Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21143503›Full record

ArticleBritish journal of clinical pharmacology2011

Assessment of algorithms for predicting drug-drug interactions via inhibition mechanisms: comparison of dynamic and static models.

Eleanor J Guest, Karen Rowland-Yeo, Amin Rostami-Hodjegan, Geoffrey T Tucker, J Brian Houston, Aleksandra Galetin

Open access · bronzeAbstract readComparative Study
In one paragraph

Article in British journal of clinical pharmacology, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
29citing papers in PubMed
9.3field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

29 citing papers in PubMed, 72 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Trial
  4. Trial
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Kinetic Modeling of Steady-State Situations in Cytochrome P450 Enzyme Reactions.Drug metabolism and disposition: the biological fate of chemicals · 2019
    Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Renal Drug Transporters and Drug Interactions.Clinical pharmacokinetics · 2017
    Review
  19. Article
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Eleanor J GuestSchool of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, UK.
Karen Rowland-Yeo
Amin Rostami-Hodjegan
Geoffrey T Tucker
J Brian Houston
Aleksandra Galetin
Simcyp (United Kingdom) · GBUniversity of Manchester · GB

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

what is already known about this subjectThe prediction of drug-drug interactions (DDIs) from in vitro data usually utilizes an average dosing interval estimate of inhibitor concentration in an equation-based static model. Simcyp®, a population-based ADME simulator, is becoming widely used for the prediction of DDIs and has the ability to incorporate the time-course of inhibitor concentration and hence generate a temporal profile of the inhibition process within a dynamic model. WHAT THIS PAPER ADDS: Prediction of DDIs for 35 clinical studies incorporating a representative range of drug-drug interactions, with multiple studies across different inhibitors and victim drugs. Assessment of whether the inclusion of the time course of inhibition in the dynamic model improves prediction in comparison with the static model. Investigation of the impact of different inhibitor and victim drug parameters on DDI prediction accuracy including dosing time and the inclusion of active metabolites. Assessment of ability of the dynamic model to predict inter-individual variability in the DDI magnitude.

aimsStatic and dynamic models (incorporating the time course of the inhibitor) were assessed for their ability to predict drug-drug interactions (DDIs) using a population-based ADME simulator (Simcyp®V8). The impact of active metabolites, dosing time and the ability to predict inter-individual variability in DDI magnitude were investigated using the dynamic model.

methodsThirty-five in vivo DDIs involving azole inhibitors and benzodiazepines were predicted using the static and dynamic model; both models were employed within Simcyp for consistency in parameters. Simulations comprised of 10 trials with matching population demographics and dosage regimen to the in vivo studies. Predictive utility of the static and dynamic model was assessed relative to the inhibitor or victim drug investigated.

resultsUse of the dynamic and static models resulted in comparable prediction success, with 71 and 77% of DDIs predicted within two-fold, respectively. Over 40% of strong DDIs (>five-fold AUC increase) were under-predicted by both models. Incorporation of the itraconazole metabolite into the dynamic model resulted in increased prediction accuracy of strong DDIs (80% within two-fold). Bias and imprecision in prediction of triazolam DDIs were higher in comparison with midazolam and alprazolam; >50% of triazolam DDIs were under-predicted regardless of the model used. Predicted inter-individual variability in the AUC ratio (coefficient of variation of 45%) was consistent with the observed variability (50%).

conclusionsHigh prediction accuracy was observed using both the Simcyp dynamic and static models. The differences observed with the dose staggering and the incorporation of active metabolite highlight the importance of these variables in DDI prediction.

Indexed as

Drug InteractionsAlgorithmsArea Under CurveAzolesBenzodiazepinesComputer SimulationHumansModels, TheoreticalRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicReproducibility of ResultsAzolesBenzodiazepines

Identifiers

PMID21143503
PMCPMC3018028
OpenAlexW1944662582

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.