4.6 Article

Isozyme-specific induction of low-dose aspirin on cytochrome P450 in healthy subjects

期刊

CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS
卷 73, 期 3, 页码 264-271

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1067/mcp.2003.14

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: This study was designed to define the effect of low-dose aspirin administration on the activity of cytochrome P450 (CYP) in normal human subjects. Methods: Aspirin, 50 mg daily, was given for 14 days to 18 nonsmoking healthy male volunteers. A modified 5-drug cocktail procedure consisting of caffeine, mephenytoin, metoprolol, chlorzoxazone, and midazolam was performed to simultaneously assess in vivo activity of Cyp1A2, CyP2C19, Cyp2D6, CY-P2E1, and CYP3A, respectively. The activities were assessed on 4 occasions including at baseline, after 7 and 14 daily doses of aspirin, and at 7 days after discontinuation of aspirin. Concentrations of parent drugs and corresponding metabolites in biologic samples were assayed by reversed-phase HPLC. Results: Both 7-day and 14-day aspirin intake increased the activity of CYP2C19 significantly, as indicated by 4-hydroxymephenytoin urinary recovery (P < .001). Induction of low-dose aspirin on CYP2C19 was time-dependent. CYP3A activity indices increased moderately but significantly by both 7-day and 14-day aspirin treatment (P < .05), but the percentage changes in CYP3A activity indices were not significant. Low-dose aspirin had no effect on CYP1A2, CYP2D6, and CYP2E1 in vivo activity by either 7-day or 14-day treatment. Conclusions. The effect of low-dose aspirin on CYPs was enzyme-specific. Both 7-day and 14-day low-dose aspirin induced the in vivo activities of CYP2C19 but did not affect the activities of CYP1A2, CYP2D6, and CYP2E1. The effect of low-dose aspirin on CYP3A activity awaits further confirmation. When low-dose aspirin is used in combination with drugs that are substrates of CYP2C19, doses of the latter should be adjusted to ensure their efficacy. (Clin Pharmacol Ther 2003;73:264-71.).

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