4.6 Article

Organic anion transporting polypeptide 1B1 activity classified by SLCO1B1 genotype influences atrasentan pharmacokinetics

期刊

CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
卷 79, 期 3, 页码 186-196

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1016/j.clpt.2005.11.003

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: Our objective was to learn whether genetic polymorphisms of metabolic enzymes or transport proteins provide a mechanistic understanding of the in vivo disposition of atrasentan, a selective endothelin A receptor antagonist. Methods. Atrasentan uptake was measured in HeLa cells transfected to express major alleles of organic anion transporting polypeptide 1B1 (OATP1B1). The results were used to classify individuals as extensive, intermediate, or poor OATP1B1 transporters according to their SLCO1B1 genotypes. Analysis of covariance including genotype, study, age, weight, sex, and ethnicity was used to identify factors influencing atrasentan single-dose (n = 44) and steady-state (n = 38) pharmacokinetic parameters. Genotypes for cytochrome P450 3A5, uridine diphosphate-glucuronosyltransferase (UGT) 1A1, UGT2B4, UGT2B15, adenosine triphosphate-binding cassette subfamily B (A-BCB) 1, solute carrier organic anion transporter (SLCO) 1B1, and solute carrier family 22 (SLC22) A2 were each assessed. Results. Single-dose atrasentan exposure (P = .0244), steady-state atrasentan exposure (P = .0108), and maximum postdose plasma concentration (P = .0002) were associated with OATP1B1 activity classified by SLCO1B1 genotype. No other tested genotypes were observed to be associated with both single-dose and steady-state atrasentan pharmacokinetics. Conclusions. OATP1B1 is a meaningful factor for atrasentan disposition. Individuals may be classified as having extensive, intermediate, or poor OATP1B1 transport phenotypes according to SLCO1B1 genotypes. Increased exposures of OATP1B1 substrates might be expected in individuals who have the poor transporter phenotype or are treated with an OATP1B1 inhibitor.

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

4.6
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