Drug-drug and food-drug pharmacokinetic interactions with new insulinotropic agents repaglinide and nateglinide

This review describes the current knowledge on drug-drug and food-drug interactions with repaglinide and nateglinide. These two meglitinide derivatives, commonly called glinides, have been developed for improving insulin secretion of patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. They are increasingly used either in monotherapy or in combination with other oral antihyperglycaemic agents for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Compared with sulfonylureas, glinides have been shown to (i) provide a better control of postprandial hyperglycaemia, (ii) overcome some adverse effects, such as hypoglycaemia, and (iii) have a more favourable safety profile, especially in patients with renal failure.The meal-related timing of administration of glinides and the potential influence of food and meal composition on their bioavailability may be important. In addition, some food components (e.g. grapefruit juice) may cause pharmacokinetic interactions. Because glinides are metabolised via cytochrome P450 (CYP) 3A4 isoenzyme, they are indeed exposed to pharmacokinetic interactions. In addition to CYP3A4, repaglinide is metabolised via CYP2C8, while nateglinide metabolism also involves CYP2C9. Furthermore, both compounds and their metabolites may undergo specialised transport/uptake in the intestine, another source of pharmacokinetic interactions. Clinically relevant drug-drug interactions are those that occur when glinides are administered together with other glucose-lowering agents or compounds widely coadministered to diabetic patients (e.g. lipid-lowering agents), with drugs that are known to induce (risk of lower glinide plasma levels and thus of deterioration of glucose control) or inhibit (risk of higher glinide plasma levels leading to hypoglycaemia) CYP isoenzymes concerned in their metabolism, or with drugs that have a narrow efficacy : toxicity ratio.Pharmacokinetic interactions reported in the literature appear to be more frequent and more important with repaglinide than with nateglinide. Rifampicin (rifampin) reduced repaglinide area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) by 32-85% while it reduced nateglinide AUC by almost 25%. Reported increases in AUCs with coadministration of drugs inhibiting CYP isoenzymes never exceeded 80% for repaglinide (except with ciclosporin and with gemfibrozil) and 50% for nateglinide. Ciclosporin more than doubled repaglinide AUC (+144%), a finding that should raise caution when using these two drugs in combination. The most impressive pharmacokinetic interaction was reported with combined administration of gemfibrozil (a strong CYP2C8 inhibitor) and repaglinide (8-fold increase in repaglinide AUC). Although no studies have been performed in patients with type 2 diabetes, the latter combination should be avoided in clinical practice.     

Pharmacokinetic interactions with thiazolidinediones

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a complex disease combining defects in insulin secretion and insulin action. New compounds called thiazolidinediones or glitazones have been developed for reducing insulin resistance. After the withdrawal of troglitazone because of liver toxicity, two compounds are currently used in clinical practice, rosiglitazone and pioglitazone. These compounds are generally used in combination with other pharmacological agents. Because they are metabolised via cytochrome P450 (CYP), glitazones are exposed to numerous pharmacokinetic interactions. CYP2C8 and CYP3A4 are the main isoenzymes catalysing biotransformation of pioglitazone (as with troglitazone), whereas rosiglitazone is metabolised by CYP2C9 and CYP2C8. For both rosiglitazone and pioglitazone, the most relevant interactions have been described in healthy volunteers with rifampicin (rifampin), which results in a significant decrease of area under the plasma concentration-time curve [AUC] (54-65% for rosiglitazone, p<0.001; 54% for pioglitazone, p<0.001), and with gemfibrozil, which results in a significant increase of AUC (130% for rosiglitazone, p<0.001; 220-240% for pioglitazone, p<0.001). The relevance of such drug-drug interactions in patients with type 2 diabetes remains to be evaluated. However, in the absence of clinical data, it is prudent to reduce the dosage of each glitazone by half in patients treated with gemfibrozil. Conversely, rosiglitazone and pioglitazone do not seem to significantly affect the pharmacokinetics of other compounds. Although some food components have also been shown to potentially interfere with drugs metabolised with the CYP system, no published study deals specifically with these possible CYP-mediated food-drug interactions with glitazones.     

Drug interactions with oral antidiabetic agents: pharmacokinetic mechanisms and clinical implications

There is a growing epidemic of type 2 diabetes (T2DM), and it is associated with various comorbidities. Patients with T2DM are usually treated with multiple drugs, and are therefore at an increased risk of harmful drug-drug interactions (DDIs). Several potentially life-threatening DDIs concerning oral antidiabetic drugs have been identified. This has mostly been initiated by case reports but, more recently, the understanding of their mechanisms has greatly increased. In this article, we review the pharmacokinetic DDIs concerning oral antidiabetics, including metformin, sulfonylureas, meglitinide analogs, thiazolidinediones and dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitors, and the underlying mechanistic basis that can help to predict and prevent DDIs. In particular, the roles of membrane transporters and cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes in these DDIs are discussed.     

Current management strategies for coexisting diabetes mellitus and obesity

Besides genetic predisposition, obesity is the most important risk factor for the development of diabetes mellitus. Weight reduction has been shown to markedly improve blood glucose control and vascular risk factors associated with insulin resistance in obese individuals with type 2 diabetes. Therapeutic strategies for the obese diabetic patient include: (i) promoting weight loss, through lifestyle modifications (low-calorie diet and exercise) and antiobesity drugs (orlistat, sibutramine, etc.); (ii) improving blood glucose control, through agents decreasing insulin resistance (metformin or thiazolidinediones, e.g. pioglitazone and rosiglitazone) or insulin needs (alpha-glucosidase inhibitors, e.g. acarbose) in preference to agents stimulating defective insulin secretion (sulphonylureas, meglitinide analogues); and (iii) treating common associated risk factors, such as arterial hypertension and dyslipidaemias, to improve cardiovascular prognosis. Whenever insulin is required by the obese diabetic patient after failure to respond to oral drugs, it should be preferably prescribed in combination with an oral agent, more particularly metformin or acarbose, or possibly a thiazolidinedione. When morbid obesity is present, both restoring a good glycaemic control and correcting associated risk factors can only be obtained through a marked and sustained weight loss. This objective justifies more aggressive weight reduction programmes, including very-low-calorie diets and bariatric surgery, but only within a multidisciplinary approach and long-term strategy.     

Effect of genetic polymorphisms in cytochrome p450 (CYP) 2C9 and CYP2C8 on the pharmacokinetics of oral antidiabetic drugs: clinical relevance

Type 2 diabetes mellitus affects up to 8% of the adult population in Western countries. Treatment of this disease with oral antidiabetic drugs is characterised by considerable interindividual variability in pharmacokinetics, clinical efficacy and adverse effects. Genetic factors are known to contribute to individual differences in bioavailability, drug transport, metabolism and drug action. Only scarce data exist on the clinical implications of this genetic variability on adverse drug effects or clinical outcomes in patients taking oral antidiabetics. The polymorphic enzyme cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2C9 is the main enzyme catalysing the biotransformation of sulphonylureas. Total oral clearance of all studied sulphonylureas (tolbutamide, glibenclamide [glyburide], glimepiride, glipizide) was only about 20% in persons with the CYP2C9*3/*3 genotype compared with carriers of the wild-type genotype CYP2C9*1/*1, and clearance in the heterozygous carriers was between 50% and 80% of that of the wild-type genotypes. For reasons not completely known, the resulting differences in drug effects were much less pronounced. Nevertheless, CYP2C9 genotype-based dose adjustments may reduce the incidence of adverse effects. The magnitude of how doses might be adjusted can be derived from pharmacokinetic studies. The meglitinide-class drug nateglinide is metabolised by CYP2C9. According to the pharmacokinetic data, moderate dose adjustments based on CYP2C9 genotypes may help in reducing interindividual variability in the antihyperglycaemic effects of nateglinide. Repaglinide is metabolised by CYP2C8 and, according to clinical studies, CYP2C8*3 carriers had higher clearance than carriers of the wild-type genotypes; however, this was not consistent with in vitro data and therefore further studies are needed. CYP2C8*3 is closely linked with CYP2C9*2. CYP2C8 and CYP3A4 are the main enzymes catalysing biotransformation of the thiazolidinediones troglitazone and pioglitazone, whereas rosiglitazone is metabolised by CYP2C9 and CYP2C8. The biguanide metformin is not significantly metabolised but polymorphisms in the organic cation transporter (OCT) 1 and OCT2 may determine its pharmacokinetic variability. In conclusion, pharmacogenetic variability plays an important role in the pharmacokinetics of oral antidiabetic drugs; however, to date, the impact of this variability on clinical outcomes in patients is mostly unknown and prospective studies on the medical benefit of CYP genotyping are required.     

Saxagliptin. No more effective than other gliptins, but a high potential for drug interactions

Sitagliptin and vildagliptin are dipeptidyl peptidase 4 (DPP-4) inhibitors, also known as "gliptins". They are approved for use as oral glucose-lowering agents, although they have no proven impact on morbidity or mortality. Their glucose-lowering effect is limited and their long-term risks are poorly documented. A third gliptin, saxagliptin, is now authorised in the European Union for second-line treatment of type 2 diabetes, in combination with metformin, a glucose-lowering sulphonylurea, or a glitazone. Clinical evaluation of saxagliptin is mainly based on 8 double-blind randomised trials in about 5000 patients, including 4 trials of second-line combination therapy (1 non-inferiority trial versus sitagliptin, and 3 placebo-controlled trials). The reduction in the mean HbAlc levels with saxagliptin was about 0.3% to 0.8% (in absolute values) versus placebo, which is similar to that reported with other gliptins. The adverse effect profile of saxagliptin is similar to that of the other gliptins, and includes infections (especially urinary tract and sinus infections), gastrointestinal disorders, musculoskeletal disorders, fatigue, and depression. There also appears to be an increased risk of bone fractures. Potential long-term adverse effects include infectious, cardiac, hepatic, pancreatic and cutaneous disorders. Unlike the other gliptins, saxagliptin is metabolised by the cytochrome P450 isoenzyme CYP 3A4, hence a high potential for pharmacokinetic interactions. The risk-benefit balance of saxagliptin is no better than that of other gliptins, and saxagliptin carries a higher risk of drug interactions. In practice, when metformin or glibenclamide monotherapy fails, it is better to continue with a standard treatment strategy, such as resorting to insulin or abandoning strict glycaemic control.     

Oral antidiabetic agents: current role in type 2 diabetes mellitus

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a progressive and complex disorder that is difficult to treat effectively in the long term. The majority of patients are overweight or obese at diagnosis and will be unable to achieve or sustain near normoglycaemia without oral antidiabetic agents; a sizeable proportion of patients will eventually require insulin therapy to maintain long-term glycaemic control, either as monotherapy or in conjunction with oral antidiabetic therapy. The frequent need for escalating therapy is held to reflect progressive loss of islet beta-cell function, usually in the presence of obesity-related insulin resistance. Today's clinicians are presented with an extensive range of oral antidiabetic drugs for type 2 diabetes. The main classes are heterogeneous in their modes of action, safety profiles and tolerability. These main classes include agents that stimulate insulin secretion (sulphonylureas and rapid-acting secretagogues), reduce hepatic glucose production (biguanides), delay digestion and absorption of intestinal carbohydrate (alpha-glucosidase inhibitors) or improve insulin action (thiazolidinediones). The UKPDS (United Kingdom Prospective Diabetes Study) demonstrated the benefits of intensified glycaemic control on microvascular complications in newly diagnosed patients with type 2 diabetes. However, the picture was less clearcut with regard to macrovascular disease, with neither sulphonylureas nor insulin significantly reducing cardiovascular events. The impact of oral antidiabetic agents on atherosclerosis--beyond expected effects on glycaemic control--is an increasingly important consideration. In the UKPDS, overweight and obese patients randomised to initial monotherapy with metformin experienced significant reductions in myocardial infarction and diabetes-related deaths. Metformin does not promote weight gain and has beneficial effects on several cardiovascular risk factors. Accordingly, metformin is widely regarded as the drug of choice for most patients with type 2 diabetes. Concern about cardiovascular safety of sulphonylureas has largely dissipated with generally reassuring results from clinical trials, including the UKPDS. Encouragingly, the recent Steno-2 Study showed that intensive target-driven, multifactorial approach to management, based around a sulphonylurea, reduced the risk of both micro- and macrovascular complications in high-risk patients. Theoretical advantages of selectively targeting postprandial hyperglycaemia require confirmation in clinical trials of drugs with preferential effects on this facet of hyperglycaemia are currently in progress. The insulin-sensitising thiazolidinedione class of antidiabetic agents has potentially advantageous effects on multiple components of the metabolic syndrome; the results of clinical trials with cardiovascular endpoints are awaited. The selection of initial monotherapy is based on a clinical and biochemical assessment of the patient, safety considerations being paramount. In some circumstances, for example pregnancy or severe hepatic or renal impairment, insulin may be the treatment of choice when nonpharmacological measures prove inadequate. Insulin is also required for metabolic decompensation, that is, incipient or actual diabetic ketoacidosis, or non-ketotic hyperosmolar hyperglycaemia. Certain comorbidities, for example presentation with myocardial infarction during other acute intercurrent illness, may make insulin the best option. Oral antidiabetic agents should be initiated at a low dose and titrated up according to glycaemic response, as judged by measurement of glycosylated haemoglobin (HbA1c) concentration, supplemented in some patients by self monitoring of capillary blood glucose. The average glucose-lowering effect of the major classes of oral antidiabetic agents is broadly similar (averaging a 1-2% reduction in HbA1c), alpha-glucosidase inhibitors being rather less effective. Tailoring the treatment to the individual patient is an important principle. Doses are gradually titrated up according to response. However, the maximal glucose-lowering action for sulphonylureas is usually attained at appreciably lower doses (approximately 50%) than the manufacturers' recommended daily maximum. Combinations of certain agents, for example a secretagogue plus a biguanide or a thiazolidinedione, are logical and widely used, and combination preparations are now available in some countries. While the benefits of metformin added to a sulphonylurea were initially less favourable in the UKPDS, longer-term data have allayed concern. When considering long-term therapy, issues such as tolerability and convenience are important additional considerations. Neither sulphonylureas nor biguanides are able to appreciably alter the rate of progression of hyperglycaemia in patients with type 2 diabetes. Preliminary data suggesting that thiazolidinediones may provide better long-term glycaemic stability are currently being tested in clinical trials; current evidence, while encouraging, is not conclusive. Delayed progression from glucose intolerance to type 2 diabetes in high-risk individuals with glucose intolerance has been demonstrated with troglitazone, metformin and acarbose. However, intensive lifestyle intervention can be more effective than drug therapy, at least in the setting of interventional clinical trials. No antidiabetic drugs are presently licensed for use in prediabetic individuals.     

The role of sulphonylureas in the management of type 2 diabetes mellitus

The sulphonylureas act by triggering insulin release from the pancreatic beta cell. A specific site on the adenosine triphosphate (ATP)-sensitive potassium channels is occupied by sulphonylureas leading to closure of the potassium channels and subsequent opening of calcium channels. This results in exocytosis of insulin. The meglitinides are not sulphonylureas but also occupy the sulphonylurea receptor unit coupled to the ATP-sensitive potassium channel.Glibenclamide (glyburide), gliclazide, glipizide and glimepiride are the primary sulphonylureas in current clinical use for type 2 diabetes mellitus. Glibenclamide has a higher frequency of hypoglycaemia than the other agents. With long-term use, there is a progressive decrease in the effectiveness of sulphonylureas. This loss of effect is the result of a reduction in insulin-producing capacity by the pancreatic beta cell and is also seen with other antihyperglycaemic agents.The major adverse effect of sulphonylureas is hypoglycaemia. There is a theoretical concern that sulphonylureas may affect cardiac potassium channels resulting in a diminished response to ischaemia.There are now many choices for initial therapy of type 2 diabetes in addition to sulphonylureas. Metformin and thiazolidinediones affect insulin sensitivity by independent mechanisms. Disaccharidase inhibitors reduce rapid carbohydrate absorption. No single agent appears capable of achieving target glucose levels in the majority of patients with type 2 diabetes. Combinations of agents are successful in lowering glycosylated haemoglobin levels more than with a single agent. Sulphonylureas are particularly beneficial when combined with agents such as metformin that decrease insulin resistance. Sulphonylureas can also be given with a basal insulin injection to provide enhanced endogenous insulin secretion after meals. Sulphonylureas will continue to be used both primarily and as part of combined therapy for most patients with type 2 diabetes.     

Effects of antidiabetic drugs on dipeptidyl peptidase IV activity: nateglinide is an inhibitor of DPP IV and augments the antidiabetic activity of glucagon-like peptide-1

Dipeptidyl peptidase IV (DPP IV) is the primary inactivator of glucoregulatory incretin hormones. This has lead to development of DPP IV inhibitors as a new class of agents for the treatment of type 2 diabetes. Recent reports indicate that other antidiabetic drugs, such as metformin, may also have inhibitory effects on DPP IV activity. In this investigation we show that high concentrations of several antidiabetic drug classes, namely thiazolidinediones, sulphonylureas, meglitinides and morphilinoguanides can inhibit DPP IV. The strongest inhibitor nateglinide, the insulin-releasing meglitinide was effective at low therapeutically relevant concentrations as low as 25 micromol/l. Nateglinide also prevented the degradation of glucagon-like peptide-1 (GLP-1) by DPP IV in a time and concentration-dependent manner. In vitro nateglinide and GLP-1 effects on insulin release were additive. In vivo nateglinide improved the glucose-lowering and insulin-releasing activity of GLP-1 in obese-diabetic ob/ob mice. This was accompanied by significantly enhanced circulating concentrations of active GLP-1(7-36)amide and lower levels of DPP IV activity. Nateglinide similarly benefited the glucose and insulin responses to feeding in ob/ob mice and such actions were abolished by co-administration of exendin(9-39) and (Pro(3))GIP to block incretin hormone action. These data indicate that the use of nateglinide as a prandial insulin-releasing agent may partly rely on inhibition of GLP-1 degradation as well as beta-cell K(ATP) channel inhibition.     

Pharmacokinetic optimisation of oral hypoglycaemic therapy.

Two main classes of oral hypoglycaemic drugs, the sulphonylureas and the biguanides, are currently used in the therapy of type II, non-insulin-dependent diabetes mellitus (NIDDM). The basic pharmacokinetic properties of these agents are discussed with a view to efficient and safe treatment. Both first- and second-generation sulphonylureas are rapidly absorbed from the gastrointestinal tract. In the plasma compartment, these drugs are strongly bound to serum proteins. All sulphonylureas are metabolised in the liver, and the metabolites and the parent drugs are eliminated mainly in the urine, but also (second-generation derivatives) in the faces. Rapid- and short-acting sulphonylureas may improve early insulin release and promote better postprandial glucose control. Long-acting derivatives may ensure better control of overnight glycaemia. The elderly are at risk of developing severe sulphonylurea-induced hypoglycaemia, and in this population the agent chosen should have a short or intermediate duration of action and no active metabolites. Caution is needed when prescribing any sulphonylurea in patients receiving drugs known to affect sulphonylurea action, and in those with impaired liver and/or kidney function. The bioavailability of the biguanides ranges from 40 to 60%. Binding to plasma proteins is absent or very low. Metformin and buformin are not metabolised and are excreted in the urine; phenformin undergoes hepatic hydroxylation and is excreted in both urine and faeces. Metformin is the only agent of this class currently recommended for clinical use. The main indications of metformin treatment are NIDDM associated with obesity and/or hyperlipidaemia, and in combination with sulphonylurea both as primary treatment and when secondary failure occurs with sulphonylurea alone. Lactic acidosis may develop in patients receiving therapy with biguanides, especially in the presence of a preexisting contraindication to their use.     

CYP3A4 and MDR Mediated Interactions in Drug Therapy

Multiple drug therapy is recommended in many disease states including AIDS, cancer, diabetes, and stroke. Therefore, drug-drug interactions can result in changes in pharmacological or toxicological response following concomitant administration of many therapeutic agents. It has become evident that two factors i.e. drug efflux pump- P-glycoprotein (MDR gene product) and metabolizing enzyme- CYP3A4 play major roles in this process. These two key proteins regulate all pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic interactions through the process of drug absorption, metabolism, disposition and elimination. Co-administration of two or more drugs can affect these processes due to altered functions of P-glycoprotein (P-gp) and CYP3A4 and consequently change clinical response and final outcome. After co-administration, some drugs may induce the activity of P-gp and/or CYP3A4 resulting in subtherapeutic blood levels and therapeutic failure due to reduced absorption and/or increased metabolism. Conversely, inhibition(s) of P-gp and/or CYP3A4 can cause enhanced plasma concentration and therefore, drug toxicity. Overlapping substrate specificities to these proteins make it difficult to understand perplexing pharmacokinetic interactions with multidrug regimens. Inter-patient variability of drug response can occur due to change in genetic profiles, intake of food, herbal supplement, and recreational drugs. In this review, we have outlined several clinically important CYP and MDR-mediated drug-drug interactions of antiretroviral agents, antineoplastic agents, azole antifungals, statins, methadone, antibacterials, cardiovascular medicines, immune modulators, recreational drugs and herbal agents. Mechanisms by which such drug interactions occur have been briefly discussed in some of the examples.     

Antiarrhythmic agents: drug interactions of clinical significance.

The management of cardiac arrhythmias has grown more complex in recent years. Despite the recent focus on nonpharmacological therapy, most clinical arrhythmias are treated with existing antiarrhythmics. Because of the narrow therapeutic index of antiarrhythmic agents, potential drug interactions with other medications are of major clinical importance. As most antiarrhythmics are metabolised via the cytochrome P450 enzyme system, pharmacokinetic interactions constitute the majority of clinically significant interactions seen with these agents. Antiarrhythmics may be substrates, inducers or inhibitors of cytochrome P450 enzymes, and many of these metabolic interactions have been characterised. However, many potential interactions have not, and knowledge of how antiarrhythmic agents are metabolised by the cytochrome P450 enzyme system may allow clinicians to predict potential interactions. Drug interactions with Vaughn-Williams Class II (beta-blockers) and Class IV (calcium antagonists) agents have previously been reviewed and are not discussed here. Class I agents, which primarily block fast sodium channels and slow conduction velocity, include quinidine, procainamide, disopyramide, lidocaine (lignocaine), mexiletine, flecainide and propafenone. All of these agents except procainamide are metabolised via the cytochrome P450 system and are involved in a number of drug-drug interactions, including over 20 different interactions with quinidine. Quinidine has been observed to inhibit the metabolism of digoxin, tricyclic antidepressants and codeine. Furthermore, cimetidine, azole antifungals and calcium antagonists can significantly inhibit the metabolism of quinidine. Procainamide is excreted via active tubular secretion, which may be inhibited by cimetidine and trimethoprim. Other Class I agents may affect the disposition of warfarin, theophylline and tricyclic antidepressants. Many of these interactions can significantly affect efficacy and/or toxicity. Of the Class III antiarrhythmics, amiodarone is involved in a significant number of interactions since it is a potent inhibitor of several cytochrome P450 enzymes. It can significantly impair the metabolism of digoxin, theophylline and warfarin. Dosages of digoxin and warfarin should empirically be decreased by one-half when amiodarone therapy is added. In addition to pharmacokinetic interactions, many reports describe the use of antiarrhythmic drug combinations for the treatment of arrhythmias. By combining antiarrhythmic drugs and utilising additive electrophysiological/pharmacodynamic effects, antiarrhythmic efficacy may be improved and toxicity reduced. As medication regimens grow more complex with the aging population, knowledge of existing and potential drug-drug interactions becomes vital for clinicians to optimise drug therapy for every patient.     

Potentially significant drug interactions of class III antiarrhythmic drugs.

Class III antiarrhythmic drugs, especially amiodarone (a broad-spectrum antiarrhythmic agent), have gained popularity for use in clinical practice in recent years. Other class III antiarrhythmic drugs include bretylium, dofetilide, ibutilide and sotalol. These agents are effective for the management of various types of cardiac arrhythmias both atrial and ventricular in origin.Class III antiarrhythmic drugs may interact with other drugs by two major processes: pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic interactions. The pharmacodynamic interaction occurs when the pharmacological effects of the object drug are stimulated or inhibited by the precipitant drug. Pharmacokinetic interactions can result from the interference of drug absorption, metabolism and/or elimination of the object drug by the precipitant drug.Among the class III antiarrhythmic drugs, amiodarone has been reported to be involved in a significant number of drug interactions. It is mainly metabolised by cytochrome P450 (CYP)3A4 and it is a potent inhibitor of CYP1A2, 2C9, 2D6 and 3A4. In addition, amiodarone may interact with other drugs (such as digoxin) via the inhibition of the P-glycoprotein membrane transporter system, a recently described pharmacokinetic mechanism of drug interactions.Bretylium is not metabolised; it is excreted unchanged in the urine. Therefore the interactions between bretylium and other drugs (including other antiarrhythmic drugs) is primarily through the pharmacodynamic mechanism.Dofetilide is metabolised by CYP3A4 and excreted by the renal cation transport system. Drugs that inhibit CYP3A4 (such as erythromycin) and/or the renal transport system (such as triamterene) may interact with dofetilide.It appears that the potential for pharmacokinetic interactions between ibutilide and other drugs is low. This is because ibutilide is not metabolised by CYP3A4 or CYP2D6. However, ibutilide may significantly interact with other drugs by a pharmacodynamic mechanism.Sotalol is primarily excreted unchanged in the urine. The potential for drug interactions due to hepatic enzyme induction or inhibition appears to be less likely. However, a number of drugs (such as digoxin) have been reported to interact with sotalol pharmacodynamically.If concurrent use of a class III antiarrhythmic agent and another drug cannot be avoided or no published studies for that particular drug interaction are available, caution should be exercised and close monitoring of the patient should be performed in order to avoid or minimise the risks associated with a possible adverse drug interaction.     

Pharmacokinetics and interactions of headache medications, part I: introduction, pharmacokinetics, metabolism and acute treatments

Recent progress in the treatment of primary headaches has made available specific, effective and safe medications for these disorders, which are widely spread among the general population. One of the negative consequences of this undoubtedly positive progress is the risk of drug-drug interactions. This review is the first in a two-part series on pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions of headache medications. Part I addresses acute treatments. Part II focuses on prophylactic treatments. The overall aim of this series is to increase the awareness of physicians, either primary care providers or specialists, regarding this topic. Pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions of major severity involving acute medications are a minority among those reported in literature. The main drug combinations to avoid are: i) NSAIDs plus drugs with a narrow therapeutic range (i.e., digoxin, methotrexate, etc.); ii) sumatriptan, rizatriptan or zolmitriptan plus monoamine oxidase inhibitors; iii) substrates and inhibitors of CYP2D6 (i.e., chlorpromazine, metoclopramide, etc.) and -3A4 (i.e., ergot derivatives, eletriptan, etc.), as well as other substrates or inhibitors of the same CYP isoenzymes. The risk of having clinically significant pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions seems to be limited in patients with low frequency headaches, but could be higher in chronic headache sufferers with medication overuse.     

Methadone—metabolism, pharmacokinetics and interactions

The pharmacokinetics of methadone varies greatly from person to person; so, after the administration of the same dose, considerably different concentrations are obtained in different subjects, and the pharmacological effect may be too small in some patients, too strong and prolonged in others. Methadone is mostly metabolised in the liver; the main step consists in the N-demethylation by CYP3A4 to EDDP (2-ethylidene-1,5-dimethyl-3,3-diphenylpyrrolidine), an inactive metabolite. The activity of CYP3A4 varies considerably among individuals, and such variability is the responsible for the large differences in methadone bioavailability. CYP2D6 and probably CYP1A2 are also involved in methadone metabolism. During maintenance treatment with methadone, treatment with other drugs may be necessary due to the frequent comorbidity of drug addicts: psychotropic drugs, antibiotics, anticonvulsants and antiretroviral drugs, which can cause pharmacokinetic interactions. In particular, antiretrovirals, which are CYP3A4 inducers, can decrease the levels of methadone, so causing withdrawal symptoms. Buprenorphine, too, is metabolised by CYP3A4, and may undergo the same interactions as methadone. Since it is impossible to foresee the time-lapse from the administration of another drug to the appearing of withdrawal symptoms, nor how much the daily dose of methadone should be increased in order to prevent them, patients taking combined drug treatments must be carefully monitored. The so far known pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions of methadone do not have life-threatening consequences for the patients, but they usually cause a decrease of the concentrations and of the effects of the drug, which in turn can cause symptoms of withdrawal and increase the risk of relapse into heroin abuse.     

Effects of the antifungal agents on oxidative drug metabolism: clinical relevance

This article reviews the metabolic pharmacokinetic drug-drug interactions with the systemic antifungal agents: the azoles ketoconazole, miconazole, itraconazole and fluconazole, the allylamine terbinafine and the sulfonamide sulfamethoxazole. The majority of these interactions are metabolic and are caused by inhibition of cytochrome P450 (CYP)-mediated hepatic and/or small intestinal metabolism of coadministered drugs. Human liver microsomal studies in vitro, clinical case reports and controlled pharmacokinetic interaction studies in patients or healthy volunteers are reviewed. A brief overview of the CYP system and the contrasting effects of the antifungal agents on the different human drug-metabolising CYP isoforms is followed by discussion of the role of P-glycoprotein in presystemic extraction and the modulation of its function by the antifungal agents. Methods used for in vitro drug interaction studies and in vitro-in vivo scaling are then discussed, with specific emphasis on the azole antifungals. Ketoconazole and itraconazole are potent inhibitors of the major drug-metabolising CYP isoform in humans, CYP3A4. Coadministration of these drugs with CYP3A substrates such as cyclosporin, tacrolimus, alprazolam, triazolam, midazolam, nifedipine, felodipine, simvastatin, lovastatin, vincristine, terfenadine or astemizole can result in clinically significant drug interactions, some of which can be life-threatening. The interactions of ketoconazole with cyclosporin and tacrolimus have been applied for therapeutic purposes to allow a lower dosage and cost of the immunosuppressant and a reduced risk of fungal infections. The potency of fluconazole as a CYP3A4 inhibitor is much lower. Thus, clinical interactions of CYP3A substrates with this azole derivative are of lesser magnitude, and are generally observed only with fluconazole dosages of > or =200 mg/day. Fluconazole, miconazole and sulfamethoxazole are potent inhibitors of CYP2C9. Coadministration of phenytoin, warfarin, sulfamethoxazole and losartan with fluconazole results in clinically significant drug interactions. Fluconazole is a potent inhibitor of CYP2C19 in vitro, although the clinical significance of this has not been investigated. No clinically significant drug interactions have been predicted or documented between the azoles and drugs that are primarily metabolised by CYP1A2, 2D6 or 2E1. Terbinafine is a potent inhibitor of CYP2D6 and may cause clinically significant interactions with coadministered substrates of this isoform, such as nortriptyline, desipramine, perphenazine, metoprolol, encainide and propafenone. On the basis of the existing in vitro and in vivo data, drug interactions of terbinafine with substrates of other CYP isoforms are unlikely.     

Meglitinide analogues in the treatment of type 2 diabetes mellitus

Type 2 diabetes mellitus is a complex heterogenous metabolic disorder in which peripheral insulin resistance and impaired insulin release are the main pathogenetic factors. The rapid response of the pancreatic beta-cells to glucose is already markedly disturbed in the early stages of type 2 diabetes mellitus. The consequence is often postprandial hyperglycaemia, which seems to be extremely important in the development of secondary complications, especially macrovascular disease. Therefore one of the main aims of treatment is to minimise blood glucose oscillations and attain near-normal glycosylated haemoglobin levels. Meglitinide analogues belong to a new family of insulin secretagogues which stimulate insulin release by inhibiting ATP-sensitive potassium channels of the beta-cell membrane via binding to a receptor distinct from that of sulphonylureas (SUR1/KIR 6.2). The pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of repaglinide, the first drug of these new antihyperglycaemic agents on the market, and of nateglinide, which will be available soon, differ markedly from the currently used sulphonylureas [mainly glibenclamide (glyburide) and glimepiride]. Repaglinide and nateglinide are absorbed rapidly, stimulate insulin release within a few minutes, are rapidly metabolised in the liver and are mainly excreted in the bile. Therefore, following preprandial administration of these drugs, insulin is more readily available during and just after the meal. This leads to a significant reduction in postprandial hyperglycaemia without the danger of hypoglycaemia between meals. The short action of these compounds and biliary elimination makes repaglinide and nateglinide especially suitable for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus who would like to have a more flexible lifestyle, need more flexibility because of unplanned eating behaviour (e.g. geriatric patients) or in whom one of the other first-line antidiabetic drugs, i.e. metformin, is strictly contraindicated (e.g. nephropathy with creatinine clearance < or = 50 ml/min). Meglitinide analogues act synergistically with metformin and thiazolidinediones (pioglitazone and rosiglitazone) and can be also combined with long-acting insulin (NPH insulin at bedtime). Therefore, these drugs enrich the palette of antidiabetic drugs and make the treatment more flexible and better tolerated, which both add to better metabolic control and support the empowerment and compliance of the patient. However, this will only be the case if the patient and the diabetes care team are trained for this new therapeutic schedule and the healthcare system is able to pay for these rather expensive drugs.