4.5 Article

Oral Sulfasalazine as a Clinical BCRP Probe Substrate: Pharmacokinetic Effects of Genetic Variation (C421A) and Pantoprazole Coadministration

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES
卷 99, 期 2, 页码 1046-1062

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1002/jps.21860

关键词

ABC transporters; clinical pharmacokineties; drug interactions; metabolite kinetics; pharmacogenetics

资金

  1. GlaxoSmithKIine
  2. UNC-GSK Pharmacokinetics Fellowship
  3. Summer Talent Identification Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study evaluated the utility of oral sulfasalazine as a probe substrate for Breast Cancer Resistance Protein (BCRP; ABCG2) activity by assessing the impact of genetic variation or coadministration of an inhibitor (pantoprazole) on plasma and urine pharmacokinetics of sulfasalazine and metabolites. Thirty-six healthy male subjects prescreened for ABCG2 421CC (reference activity), CA, and AA (lower activity) genotypes (N = 12 each) received a single 500 mg oral dose of enteric coated sulfasalazine alone, with 40 mg pantoprazole, or with 40 mg famotidine (gastrointestinal pH control) in a 3-period, single fixed sequence, crossover design. No significant difference in sulfasalazine or metabolite pharmacokinetics in 421AA or CA compared to 421CC subjects was found; however, high inter-subject variability was observed. Geometric mean (95% CI) sulfasalazine plasma AUC((0-infinity)) values were 32.1 (13.2, 78.1), 16.8 (7.15, 39.6) and 62.7 (33.4, 118) mu g h/mL, and C-max were 4.01 (1.62, 9.92), 1.70 (0.66, 4.40), and 6.86 (3.61, 13.0) mu g/mL for CC, CA, and AA subjects, respectively. Pantoprazole and famotidine did not affect sulfasalazine pharmacokinetics in any genotypic cohort. These results suggest that the pharmacokinetics of oral, enteric-coated 500 mg sulfasalazine are not sufficiently sensitive to ABCG2 genetic variation or inhibitors to be useful as a clinical probe substrate of BCRP activity. (C) 2009 Wiley-Liss, Inc. and the American Pharmacists Association J Pharm Sci 99:1046-1062, 2010

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据