![]() |
|
|
Vol. 30, Issue 12, 1455-1461, December 2002
Department of Laboratory Medicine and Department of
Biopharmaceutical Sciences, University of California San Francisco, San
Francisco, California (J.-F.L., L.B.S.); Department of Experimental and
Clinical Pharmacology, Genentech, Inc., South San Francisco, California
(J.-F.L.); Department of Medicine, Division of Clinical Pharmacology,
Stanford University Medical Center, Stanford, California (T.F.B.);
Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine,
Baltimore, Maryland (C.F.); and Statistics and Data Analysis Center,
AIDs Clinical Trials Group/Harvard School of Public Health,
Boston, Massachusetts (S.L.R.).
Eighteen healthy human immunodeficiency virus-negative
subjects participated in an open-label, six-period, incomplete
Latin-square crossover pharmacokinetic study. Each subject
received two of the three possible pair-wise combinations of
single-dose oral ritonavir (R) (400 mg), nelfinavir (N) (750 mg), and
saquinavir (S) (800 mg), each pair on three occasions (simultaneous or
staggered administration), each occasion at least 2 days after the
last. A model-based analysis reveals the following major drug
interactions under the conditions of this study: 1) R given
simultaneously with S decreases S hepatic intrinsic clearance almost
50-fold relative to that predicted for S given alone and increases its gut bioavailability 90% (but decreases its rate of absorption 40%)
relative to when N is given simultaneously; 2) N given simultaneously with S decreases S hepatic intrinsic clearance 10-fold relative to that
predicted for S given alone; and 3) R inhibits S hepatic intrinsic
clearance even after R plasma levels have become undetectable (>48 h
after dosing), implying that R, when used as a pharmacokinetic enhancer, can be dosed less frequently than might be predicted from the
duration of detectable systemic concentrations.
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
H. Zhou Population-based assessments of clinical drug-drug interactions: qualitative indices or quantitative measures? J. Clin. Pharmacol., November 1, 2006; 46(11): 1268 - 1289. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||