Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28408803›Full record

Trial reportDrug design, development and therapy2017

Drug-drug interaction of microdose and regular-dose omeprazole with a CYP2C19 inhibitor and inducer.

Gab-Jin Park, Soo Hyeon Bae, Wan-Su Park, Seunghoon Han, Min-Ho Park, Seok-Ho Shin, Young G Shin, Dong-Seok Yim

Abstract readClinical Trial
In one paragraph

Trial report in Drug design, development and therapy, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
12citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
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

12 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
  3. Review
  4. Article
  5. Review
  6. Review
  7. Review
  8. Article
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Predictive Value of Microdose Pharmacokinetics.Clinical pharmacokinetics · 2019
    Review
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

8 authors.

Gab-Jin ParkDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Seoul St Mary's Hospital, PIPET (Pharmacometrics Institute for Practical Education and Training), College of Medicine, Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, South Korea.
Soo Hyeon BaeDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Seoul St Mary's Hospital, PIPET (Pharmacometrics Institute for Practical Education and Training), College of Medicine, Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, South Korea.
Wan-Su ParkDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Seoul St Mary's Hospital, PIPET (Pharmacometrics Institute for Practical Education and Training), College of Medicine, Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, South Korea.
Seunghoon HanDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Seoul St Mary's Hospital, PIPET (Pharmacometrics Institute for Practical Education and Training), College of Medicine, Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, South Korea.
Min-Ho ParkCollege of Pharmacy, Chungnam National University, Daejeon, South Korea.
Seok-Ho ShinCollege of Pharmacy, Chungnam National University, Daejeon, South Korea.
Young G ShinCollege of Pharmacy, Chungnam National University, Daejeon, South Korea.
Dong-Seok YimDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Seoul St Mary's Hospital, PIPET (Pharmacometrics Institute for Practical Education and Training), College of Medicine, Catholic University of Korea, Seoul, South Korea.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeA microdose drug-drug interaction (DDI) study may be a valuable tool for anticipating drug interaction at therapeutic doses. This study aimed to compare the magnitude of DDIs at microdoses and regular doses to explore the applicability of a microdose DDI study. PATIENTS AND

methodsSix healthy male volunteer subjects were enrolled into each DDI study of omeprazole (victim) and known perpetrators: fluconazole (inhibitor) and rifampin (inducer). For both studies, the microdose (100 μg, cold compound) and the regular dose (20 mg) of omeprazole were given at days 0 and 1, respectively. On days 2-9, the inhibitor or inducer was given daily, and the microdose and regular dose of omeprazole were repeated at days 8 and 9, respectively. Full omeprazole pharmacokinetic samplings were performed at days 0, 1, 8, and 9 of both studies for noncompartmental analysis.

resultsThe magnitude of the DDI, the geometric mean ratios (with perpetrator/omeprazole only) of maximum concentration (C

conclusionOur results may be used as partial evidence that microdose DDI studies may replace regular-dose studies, or at least be used for DDI-screening purposes.

Indexed as

AdultCross-Over StudiesCytochrome P-450 CYP2C19Cytochrome P-450 CYP2C19 InhibitorsDose-Response Relationship, DrugDrug InteractionsFluconazoleHealthy VolunteersHumansMaleMiddle AgedOmeprazoleRifampinYoung AdultCYP2C19 protein, humanCytochrome P-450 CYP2C19Cytochrome P-450 CYP2C19 InhibitorsFluconazoleOmeprazoleRifampinCYP2C19drug–drug interactionmicrodose

Identifiers

PMID28408803
PMCPMC5384691

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.