AIMS: Canagliflozin is a recently approved drug for use in the treatment of type 2 diabetes. The potential for canagliflozin to cause clinical drug-drug interactions (DDIs) was assessed. METHODS: DDI potential of canagliflozin was investigated using in vitro test systems containing drug metabolizing enzymes or transporters. Basic predictive approaches were applied to determine potential interactions in vivo. A physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model was developed and clinical DDI simulations were performed to determine the likelihood of cytochrome P450 (CYP) inhibition by canagliflozin. RESULTS: Canagliflozin was primarily metabolized by uridine 5'-diphospho-glucuronosyltransferase 1A9 and 2B4 enzymes. Canagliflozin was a substrate of efflux transporters (P-glycoprotein, breast cancer resistance protein and multidrug resistance-associated protein-2) but was not a substrate of uptake transporters (organic anion transporter polypeptide isoforms OATP1B1, OATP1B3, organic anion transporters OAT1 and OAT3, and organic cationic transporters OCT1, and OCT2). In inhibition assays, canagliflozin was shown to be a weak in vitro inhibitor (IC50 ) of CYP3A4 (27 μmol l -1 , standard error [SE] 4.9), CYP2C9 (80 μmol l -1 , SE 8.1), CYP2B6 (16 μmol l-1 , SE 2.1), CYP2C8 (75 μmol l -1 , SE 6.4), P-glycoprotein (19.3 μmol l -1 , SE 7.2), and multidrug resistance-associated protein-2 (21.5 μmol l -1 , SE 3.1). Basic models recommended in DDI guidelines (US Food & Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency) predicted moderate to low likelihood of interaction for these CYPs and efflux transporters. PBPK DDI simulations of canagliflozin with CYP probe substrates (simvastatin, S-warfarin, bupropion, repaglinide) did not show relevant interaction in humans since mean areas under the concentration-time curve and maximum plasma concentration ratios for probe substrates with and without canagliflozin and its 95% CIs were within 0.80-1.25. CONCLUSIONS: In vitro DDI followed by a predictive or PBPK approach was applied to determine DDI potential of canagliflozin. Overall, canagliflozin is neither a perpetrator nor a victim of clinically important interactions.
AIMS: Canagliflozin is a recently approved drug for use in the treatment of type 2 diabetes. The potential for canagliflozin to cause clinical drug-drug interactions (DDIs) was assessed. METHODS: DDI potential of canagliflozin was investigated using in vitro test systems containing drug metabolizing enzymes or transporters. Basic predictive approaches were applied to determine potential interactions in vivo. A physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model was developed and clinical DDI simulations were performed to determine the likelihood of cytochrome P450 (CYP) inhibition by canagliflozin. RESULTS:Canagliflozin was primarily metabolized by uridine 5'-diphospho-glucuronosyltransferase 1A9 and 2B4 enzymes. Canagliflozin was a substrate of efflux transporters (P-glycoprotein, breast cancer resistance protein and multidrug resistance-associated protein-2) but was not a substrate of uptake transporters (organic anion transporter polypeptide isoforms OATP1B1, OATP1B3, organic anion transporters OAT1 and OAT3, and organic cationic transporters OCT1, and OCT2). In inhibition assays, canagliflozin was shown to be a weak in vitro inhibitor (IC50 ) of CYP3A4 (27 μmol l -1 , standard error [SE] 4.9), CYP2C9 (80 μmol l -1 , SE 8.1), CYP2B6 (16 μmol l-1 , SE 2.1), CYP2C8 (75 μmol l -1 , SE 6.4), P-glycoprotein (19.3 μmol l -1 , SE 7.2), and multidrug resistance-associated protein-2 (21.5 μmol l -1 , SE 3.1). Basic models recommended in DDI guidelines (US Food & Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency) predicted moderate to low likelihood of interaction for these CYPs and efflux transporters. PBPK DDI simulations of canagliflozin with CYP probe substrates (simvastatin, S-warfarin, bupropion, repaglinide) did not show relevant interaction in humans since mean areas under the concentration-time curve and maximum plasma concentration ratios for probe substrates with and without canagliflozin and its 95% CIs were within 0.80-1.25. CONCLUSIONS: In vitro DDI followed by a predictive or PBPK approach was applied to determine DDI potential of canagliflozin. Overall, canagliflozin is neither a perpetrator nor a victim of clinically important interactions.
Authors: Thorir D Bjornsson; John T Callaghan; Heidi J Einolf; Volker Fischer; Lawrence Gan; Scott Grimm; John Kao; S Peter King; Gerald Miwa; Lan Ni; Gondi Kumar; James McLeod; R Scott Obach; Stanley Roberts; Amy Roe; Anita Shah; Fred Snikeris; John T Sullivan; Donald Tweedie; Jose M Vega; John Walsh; Steven A Wrighton Journal: Drug Metab Dispos Date: 2003-07 Impact factor: 3.922
Authors: Rao N V S Mamidi; Filip Cuyckens; Jie Chen; Ellen Scheers; Dennis Kalamaridis; Ronghui Lin; Jose Silva; Sue Sha; David C Evans; Michael F Kelley; Damayanthi Devineni; Mark D Johnson; Heng Keang Lim Journal: Drug Metab Dispos Date: 2014-02-25 Impact factor: 3.922
Authors: R A B van Waterschoot; R ter Heine; E Wagenaar; C M M van der Kruijssen; R W Rooswinkel; A D R Huitema; J H Beijnen; A H Schinkel Journal: Br J Pharmacol Date: 2010-07 Impact factor: 8.739
Authors: Stephen Ph Alexander; Doriano Fabbro; Eamonn Kelly; Neil Marrion; John A Peters; Helen E Benson; Elena Faccenda; Adam J Pawson; Joanna L Sharman; Christopher Southan; Jamie A Davies Journal: Br J Pharmacol Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 8.739
Authors: Stephen Ph Alexander; Eamonn Kelly; Neil Marrion; John A Peters; Helen E Benson; Elena Faccenda; Adam J Pawson; Joanna L Sharman; Christopher Southan; Jamie A Davies Journal: Br J Pharmacol Date: 2015-12 Impact factor: 8.739
Authors: Damayanthi Devineni; Prasarn Manitpisitkul; Nicole Vaccaro; Apexa Bernard; Donna Skee; Rao N V S Mamidi; Hong Tian; Sveta Weiner; Hans Stieltjes; Sue Sha; Paul Rothenberg Journal: Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 2015-01 Impact factor: 1.366
Authors: J Andrew Williams; Ruth Hyland; Barry C Jones; Dennis A Smith; Susan Hurst; Theunis C Goosen; Vincent Peterkin; Jeffrey R Koup; Simon E Ball Journal: Drug Metab Dispos Date: 2004-08-10 Impact factor: 3.922
Authors: John D Chester; Simon P Joel; Susan L Cheeseman; Geoffrey D Hall; Michael S Braun; Jackie Perry; Theresa Davis; Christopher J Button; Matthew T Seymour Journal: J Clin Oncol Date: 2003-03-15 Impact factor: 44.544
Authors: J P H Wilding; G Charpentier; P Hollander; G González-Gálvez; C Mathieu; F Vercruysse; K Usiskin; G Law; S Black; W Canovatchel; G Meininger Journal: Int J Clin Pract Date: 2013-10-13 Impact factor: 2.503
Authors: Rao N V S Mamidi; Shannon Dallas; Carlo Sensenhauser; Heng Keang Lim; Ellen Scheers; Peter Verboven; Filip Cuyckens; Laurent Leclercq; David C Evans; Michael F Kelley; Mark D Johnson; Jan Snoeys Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2016-12-20 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Wajd Alkabbani; Ryan Pelletier; Michael A Beazely; Youssef Labib; Breanna Quan; John-Michael Gamble Journal: Drug Saf Date: 2022-03-05 Impact factor: 5.228