BACKGROUND: The activity of various CYP isoforms is critical for maintaining the clinical effectiveness of many medications. Therefore, determining the sex-dependent activity of clinically relevant CYP families is highly important for optimal therapeutic effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: This review examined the sex-dependent activity of CYP3A, CYP1A2, CYP2D6, CYP2C9, CYP2C19 and CYP2E1. METHODS: This review searched for studies performed in humans and hormonal status was not a limiting factor. RESULTS/ CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence suggests that CYP2E1 and CYP1A2 activity is higher in males than females, while CYP3A, one of the most clinically relevant CYP isoforms, appears to have greater activity in females. Overall, more studies are needed to fully support these conclusions as there are many factors that influence drug metabolism and thus it is very difficult to isolate gender as a sole modulator of CYP activity.
BACKGROUND: The activity of various CYP isoforms is critical for maintaining the clinical effectiveness of many medications. Therefore, determining the sex-dependent activity of clinically relevant CYP families is highly important for optimal therapeutic effectiveness. OBJECTIVE: This review examined the sex-dependent activity of CYP3A, CYP1A2, CYP2D6, CYP2C9, CYP2C19 and CYP2E1. METHODS: This review searched for studies performed in humans and hormonal status was not a limiting factor. RESULTS/ CONCLUSIONS: The current evidence suggests that CYP2E1 and CYP1A2 activity is higher in males than females, while CYP3A, one of the most clinically relevant CYP isoforms, appears to have greater activity in females. Overall, more studies are needed to fully support these conclusions as there are many factors that influence drug metabolism and thus it is very difficult to isolate gender as a sole modulator of CYP activity.
Authors: Xia Yang; Bin Zhang; Cliona Molony; Eugene Chudin; Ke Hao; Jun Zhu; Andrea Gaedigk; Christine Suver; Hua Zhong; J Steven Leeder; F Peter Guengerich; Stephen C Strom; Erin Schuetz; Thomas H Rushmore; Roger G Ulrich; J Greg Slatter; Eric E Schadt; Andrew Kasarskis; Pek Yee Lum Journal: Genome Res Date: 2010-06-10 Impact factor: 9.043
Authors: Irena Loryan; Marja Lindqvist; Inger Johansson; Masahiro Hiratsuka; Ilse van der Heiden; Ron H N van Schaik; Jan Jakobsson; Magnus Ingelman-Sundberg Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2011-10-18 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Sabrina Peterson; Yvonne Schwarz; Shuying S Li; Lin Li; Irena B King; Chu Chen; David L Eaton; John D Potter; Johanna W Lampe Journal: Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev Date: 2009-10-20 Impact factor: 4.254
Authors: Alexander K Berg; Sumithra J Mandrekar; Katie L Allen Ziegler; Elsa C Carlson; Eva Szabo; Mathew M Ames; Daniel Boring; Paul J Limburg; Joel M Reid Journal: J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2013-02-22 Impact factor: 3.126
Authors: A M Sandqvist; D Henrohn; J Schneede; M Hedeland; H C Egeröd; U G Bondesson; B G Wikström Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2012-06-26 Impact factor: 2.953