Sirimas Sudsakorn1, Praveen Bahadduri1, Jennifer Fretland1, Chuang Lu1.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: In January 2020, the US FDA published two final guidelines, one entitled "In vitro Drug Interaction Studies - Cytochrome P450 Enzyme- and Transporter-Mediated Drug Interactions Guidance for Industry" and the other entitled "Clinical Drug Interaction Studies - Cytochrome P450 Enzyme- and Transporter-Mediated Drug Interactions Guidance for Industry". These were updated from the 2017 draft in vitro and clinical DDI guidance.
METHODS: This study is aimed to provide an analysis of the updates along with a comparison of the DDI guidelines published by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and Japanese Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA) along with the current literature.
RESULTS: The updates were provided in the final FDA DDI guidelines and explained the rationale of those changes based on the understanding from research and literature. Furthermore, a comparison among the FDA, EMA, and PMDA DDI guidelines are presented in Tables 1, 2 and 3.
CONCLUSION: The new 2020 clinical DDI guidance from the FDA now has even higher harmonization with the guidance (or guidelines) from the EMA and PMDA. A comparison of DDI guidance from the FDA 2017, 2020, EMA, and PMDA on CYP and transporter based DDI, mathematical models, PBPK, and clinical evaluation of DDI is presented in this review. Copyright© Bentham Science Publishers; For any queries, please email at epub@benthamscience.net.
BACKGROUND: In January 2020, the US FDA published two final guidelines, one entitled "In vitro Drug Interaction Studies - Cytochrome P450 Enzyme- and Transporter-Mediated Drug Interactions Guidance for Industry" and the other entitled "Clinical Drug Interaction Studies - Cytochrome P450 Enzyme- and Transporter-Mediated Drug Interactions Guidance for Industry". These were updated from the 2017 draft in vitro and clinical DDI guidance.
METHODS: This study is aimed to provide an analysis of the updates along with a comparison of the DDI guidelines published by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) and Japanese Pharmaceuticals and Medical Devices Agency (PMDA) along with the current literature.
RESULTS: The updates were provided in the final FDA DDI guidelines and explained the rationale of those changes based on the understanding from research and literature. Furthermore, a comparison among the FDA, EMA, and PMDA DDI guidelines are presented in Tables 1, 2 and 3.
CONCLUSION: The new 2020 clinical DDI guidance from the FDA now has even higher harmonization with the guidance (or guidelines) from the EMA and PMDA. A comparison of DDI guidance from the FDA 2017, 2020, EMA, and PMDA on CYP and transporter based DDI, mathematical models, PBPK, and clinical evaluation of DDI is presented in this review. Copyright© Bentham Science Publishers; For any queries, please email at epub@benthamscience.net.
Entities:
Keywords:
CYP; Cytochrome P450; DDI; PBPK; PK interaction; clinical DDI risk; in vitro assay; transporter
Mesh：
Substances：
Year: 2020
PMID： 32562522 DOI： 10.2174/1389200221666200620210522
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Curr Drug Metab ISSN： 1389-2002 Impact factor: 3.731