| Literature DB >> 35238961 |
Annika Elbe1, Kathrin Isabelle Foerster1, Antje Blank1, Peter Rose1, Jürgen Burhenne1, Walter Emil Haefeli1, Gerd Mikus2.
Abstract
PURPOSE: To investigate the suitability of microdosed oral omeprazole for predicting CYP2C19 activity in vivo in combination with simultaneous assessment of CYP3A and CYP2D6 activity using both microdosed midazolam and yohimbine.Entities:
Keywords: CYP2C19; Induction; Inhibition; Microdose; Omeprazole
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2022 PMID: 35238961 PMCID: PMC9107402 DOI: 10.1007/s00228-022-03304-3
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol ISSN: 0031-6970 Impact factor: 3.064
Fig. 1Study design of the clinical trial. MDZ = 10 µg midazolam; YOH = 50 µg yohimbine; µOME = 100 µg omeprazole solution; OME = 20 mg omeprazole capsule
Fig. 2Geometric mean ± 95% CI plasma concentration vs. time curves for normal dosed omeprazole (upper panel) and microdosed omeprazole (bottom panel) during baseline condition (black) and during concomitant intake of fluconazole (blue) or rifampicin (red)
Pharmacokinetics of omeprazole (20 mg orally) and its metabolite 5-OH-omeprazole alone (baseline), during CYP2C19 inhibition with fluconazole, and during induction with rifampicin in 20 healthy study participants
| 20 mg omeprazole | Baseline | Fluconazole | Rifampicin | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Omeprazole | Omeprazole | Omeprazole | ||||
| Parameter [unit] | Geometric mean | 95% CI | Geometric mean | 95% CI | Geometric mean | 95% CI |
| Cmax [ng/mL] | 373 | 255–545 | 1213 * | 1060–1389 | 56.6 * | 40.8–78.7 |
| tmax [min] (harmonic mean) | 178 | 159–204 | 169 | 143–207 | 143 | 120–178 |
| AUCtot [ng/mL min] | 51,596 | 35,377–75,251 | 423,874 * | 384,463–467,324 | 4558 * | 3214–6463 |
| t1/2 [min] | 56.0 | 45.4–69.1 | 206 * | 189–225 | 27.2 * | 23.4–31.5 |
| VSS [L] | 90.8 | 63.3–130 | 20.0 * | 17.6–22.7 | 715 * | 523–977 |
| VZ [L] | 31.3 | 23.4–41.8 | 14.0 * | 12.7–15.6 | 172 * | 128–231 |
| Cl/F [mL/min] | 388 | 266–565 | 47.2 * | 42.8–52.0 | 4388 * | 3095–6222 |
| 5-OH-omeprazole | 5-OH-omeprazole | 5-OH-Omeprazole | ||||
| Parameter [unit] | Geometric mean | 95% CI | Geometric mean | 95% CI | Geometric mean | 95% CI |
| Cmax [ng/mL] | 136 | 107–174 | 41.1 * | 34.7–48.7 | 92.6 * | 76.2–113 |
| AUCtot [ng/mL min] | 25,951 | 22,878–29,436 | 21,051 * | 18,851–23,507 | 9165 * | 7928–10,594 |
| t1/2 [min] | 83.6 | 58.8–119 | 277 * | 246–313 | 38.5 * | 32.4–45.8 |
Test baseline vs. fluconazole or rifampicin: *p < 0.05
AUC area under the concentration–time curve, Cl/F apparent oral clearance, C maximum plasma concentration, t time to reach Cmax, t terminal elimination half-life, V apparent volume of distribution at steady state, V apparent volume of distribution associated with the terminal phase
Pharmacokinetics of omeprazole (100 µg orally) and its metabolite 5-OH-omeprazole alone (baseline), during CYP2C19 inhibition with fluconazole, and during induction with rifampicin in 20 healthy study participants
| 100 µg omeprazole | Baseline | Fluconazole | Rifampicin | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Omeprazole | Omeprazole | Omeprazole | ||||
| Parameter [unit] | Geometric mean | 95% CI | Geometric mean | 95% CI | Geometric mean | 95% CI |
| Cmax [ng/mL] | 4.48 | 3.59–5.60 | 13.6 * | 11.5–16.1 | 1.31 * | 0.95–1.81 |
| tmax [min] (harmonic mean) | 14.8 | 12.5–18.2 | 21.8 * | 17.4–29.3 | 10.6 * | 17.4–29.3 |
| AUCtot [ng/mL min] | 264 | 188–371 | 3405 * | 2845–4075 | 45.4 * | 33.0–62.4 |
| t1/2 [min] | 51.8 | 42.4–63.3 | 212 * | 200–224 | 36.0 * | 28.1–46.0 |
| VSS [L] | 26.1 | 21.3–31.9 | 8.80 * | 7.50–10.3 | 93.1 * | 67.6–128 |
| VZ [L] | 28.3 | 22.7–35.3 | 8.97 * | 7.54–10.7 | 114 * | 78.3–167 |
| Cl/F [mL/min] | 379 | 269–533 | 29.4 * | 24.5–35.1 | 2205 * | 1603–3034 |
| 5-OH-omeprazole | 5-OH-omeprazole | 5-OH-omeprazole | ||||
| Parameter [unit] | Geometric mean | 95% CI | Geometric mean | 95% CI | Geometric mean | 95% CI |
| Cmax [ng/mL] | 1.14 | 0.88–1.49 | 0.16 * | 0.13–0.19 | 0.97 | 0.84–1.13 |
| AUCtot [ng/mL min] | 107 | 96.2–118 | 77.0 * | 66.4–89.2 | 46.9 * | 42.1–52.2 |
| t1/2 [min] | 70.4 | 61.1–81.0 | 239 * | 221–261 | 47.2 * | 43.4–51.4 |
Test baseline vs. fluconazole or rifampicin: *p < 0.05; **p < 0.01; ***p < 0.001; ****p < 0.0001
AUC area under the concentration–time curve, Cl/F apparent oral clearance, C maximum plasma concentration, t time to reach Cmax, t terminal elimination half-life, V apparent volume of distribution at steady state, V apparent volume of distribution associated with the terminal phase
Geometric mean ratios (GMR) and 90% confidence intervals (90% CI) of dose-normalized omeprazole Cmax, AUC and apparent oral clearance (Cl/F) after 100 µg p.o. and 20 mg p.o. during baseline, CYP2C19 inhibition with fluconazole, and during induction with rifampicin in 20 healthy study participants
| Cl/F (reference vs. test) | GMR | 90% CI | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 20 mg vs. 100 µg omeprazole | Cmax AUC Cl/F | 2.4033 1.0235 0.9771 | 1.7620–3.2781 0.8706–1.2033 0.8311–1.1487 |
| 20 mg vs. 100 µg omeprazole during fluconazole | Cmax AUC Cl/F | 2.2383 1.6066 0.6223 | 1.9007–2.6359 1.3782–1.8728 0.5339–0.7253 |
| 20 mg vs. 100 µg omeprazole during rifampicin | Cmax AUC Cl/F | 4.6207 1.9899 0.5025 | 3.8107–5.6029 1.6648–2.3785 0.4204–0.6007 |
| 20 mg omeprazole at baseline vs. fluconazole | Cmax AUC Cl/F | 3.2556 8.2153 0.1217 | 2.4141–4.3905 6.1514–10.9713 0.0911–0.1626 |
| 20 mg omeprazole at baseline vs. rifampicin | Cmax AUC Cl/F | 0.1519 0.0883 11.32 | 0.1115–0.2069 0.0715–0.1091 9.17–13.98 |
| 100 µg omeprazole at baseline vs. fluconazole | Cmax AUC Cl/F | 3.0321 12.986 0.0775 | 2.4115–3.8124 9.560–17.395 0.0575–0.1046 |
| 100 µg omeprazole at baseline vs. rifampicin | Cmax AUC Cl/F | 0.2920 0.1717 5.82 | 0.2402–0.3550 0.1411–0.2091 4.78–7.09 |
Geometric mean and 95% confidence intervals (95% CI) of the omeprazole hydroxylation index during baseline, CYP2C19 inhibition with fluconazole, and during induction with rifampicin in 20 healthy study participants
| 100 µg omeprazole | 20 mg omeprazole | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Geometric mean | 95% CI | Geometric mean | 95% CI | |
| Baseline | ||||
| All ( | 1.26 | 0.75–2.12 | 2.47 | 1.71–3.57 |
| UM ( | 0.92 | 0.35–2.41 | 2.0 | 1.04–3.84 |
| EM ( | 1.20 | 0.48–3.0 | 2.34 | 1.16–4.7 |
| IM ( | 1.18 | 0.46–3.0 | 2.31 | 1.28–4.18 |
| PM ( | 22.8 | 21.7 | ||
| Fluconazole | ||||
| All ( | 49.3* | 39.6–61.4 | 28.7* | 23.5–35.0 |
| UM ( | 41.0 | 25.2–66.9 | 21.8 | 14.3–33.4 |
| EM ( | 58.4 | 34.9–97.6 | 29.8 | 20.6–43.3 |
| IM ( | 49.2 | 32.1–75.3 | 36.6 | 27.9–48.0 |
| PM ( | 65.1 | 44.0 | ||
| Rifampicin | ||||
| All ( | 0.55 | 0.37–0.82 | 0.50* | 0.33–0.74 |
| UM ( | 0.41 | 0.19–0.87 | 0.32 | 0.20–0.51 |
| EM ( | 0.51 | 0.34–0.79 | 0.55 | 0.28–1.08 |
| IM ( | 0.54 | 0.29–1.04 | 0.47 | 0.25–0.89 |
| PM ( | 3.70 | 5.46 | ||
*Test all participants baseline vs. fluconazole or rifampicin: p < 0.05
Fig. 3Relationship between omeprazole hydroxylation index and the omeprazole apparent oral clearance for normal dosed omeprazole (upper panel) and microdosed omeprazole (bottom panel) during baseline condition (black) and during concomitant intake of fluconazole (blue) or rifampicin (red). During induction with rifampicin in 5 participants, omeprazole was below LLOQ at 3 h after microdosed omeprazole; no hydroxylation index was calculated. This also occurred in 2 participants after normal dosed omeprazole
Fig. 4Calculated metabolic clearance of midazolam (geometric mean ± 95% confidence interval) in relation to the different study conditions (baseline condition (black), concomitant intake of fluconazole (blue), rifampicin (red)). The results of the repeated measures ANOVA after logarithmic transformation with Sidak’s multiple comparisons test. In addition, the geometric mean ratios (GMR) with their 90% confidence intervals (90% CI) are listed. ns = not significant; µOME = 100 µg omeprazole solution; OME = 20 mg omeprazole capsule. ***p < 0.005