 (9): 3228-3239
108. Higashi E, Fukami T, Itoh M, et al. Human CYP2A6 is induced by estrogen via estrogen receptor. Drug Metab Dispos 2007; 35 (10): 1935-1941
109. Hukkanen J, Vaisanen T, Lassila A, et al. Regulation of CYP3A5 by glucocorticoids and cigarette smoke in human lung-derived cells. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 2003; 304 (2): 745-752
110. Ma Q. Induction of CYP1A1. The AhR/DRE paradigm: transcription, receptor regulation, and expanding biological roles. Curr Drug Metab 2001; 2 (2): 149-164
111. Nguyen LP, Bradfield CA. The search for endogenous ac-tivators of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor. Chem Res Toxicol 2008; 21 (1): 102-116
112. Pohjanvirta R, Wong JMY, Li W, et al. Point mutation in intron sequence causes altered carboxyl-terminal structure in the aryl hydrocarbon receptor of the most 2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin-resistant rat strain. Mol Pharmacol 1998; 54: 86-93
113. Karchner SI, Franks DG, Kennedy SW, et al. The mole-cular basis for differential dioxin sensitivity in birds: role of the aryl hydrocarbon receptor. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2006; 103 (16): 6252-6257
114. Moriguchi T, Motohashi H, Hosoya T, et al. Distinct re-sponse to dioxin in an arylhydrocarbon receptor (AHR)-humanized mouse. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2003; 100 (10): 5652-5657
115. Wilkening S, Stahl F, Bader A. Comparison of primary human hepatocytes and hepatoma cell line Hepg2 with regard to their biotransformation properties. Drug Metab Dispos 2003; 31: 1035-1042 (Pubitemid 36975674)
116. Aninat C, Piton A, Glaise D, et al. Expression of cyto-chromes P450, conjugating enzymes and nuclear receptors in human hepatoma HepaRG cells. Drug Metab Dispos 2006; 34 (1): 75-83
117. Guillouzo A, Corlu A, Aninat C, et al. The human hepa-toma HepaRG cells: a highly differentiated model for studies of liver metabolism and toxicity of xenobiotics. Chem Biol Interact 2007; 168 (1): 66-73
118. Mills JB, Rose KA, Sadagopan N, et al. Induction of drug metabolism enzymes and MDR1 using a novel human hepatocyte cell line. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 2004; 309 (1): 303-309
119. Hariparsad N, Carr BA, Evers R, et al. Comparison of immortalized Fa2N-4 cells and human hepatocytes as in vitro models for cytochrome P450 induction. Drug Metab Dispos 2008; 36 (6): 1046-1055
120. Ripp SL, Mills JB, Fahmi OA, et al. Use of immortalized human hepatocytes to predict the magnitude of clinical drug-drug interactions caused by CYP3A4 induction. Drug Metab Dispos 2006; 34 (10): 1742-1748
121. Synold TW, Dussault I, Forhuman BM. The orphan nu-clear receptor SXR coordinately regulates drug metabolism and efflux. Nat Med 2001; 7: 584-590
122. Zhou C, Tabb MM, Sadatrafiei A, et al. Tocotrienols activate the steroid and xenobiotic receptor, SXR, and selectively regulate expression of its target genes. Drug Metab Dispos 2004; 32: 1075-1082
123. Pfrunder A, Guthumann H, Beglinger C, et al. Gene ex-pression of CYP3A4, ABC-transporters (MDR1 and MRP1-MRP5) and hPXR in three different human colon carcinoma cell lines. J Pharm Pharmacol 2003; 55: 59-66
124. Harmsen S, Koster AS, Beijnen JH, et al. Comparison of two immortalized human cell lines to study nuclear receptor-mediated CYP3A4 induction. Drug Metab Dispos 2008; 36 (6): 1166-1171
125. Ekins S, Wrighton SA. Application of in silico approaches to predicting drug-drug interactions. J Pharmacol Toxicol Methods 2001; 45 (1): 65-69
126. Marechal JD, Sutcliffe MJ. Insights into drug metabolism from modelling studies of cytochrome P450-drug interactions. Curr Top Med Chem 2006; 6 (15): 1619-1626
127. Poso A, Honkakoski P. Ligand recognition by drug-acti-vated nuclear receptors PXR and CAR: structural, site-directed mutagenesis and molecular modeling studies. Mini Rev Med Chem 2006; 6 (8): 937-947
128. Schuster D, Steindl TM, Langer T. Predicting drug meta-bolism induction in silico. Curr Top Med Chem 2006; 6 (15): 1627-1640
129. Arikuma T, Yoshikawa S, Azuma R, et al. Drug inter-action prediction using ontology-driven hypothetical assertion framework for pathway generation followed by numerical simulation [abstract]. BMC Bioinformatics 2008; 9 Suppl. 6: S11
130. Specht DF. Probabilistic neural networks. Neural Netw 1990; 3: 109-118
131. Xue Y, Yap CW, Sun LZ,et al. Prediction of p-glycoprotein substrates by support vector machine approach. J Chem Inf Comput Sci 2004; 44: 1497-1505
132. Yap CW, Xue Y, Li ZR, et al. Application of support vector machines to in silico prediction of cytochrome p450 enzyme substrates and inhibitors. Curr Top Med Chem 2006; 6 (15): 1593-1607
133. Ung CY, Li H, Yap CW, et al. In silico prediction of pregnane X receptor activators by machine learning approaches. Mol Pharmacol 2007; 71 (1): 158-168
134. Yap CW, Chen YZ. Prediction of cytochrome P450 3A4, 2D6, and 2C9 inhibitors and substrates by using support vector machines. J Chem Inf Model 2005; 45 (4): 982-992
135. Doucet J, Cassagne P, Trivalle C, et al. Drug-drug inter-actions related to hospital admission in older adults: a prospective study of 1000 patients. J Am Geriatr Soc 1996; 44: 944-948
136. Tulner LR, Frankfort SV, Gijsen GJPT, et al. Drug-drug interactions in a geriatric outpatient cohort: prevalence and relevance. Drugs Aging 2008; 25: 343-355
137. Kinirons MT, O?Mahony MS. Drug metabolism and age-ing. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2003; 57: 540-544
138. Turnheim K. When drug therapy gets old: pharmaco-kinetics and pharmacodynamics in elderly. Exp Gerontol 2003; 38: 843-853
139. Solberg LI, Hurley JS, Roberts MH, et al. Measuring pa-tient safety in ambulatory care: potential for identifying medical group drug-drug interaction rates using claims data. Am J Manag Care 2004 Nov; 10 (11 Pt 1): 753-759
140. Horn JR, Hansten PD, Chan LN. Proposal for a new tool to evaluate drug interaction cases. Ann Pharmacother 2007; 41: 674-680
141. Ko Y, Malone DC, Skepnek GH, et al. Prescribers? knowledge of and sources of information for potential drug-drug interactions. Drug Saf 2008; 31: 525-536
142. Tinetti ME, Bogardus Jr ST, Agostini JV. Potential pitfalls of disease-specific guidelines for patients with multiple conditions. N Engl J Med 2004; 351: 2870-2874
143. Catella-Lawson F, Reilly MP, Kapoor SC, et al. Cycloxy-genase inhibitors and the antiplatelet effects of aspirin. N Engl J Med 2001; 345: 1809-1817
144. MacDonald TM, Wei L. Effect of ibuprofen on cardipro-tective effect of aspirin. Lancet 2003; 361: 573-574
145. Curtis JP, Wang Y, Portnay EL, et al. Aspirin, ibuprofen, and mortality after myocardial infarction: retrospective cohort study. BMJ 2003; 327: 1322-1323
146. Kimmel SE, Berlin JA, Reilly M, et al. The effects of non-selective non-aspirin non-steroidal anti-inflammatory medications on the risk of nonfatal myocardial infarction and their interaction with aspirin. J Am Coll Cardiol 2004; 43: 985-990
147. Laprise R. Do too many cooks spoil the broth? Multiple physician involvement in medical management of elderly patients and potentially inappropriate drug combinations. CMAJ 1996; 154: 1177-1184
148. Green JL, Hawley JN, Rask KJ. Is the number of pre-scribing physician an independent risk factors for adverse drug events in an elderly outpatient population? Am J Geriatr Pharmacother 2007; 5: 31-39
149. Impicciatore P, Choonara I, Clarkson A, et al. Incidence of adverse drug reactions in paediatric in/out-patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective studies. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2001; 52 (1): 77-83
150. Horen B, Montastruc JL, Lapeyre-Mestre M. Adverse drug reactions and off-label drug use in paediatric outpatients. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2002; 54 (6): 665-670
151. Roberts R, Rodriguez W, Murphy D, et al. Pediatric drug labeling: improving the safety and efficacy of pediatric therapies. JAMA 2003; 290 (7): 905-911
152. Pandolfini C, Bonati M. A literature review on off-label drug use in children. Eur J Pediatr 2005; 164 (9): 552-558
153. Marchetti F, Bua J, Ventura Alessandro Notarangelo LD, et al. The awareness among paediatricians of off-label prescribing in children: a survey in Italian hospitals. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2007; 63: 81-85
154. Clavenna A, Bonati M, Rossi E, et al. Increase in non-evidence based use of antidepressants in children is cause for concern. BMJ 2004; 328 (7441): 711-712
155. Anthony M, Berg MJ. Biologic and molecular mechanisms for sex differences in pharmacokinetics, pharmacody-namics, and pharmacogenetics: part II. J Womens Health Gend Based Med 2002; 11 (7): 617-629 (Pubitemid 35174841)
156. Gandhi M, Aweeka F, Greenblatt RM, et al. Sex differ-ences in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 2004; 44: 499-523
157. Ebert SN, Liu XK, Woosley RL. Female gender as a risk factor for drug-induced cardiac arrhythmias: evaluation of clinical and experimental evidence. J Womens Health 1998; 7 (5): 547-557
158. Spinewine A, Schmader KE, Barber N, et al. Appropriate prescribing in elderly people: how well can it be measured and optimised? Lancet 2007; 370: 173-184
159. Ozdemir V, Shear NH, Kalow W. What will be the role of pharmacogenetics in evaluating drug safety and minimising adverse effects? Drug Saf 2001; 24 (2): 75-85
160. Pirmohamed M, Park BK. Cytochrome P450 enzyme polymorphisms and adverse drug reactions. Toxicology 2003; 192 (1): 23-32
161. Preskorn SH. Clinically relevant pharmacology of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors: an overview with emphasis on pharmacokinetics and effects on oxidative drug metabolism. Clin Pharmacokinet 1997; 32 Suppl. 1: 1-21
162. P-glycoprotein table: the effect of drugs and foods [online]. Available from URL http://www.mhc.com/PGP [Accessed 2009 Sep 3].
163. Sadeque AJ, Wandel C, He H, et al. Increased drug delivery to the brain by P-glycoprotein inhibition. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2000; 68 (3): 231-237
164. Iannetti P, Spalice A, Parisi P. Calcium-channel blocker verapamil administration in prolonged and refractory status epilepticus. Epilepsia 2005; 46 (6): 967-969
165. Humannheimer B, Ulfvarson J, Eklof S, et al. A clinical evaluation of the Janus Web application, a software screening tool for drug-drug interactions. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2008; 64 (12): 1209-1214
166. Hu Z, Yang X, Ho PC. Herb-drug interactions: a literature review. Drugs 2005; 65 (9): 1239-1282
167. Peng CC, Peter A. Incidence and severity of potential drug-dietary supplement interactions in primary care patients: an exploratory study of 2 outpatient practices. Arch Intern Med 2004; 164: 630-636
168. Poirier TI, Giudici R. Evaluation of drug interaction microcomputer software: an update comparison. Hosp Pharmacy 1995; 30: 888-894
169. Halkin H, Katzir I, Kurhuman I, et al. Preventing drug interactions by online prescription screening in community pharmacies and medical practices. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2001; 69: 260-265
170. Heikkila T, Lekandr T, Raunio H. Use of an online surveillance system for screening drug interactions in prescriptions in community pharmacies. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2006; 62: 661-665
171. Vitry AI. Comparative assessment of four drug interaction compendia. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2007; 63 (6): 709-714
172. Valuk RJ, Byrns PJ, Fulda TR, et al. Methodology for assessing drug-drug interaction evidence in the peer-reviewed medical literature. Curr Ther Res Clin Exp 2000; 61: 553-568
173. Fulda TR, Valuk RJ, Zanden JV, et al. Disagreement among drug compendia on inclusion and ratings of drug-drug interactions. Curr Ther Res Clin Exp 2000; 61: 540-548
174. Malone DC, Hutcins DS, Hauoert H, et al. Assessment of potential drug-drug interactions with a prescription claims database. Am J Health Syst Pharm 2005; 62: 1983-1991
175. Platt R, Madre L, Reynolds R, et al. Active drug safety surveillance: a tool to improve public health. Pharmaco-epidemiol Drug Saf 2008; 17: 1175-82.
176. Swen JJ, de Goede AL, Grandia L, et al. Pharmacoge-netics: from bench to byte. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2008; 83: 781-787
177. Rochon PA, Gurwitz JH. Optimising drug treatment for elderly people: the prescribing cascade. BMJ 1997; 315: 1096-1099