Advertisement
Research ArticleArticle

Comparison of In Vitro and In Vivo Inhibition Potencies of Fluvoxamine toward CYP2C19

Caiping Yao, Kent L. Kunze, William F. Trager, Evan D. Kharasch and René H. Levy
Drug Metabolism and Disposition May 2003, 31 (5) 565-571; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1124/dmd.31.5.565

Abstract

A previous study suggested that fluvoxamine inhibition potency toward CYP1A2 is 10 times greater in vivo than in vitro. The present study was designed to determine whether the same gap exists for CYP2C19, another isozyme inhibited by fluvoxamine. In vitro studies examined the effect of nonspecific binding on the determination of inhibition constant (Ki) values of fluvoxamine toward CYP2C19 in human liver microsomes and in a cDNA-expressed microsomal (Supersomes) system using (S)-mephenytoin as a CYP2C19 probe.Ki values based on total added fluvoxamine concentration (Ki,total) and unbound fluvoxamine concentration (Ki,ub) were calculated, and interindividual variability inKi values was examined in six nonfatty livers. Ki,total values varied with microsomal protein concentration, whereas the correspondingKi,ub values were within a narrow range (70–80 nM). In vivo inhibition constants (Kiiv) were obtained from a study of the disposition of a single oral dose (100 mg) of the CYP2C19 probe (S)-mephenytoin in 12 healthy volunteers receiving fluvoxamine at 0, 37.5, 62.6, and 87.5 mg/day to steady state. In this population, the ratio of (S)-4-hydroxy-mephenytoin formation clearances (uninhibited/inhibited) was positively correlated with fluvoxamine average steady-state concentration with an intercept of 0.85 (r2 = 0.88,p < 0.001). The mean (±S.D.) values ofKiiv based on total and unbound plasma concentrations were 13.5 ± 5.6 and 1.9 ± 1.1 nM, respectively. Comparison of in vitro and in vivoKi values, based on unbound fluvoxamine concentrations, suggests that fluvoxamine inhibition potency is roughly 40 times greater in vivo than in vitro.

There has been a growing interest in predicting in vivo metabolic drug-drug interactions from in vitro systems. In the case of inhibition-based interactions, there is no consensus on the methodology for accurate predictions of the extent of in vivo inhibition based on in vitro data (Schmider et al., 1999; Yamano et al., 1999; Kohl and Steinkellner, 2000; Komatsu et al., 2000; Yao and Levy, 2002). Several issues remain unsolved, such as estimations of inhibition constants in vitro and inhibitor concentration around the enzyme site in vivo. For example, studies on fluvoxamine inhibition of CYP1A2 have shown that in vitroKi values varied with microsomal protein concentration (Yao et al., 2001), suggesting that the concentration of microsomal protein present in the incubation is a factor contributing to the variance in in vitroKi. However, even after correction for nonspecific binding of fluvoxamine in microsomes, there was still a 10-fold difference between the in vitro inhibition constant and the corresponding in vivo inhibition constant based on unbound fluvoxamine concentration in plasma.

The 10-fold underprediction of fluvoxamine inhibition potency toward CYP1A2 activity in vivo, based on in vitro data, may be due to a number of factors. These include, but are not limited to, active uptake of fluvoxamine from plasma into hepatocytes, thereby increasing the amount of inhibitor available to the enzyme (partitioning), the presence of inhibitory metabolites of fluvoxamine in plasma, and/or environmental differences that may differentially affect enzyme behavior or affinity in the two systems. Should it be the case that some type of partitioning alone is the dominant factor governing the in vitro-in vivo difference, one might expect that the RKi (the ratio of the in vitroKi to the in vivoKi based on unbound concentration) of any enzyme inhibited by fluvoxamine would be similar to that of CYP1A2. In essence, RKi would be largely enzyme independent. However, if inhibitory metabolites or enzyme environment play important roles in promoting the RKi difference, RKi values might become enzyme-dependent. A suitable candidate enzyme was sought to test the hypothesis that RKi values will be conserved for a single inhibitor among the family of P4501enzymes.

There is some in vivo evidence that fluvoxamine also inhibits the clearance of a number of drugs metabolized by CYP2C19, such as mephenytoin, chloroguanide, and diazepam (Perucca et al., 1994a;Xu et al., 1996; Jeppesen et al., 1997). In the case of the fluvoxamine-mephenytoin interaction, the 0- to 8-h urine S/R ratio of mephenytoin increased from 0.16 to 0.55 after 100 mg/day fluvoxamine treatment for 2 weeks (Xu et al., 1996). Fluvoxamine also inhibited the CYP2C19 catalyzed bioactivation of chloroguanide: the formation clearance of 4-chlorophenylbiguanide decreased from 97 to 11 ml/min in CYP2C19-extensive metabolizers treated with 100 mg/day fluvoxamine for 6 days (Jeppesen et al., 1997). Diazepam oral clearance decreased from 0.4 to 0.14 ml/min/kg after treatment with 100 to 150 mg/day fluvoxamine for 4 days (Perucca et al., 1994a). The extent of inhibition observed in vivo is underpredicted with the reported in vitro Ki values of fluvoxamine toward CYP2C19 (0.087–0.69 μM; Rasmussen et al., 1998;Olesen and Linnet, 2000), when they are used in conjunction with the unbound plasma concentration of fluvoxamine. Therefore, it seems that a gap exists between in vitro and in vivo inhibition potencies of fluvoxamine toward CYP2C19.

The present study used (S)-mephenytoin as a probe substrate for CYP2C19 (CDER, 1999; Ring and Wrighton, 2000) to test the hypothesis that RKi is enzyme-independent. Both in vitro and in vivo Ki values were determined for fluvoxamine inhibition of CYP2C19 using the formation of (S)-4-hydroxy-mephenytoin (4-OH-meph) as a measure of CYP2C19 activity, after confirming that steady-state kinetics also apply for CYP2C19. In vitro inhibition studies for this enzyme examined the effects of nonspecific binding. Determination of the in vivo inhibition constant used three doses of fluvoxamine in healthy subjects to provide a wide range of fluvoxamine concentrations in blood to firmly establish the relationship between fluvoxamine concentration and its effect on enzyme activity in vivo.

Materials and Methods

Chemicals and Reagents.

NADPH and 5-(4′-hydroxyphenyl)-5-phenylhydantoin [p-HPPH, internal standard (IS)] were purchased from Sigma-Aldrich (St. Louis, MO). 4-OH-meph was purchased from Sigma/RBI (Natick, MA). Nirvanol was kindly provided by Dr. Stephen Hall (Indiana University, Indianapolis, IN). Fluvoxamine maleate was obtained from Solvay Duphar (Marietta, GA) and norfluoxetine maleate (IS) was obtained from Eli Lilly & Co. (Indianapolis, IN). A BCA protein assay kit was purchased from Pierce Chemical (Rockford, IL). All organic solvents and other chemicals were of high-performance liquid chromatography grade.

Human Liver Microsomes (HLMs) and Recombinant CYP2C19.

HLMs were prepared by a standard technique (Meier et al., 1983) from six nonfatty donor livers (HL105, HL114, HL134, HL135, HL152, and HL157) from the University of Washington Human Liver Bank. Microsomes containing cDNA-expressed CYP2C19 (Supersomes) were purchased from BD Gentest (Woburn, MA).

In Vitro Studies.

Nonspecific binding of fluvoxamine in human liver microsomes and Supersomes (fu,mic)

Fluvoxamine (0.3 μM) was incubated with various amounts of microsomal protein (0.5 and 1 mg/ml from pooled HLMs, n = 6; 0.15 mg/ml for Supersomes and 0.5 mg/ml from six individual HLMs) at 37°C for 30 min in 100 mM potassium phosphate buffer (pH 7.4). Each sample (1 ml) was transferred into a Centrifree Micropartition System unit (Amicon Division, W.R. Grae & Co., Beverly, MA) and centrifuged at 1000g for 15 min at 37°C. Fifty microliters of norfluoxetine (IS, 10 μg/ml) was added to 100 μl of the filtrates. The filtrates were injected directly onto the LC-MSD (positive electrospray ionization). The value offu,mic was calculated as the ratio of the filtrate concentration resulting from incubation with protein to the filtrate concentration resulting from incubation without protein. HLM protein concentrations were measured using the BCA protein assay kit, and Supersomes protein concentration was calculated from the product information supplied by the manufacturer.

Tests for time-dependent inhibition of CYP2C19.

Fluvoxamine (0.5 μM) and pooled HLMs (1 mg/ml) were preincubated at 37°C with and without NADPH for 0, 5, 15, and 30 min. One hundred-microliter aliquots were removed and transferred into mixtures (900 μl) containing (S)-mephenytoin (0.25 mM), NADPH (1 mM), and EDTA (1 mM) in 0.1 M potassium phosphate buffer at 37°C. The (S)-mephenytoin metabolic reaction was carried out for 15 min. In another experiment designed to test the possibility of fluvoxamine time-dependent inhibition of CYP2C19, human liver microsomes (1 mg/ml) and (S)-mephenytoin (0.1 mM) were coincubated with fluvoxamine (0.6 μM) or without fluvoxamine. After 3-min preincubation, the reaction was initiated by the addition of NADPH at 1 mM and allowed to proceed for 5, 15, 20, 25, and 30 min. The reactions were terminated by transferring each incubation mixture into a tube containing 300 μl of ice-cold 2% zinc sulfate, followed by vortex mixing.

Inhibitory effect of fluvoxamine on the metabolism of (S)-mephenytoin in microsomal systems.

The incubation mixture consisted of 1.0 or 0.5 mg/ml of total human liver microsomal protein, or 0.15 mg/ml (17 pmol of CYP2C19) of Supersomes, (S)-mephenytoin (15, 50, and 150 μM), and fluvoxamine (0, 0.1, 0.3, and 0.9 μM) in 0.1 M potassium phosphate buffer (pH 7.2). After preincubation for 5 min at 37°C, the reaction was initiated by the addition of NADPH (1 mM) and allowed to proceed for 30 min. The reaction was terminated by the addition of 300 μl of ice-cold 2% zinc sulfate and cooling in an ice bath. All incubations were carried out in duplicate. Incubation conditions (microsomal protein content, incubation time) were within the linear range for the metabolic rate (preliminary studies; data not shown).

In Vivo Study.

Human subjects

The subjects (seven males and five females; 23–49 years) were nonsmokers, and the females were not pregnant. The study was approved by the Human Subjects Review Committee at the University of Washington and subjects gave written informed consent.

Study design.

A randomized, four-period crossover trial was performed in 12 healthy volunteers. This study was divided into a control phase (phase 1, no fluvoxamine, 2 days) and three experimental phases (phase 2, fluvoxamine 37.5 mg/day; phase 3, fluvoxamine 62.5 mg/day; and phase 4, fluvoxamine 87.5 mg/day; 12 days each). In phase 4, fluvoxamine was given 50 mg/day for 2 days and then escalated to 87.5 mg/day). Each subject was requested to abstain from taking any drug throughout the study. In the control phase, subjects were to arrive after an overnight fast and were given a single oral test dose of 100 mg of (S)-mephenytoin at 8:00 AM. Subjects remained fasting until 10:00 AM. Serial blood samples (10 ml) were collected from a catheter placed in the antecubital vein at 0, 15, 30, 45, 60, and 90 min and 2, 4, 6, 9, and 12 h after the test dose. Additional blood samples were collected 24 and 48 h after the test dose by venipuncture. Total urine output was collected during the 0- to 12-, 12- to 24-, and 24- to 48-h time periods. The 0- to 12-h urine sample was analyzed for 4-OH-meph to identify any poor metabolizers. Subjects who did not excrete at least 25% of the (S)-mephenytoin dose as 4-OH-meph within the first 12 h were not allowed to continue in the study. Phases 2, 3, and 4 were assigned to subjects in a randomized order. Fluvoxamine (phases 2, 3, and 4) was administered orally once daily at 4:00 PM for 11 of the 12 days. After eight doses of fluvoxamine, i.e., on the morning of the 9th day of treatment, subjects took the test dose of (S)-mephenytoin at 8:00 AM and fluvoxamine was given 8 h after the test dose. Serial blood samples and urine were collected as described for phase 1. When taking fluvoxamine, additional blood samples were collected at 8, 14, 32, and 72 h after the test dose of (S)-mephenytoin to check whether steady-state concentration of fluvoxamine was achieved and to allow calculation of the fluvoxamine area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC)(0-τ). One additional urine sample was collected for the 48- to 72-h time period.

Sample preparation and high-performance liquid chromatography analysis.

(S)-Mephenytoin, its metabolites, and p-HPPH (internal standard) in microsomal incubations were extracted by addition of 4 ml of methylene chloride. After shaking for 10 min, the organic phase was removed and evaporated under a stream of nitrogen (N2), and the residues were reconstituted with 100 μl of methanol/water (25:75). Ten-microliter aliquots of the reconstituted residues were injected onto a Zorbax Rx-C8 (Narrow-Bore 2.1 × 150-mm, 5-μm) column connected to a Hewlett Packard 1100 LC-MSD system equipped with Hewlett Packard ChemStation software (version 1.0) for data acquisition and analysis. The flow rate was 0.20 ml/min, and the mobile phase consisted of methanol/0.01 M ammonium acetate buffer, pH 3.3 (50:50). The ions monitored were m/z219 [(S)-mephenytoin], m/z 235 (4-OH-meph),m/z 205 (nirvanol), and m/z 269 (p-HPPH). (S)-Mephenytoin and its metabolites in human plasma and urine, together with p-HPPH (internal standard), were extracted and measured by a modification of the method of Kupfer et al. (1980). In brief, a 0.5-ml aliquot of each plasma sample was extracted with ethyl acetate/diethyl ether (67:33, v/v) and evaporated under a stream of N2. For urine, a 0.5-ml aliquot of each sample was subjected to enzymatic hydrolysis with 1000 units of β-glucuronidase (containing sulfatase activity) for 16 h at 37°C in the dark and then extracted. The residues were reconstituted in 100 μl of methanol/water (25:75). Ten-microliter aliquots were injected onto a Zorbax Rx-C8 (Narrow-Bore 2.1 × 150-mm, 5-μm) column connected to the same LC-MSD system as described above.

Fluvoxamine extraction from human plasma was carried out by a method reported previously with minor modifications (Belmadani et al., 1995). The samples were injected onto a Zorbax Rx-C8 (Narrow-Bore 2.1 × 150-mm, 5-μm) column connected to the LC-MSD system. The ions monitored were m/z 319 (fluvoxamine) and m/z 296 (norfluoxetine, IS). The mobile phase (10 mM ammonium acetate buffer at pH 4.0 and methanol; 30:70) was delivered at a flow rate of 0.25 ml/min.

Data Analysis.

Determination of enzyme kinetic parameters

The mechanism of inhibition was determined by graphical analysis. The formation of 4-OH-meph from (S)-mephenytoin in microsomal systems was analyzed by fitting the data to the single-enzyme competitive inhibition Michaelis-Menten model with a least-squares nonlinear regression program (BMDP; BMDP Statistical Software, Inc., Los Angeles, CA). This procedure provided estimates ofVmax,KM, and apparentKi values.

Pharmacokinetic analysis.

All pharmacokinetic parameters were calculated using the pharmacokinetic software package WinNonlin (version 1.5; Scientific Consulting, Inc., Mountain View, CA). The calculations were based on noncompartmental analysis. The terminal elimination rate constant (λZ) and apparent volume of distribution (Vd/F, where F is the bioavailability) of (S)-mephenytoin, were determined by linear regression of the terminal portion of the log concentration-time profile. The terminal elimination half-life (t1/2) of (S)-mephenytoin was calculated as 0.693/λZ. The AUC was determined by the trapezoidal rule. (S)-Mephenytoin oral clearance was calculated as dose/AUCinf(AUCinf represents AUC extrapolated to infinity). The formation clearance of the (S)-mephenytoin metabolite 4-OH-meph was calculated as amount of 4-OH-meph in urine(0–72 h)/AUC(0–72 h). The renal clearance of (S)-mephenytoin was calculated as amount of (S)-mephenytoin in urine(0–72 h)/AUC(0–72 h). The average steady-state concentration of fluvoxamine was calculated as AUC(0–24 h)/24 h.

Calculation of Kiiv values for CYP2C19.

The approach used to calculate Kiiv is based on the competitive inhibition model used previously (Adedoyin et al., 1987; Shaw and Houston, 1987; Kunze and Trager, 1996; Tran et al., 1997; Yao et al., 2001). The model includes the following assumptions: 1) product formation is described by Michaelis-Menten kinetics with competitive inhibition; 2) concentrations of (S)-mephenytoin are much lower than its KM; 3) only one enzyme mediates the formation of 4-OH-meph; 4) after oral administration, the operating clearance of (S)-mephenytoin is its intrinsic clearance because (S)-mephenytoin has a relatively large clearance (Ito et al., 1998); and 5) fluvoxamine does not affect the elimination of 4-OH-meph. TheKiiv was calculated from the following equation:CLfCLfl=1+[I]Kiiv Equation 1where CLf and CLfirepresent formation clearances of 4-OH-meph associated with CYP2C19 in the absence and presence of the inhibitor fluvoxamine, respectively, and [I] represents the average steady-state plasma concentration of fluvoxamine. Plots of the ratio of uninhibited/inhibited formation clearances versus plasma concentration of inhibitor are expected to be linear with an intercept equal to 1 and a slope equal to 1/Kiiv. The tests of linearity and intercept of eq. 1 require measurements of multiple formation clearances and simultaneous measurements of inhibitor concentration. The overall Kiiv was determined based on linear regression with weight of 1/(formation clearance ratio)2.

Calculation of RKi.

The ratio of the mean (n = 6) in vitroKi to mean (n = 12) in vivo Ki based on unbound inhibitor concentration was calculated as Ki,ub(in vitro)/Ki,ub (in vivo). This ratio is defined as RKi.

Statistical Analysis.

The pharmacokinetic parameters of (S)-mephenytoin are reported as mean ± S.D. Comparisons between treatment and control periods were assessed by paired t test. The Wilcoxon rank sum test was performed for the comparison of RKivalues of fluvoxamine toward CYP1A2 and CYP2C19, assuming that theKi values for CYP1A2 and CYP2C19 have the same distribution. Statistical significance was assumed ifp < 0.05.

Results

In Vitro Studies.

Nonspecific binding of fluvoxamine

A previous study established that the free fraction of fluvoxamine in the HLM incubation system is reasonably constant up to 1 μM fluvoxamine (Yao et al., 2001). The free fractions of fluvoxamine in the microsomal preparations used in this study (protein concentration of 0.5 mg/ml) from six nonfatty human livers are shown in Table1. The mean (± S.D.) free fraction was 0.33 ± 0.04. The free fraction in Supersomes was 0.81 ± 0.03 at 0.15 mg/ml protein.

View this table:
Table 1

Enzyme kinetic parameters for fluvoxamine inhibition of (S)-mephenytoin metabolism and free fractions of fluvoxamine in microsomal incubations from six human livers

Tests of time-dependent inhibition of fluvoxamine.

In the preincubation study, CYP2C19 activity was not sensitive to the time of exposure to fluvoxamine, nor to the absence or presence of NADPH (Fig. 1A). In the coincubation study, 4-OH-meph was formed linearly with time in the incubations with or without fluvoxamine, suggesting that there are neither inhibitory metabolites formed nor time-dependent inhibition within the time frame used (Fig. 1B). These results validate the use of steady-state kinetics for evaluating the affinity of fluvoxamine for CYP2C19.

Figure 1
Figure 1

Tests of time-dependent inhibition of fluvoxamine toward CYP2C19.

A, measurement of CYP2C19 activity after preexposure of HLMs to fluvoxamine up to 30 min in the presence or absence of NADPH. B, formation of 4-OH-meph from (S)-mephenytoin as a function of time in human liver microsomal incubation in the presence or absence of fluvoxamine.

Effect of nonspecific binding on the determination of in vitro Ki values.

Lineweaver-Burk analysis indicated that fluvoxamine is a competitive inhibitor of CYP2C19 activity (Fig. 2). Apparent Ki values based on nominal (total added) fluvoxamine concentration (Ki,total) were determined based on the single-enzyme competitive inhibition model at protein concentrations of 1.0 and 0.5 mg/ml in pooled liver microsomes, giving apparent Ki,total values of 400 ± 37 and 226 ± 19 nM, respectively.Ki,total in the Supersomes system at 0.15 mg/ml protein was 96 ± 14 nM (Table2). Becausefu,mic was independent of fluvoxamine concentration within the range used in the determination of in vitroKi,Ki,ub was calculated by multiplyingKi,total byfu,mic. After applying this correction, fairly uniform values ofKi,ub were obtained (around 70–80 nM; Table 2). Ki,total values were measured in microsomal preparations from six human livers at 0.5 mg/ml protein (Table 1) to determine interindividual variability. The meanKi,total was 235 ± 51 nM and the mean Ki,ub was 76 ± 7.1 nM. The mean values of KM andVmax for the formation of 4-OH-meph were 34 ± 7.9 μM and 0.19 ± 0.19 nmol/min/mg protein, respectively. These values are in agreement with those previously reported (Meier et al., 1985; Hickman et al., 1998). The values ofKM andVmax for the formation of 4-OH-meph were 15 ± 2.1 μM and 0.39 ± 0.012 nmol/min/nmol CYP2C19 for the Supersomes.

Figure 2
Figure 2

Inhibitory effect of fluvoxamine on the formation of 4-OH-meph from (S)-mephenytoin in Supersomes (0.15 mg/ml protein).

Data points represent the average of duplicate incubations.

View this table:
Table 2

Effect of nonspecific binding on the determination of in vitro Ki values of fluvoxamine toward CYP2C19

In Vivo Studies.

Pharmacokinetic parameters of (S)-mephenytoin.

The mean peak plasma concentrations (Cmax) of (S)-mephenytoin in the four phases were 1.38 ± 0.70, 2.93 ± 1.20, 3.31 ± 1.61, and 3.34 ± 1.88 μM. The values ofCmax for phases 2, 3, and 4 were significantly higher than the Cmaxvalue of phase 1 (control phase). The AUC and elimination half-life of (S)-mephenytoin significantly increased [and oral clearance of (S)-mephenytoin significantly decreased] during treatment with fluvoxamine (Table 3). Between phase 1 and phase 4, AUC increased from 2.76 ± 1.36 to 27.3 ± 25.1 μM·h, and t1/2increased from 2.5 ± 1.3 to 11.3 ± 11.5 h. Oral clearance decreased from 248.9 ± 222.0 to 28.9 ± 19.4 l/h. The apparent volume of distribution (Vd/F) of (S)-mephenytoin seemed lower in the presence of fluvoxamine but was not changed as a function of fluvoxamine dose: it decreased from 758.8 ± 414.4 liters in phase 1 to 341.3 ± 124.4 liters in phase 2 (Table 3).

View this table:
Table 3

Effects of fluvoxamine on (S)-mephenytoin pharmacokinetic parameters in 12 subjects

The majority (more than 70%) of a dose of (S)-mephenytoin was recovered as 4-OH-meph and its sequential metabolite in urine. Unchanged (S)-mephenytoin and nirvanol together contributed less than 2% of the dose. The formation clearance for 4-OH-meph decreased by 70% in phase 2, by 83% in phase 3, and by 90% in phase 4 compared with the control phase, indicating that fluvoxamine inhibits CYP2C19 activity in vivo in a dose-dependent manner. The renal clearance of (S)-mephenytoin, which accounted for less than 2% of a dose, seemed to decrease significantly as fluvoxamine concentration increased. The renal clearances in the four phases were 0.34 ± 0.13, 0.24 ± 0.16, 0.16 ± 0.08, and 0.14 ± 0.08 l/h (p < 0.05, compared with the control phase), respectively.

Pharmacokinetic parameters of fluvoxamine.

Fluvoxamine average steady-state concentrations for each subject are shown in Table 4. These values are within the reported concentration ranges for these doses and consistent with the nonlinear disposition of this drug (Perucca et al., 1994b;Spigset et al., 1998). Fluvoxamine oral clearance decreased as the dose increased: oral clearances in the three phases were 94.7 ± 78.7, 60.9 ± 36.7, and 48.0 ± 28.9 l/h, respectively. The nonlinear disposition of fluvoxamine emphasizes the need to measure the plasma concentration of fluvoxamine in drug interaction studies.

View this table:
Table 4

Calculation of Kiiv of fluvoxamine toward CYP2C19 for individual subjects (n = 12)

Determination of Kiiv for fluvoxamine inhibition of CYP2C19.

Kiiv for each subject was calculated from the plot of the ratio of 4-OH-meph formation clearances (control/inhibited) versus fluvoxamine average steady-state plasma concentration. Individual plots are shown in Fig.3, A to D. The meanKiiv values based on total and unbound plasma concentrations were 13.5 ± 5.6 and 1.9 ± 1.1 nM (fp = 0.14 ± 0.02 from a previous study; Yao et al., 2001) (Table 4). A summary plot of ratios of 4-OH-meph formation clearances (control/inhibited) versus total plasma concentrations of fluvoxamine for 12 subjects is shown in Fig.4. The overallKiiv was 13.9 nM with an intercept of 0.85 (r2 = 0.88, p < 0.001).

Figure 3
Figure 3

Representative individual plots of ratios of 4-OH-meph formation clearances (control/inhibited) as a function of total plasma concentration of fluvoxamine at steady state used to determine in vivo inhibition constants.

Figure 4
Figure 4

Overall plot of ratios of 4-OH-meph formation clearances (control/inhibited) as a function of the total plasma concentration of fluvoxamine at steady state for 12 subjects.

The line was fit by linear regression with weight of 1/(formation clearance ratio)2.

Comparison of the ratios of in vitro to in vivo inhibition constant of fluvoxamine toward CYP1A2 and CYP2C19.

RKi is used to allow a comparison between different enzymes affected by an inhibitor. The in vitroKi,ub values of fluvoxamine toward CYP1A2 (Yao et al., 2001) and CYP2C19 are 38 ± 6.7 nM (n = 8) and 76 ± 7.1 nM (n= 6), respectively, whereas the corresponding in vivoKi values based on unbound plasma concentration are 3.6 ± 1.4 nM (n = 8) and 1.9 ± 1.1 nM (n = 12). Therefore, the mean RKi values for CYP1A2 and CYP2C19 are 10 and 38, respectively. The Wilcoxon rank sum test showed that the difference in RKi values was significant (p < 0.05).

Discussion

A primary goal of this study with CYP2C19, and the companion study with CYP1A2, was to unambiguously determine the absolute difference in potency of fluvoxamine toward these enzymes in vivo and in vitro, and to confirm that the kinetic models required to analyze the results were appropriately applied. To that end, studies were carried out in both systems with both enzymes to explore the relationship between fluvoxamine concentration and enzyme activity over a wide range of inhibitor concentrations. The results of in vitro studies indicate that the use of steady-state kinetics to determine inhibitor affinity is appropriate and that Ki values should be calculated based on the concentrations of unbound fluvoxamine rather than nominal concentrations. Similarly, in vivo, the relationship between fluvoxamine concentrations in plasma and their effect on enzyme selective metabolite formation clearances was found to be well behaved in a manner consistent with the standard kinetic model, allowing for the determination of an in vivo Kibased on steady-state fluvoxamine plasma levels.

The present study showed that the meanKiiv of fluvoxamine toward CYP2C19 is 13.5 nM, a value which is well below the fluvoxamine therapeutic range (100–700 nM), suggesting that fluvoxamine is a potent inhibitor of CYP2C19 in vivo. The plots of ratios of 4-OH-meph formation clearance versus fluvoxamine plasma concentration (Figs. 3 and 4) showed good linearity with intercept values around 1 for individuals as well as the study population. The linearity and intercept values suggested that a good estimation of Kiiv values can be obtained using only a single dose of inhibitor. Based on this observation, the results of a published study of fluvoxamine inhibition of the CYP2C19 catalyzed bioactivation of chloroguanide (Jeppesen et al., 1997) were used to calculate aKiiv of 25 nM (assuming that fluvoxamine plasma concentration at 100 mg/day is 199.3 nM; Spigset et al., 1998) and that only CYP2C19 catalyzes the formation of 4-chlorophenylbiguanide). This Kiiv estimate is similar to the values obtained in the present study, which used a different probe of CYP2C19 and three doses of fluvoxamine.

A second goal of these studies was to test the hypothesis that RKi values for different enzymes subject to inhibition by fluvoxamine will be the same even though the RKi values are both significantly higher than 1. The observed difference in RKi values between CYP1A2 and CYP2C19 (10 versus 38) is intriguing and could be explained by the following possibilities: 1) the presence of one or more metabolites inhibiting only CYP2C19. So far, 11 metabolites of fluvoxamine have been found in urine. About 30 to 60% of the metabolites seem to be produced by oxidative demethylation of the methoxy group, whereas 20 to 40% seem to be formed by degradation at the amino group or by removal of the entire ethanolamino group (Spigset et al., 2001); and 2) the sensitivity of enzyme activity to environmental differences between in vitro and in vivo, such as pH and ionic strength, might be enzyme-dependent. Previous data from our laboratory (Yao and Levy, 2002) have shown a parallel decrease inKi values for both enzymes (3-fold decrease in CYP1A2 versus 2.5-fold for CYP2C19) as pH increased from 7.2 to 7.6. Also, there was a 2-fold decrease inKi for CYP1A2 and virtually no change for CYP2C19 as the concentration of potassium phosphate buffer (pH 7.4) increased from 0.01 to 0.1 M. Thus, these preliminary studies suggest a differential effect on enzyme affinity by ionic strength but not pH.

It is not possible at this time to evaluate the relative importance of environmental differences and partitioning effects. However, further work with other enzymes also inhibited by fluvoxamine may help to further discriminate between these and other factors contributing to the differences between the in vitro and in vivo systems. In view of the findings of RKi values larger than 1 for CYP1A2 and CYP2C19, we searched the literature for similar data on other enzymes inhibited by fluvoxamine, namely, CYP2C9, CYP2D6, and CYP3A4. Reported in vitro inhibition potencies of fluvoxamine toward CYP2C9, CYP2D6, and CYP3A4 also seem to be inconsistent with corresponding in vivo inhibition effects. In vitroKi values for CYP2C9, CYP2D6, and CYP3A4 are 2.2 to 13.3 μM (Hemeryck et al., 1999; Olesen and Linnet, 2000), 3.9 to 8.2 μM (Crewe et al., 1992; Skjelbo and Brosen, 1992), and 10 to 40 μM (von Moltke et al., 1994; Rasmussen et al., 1995), respectively, and these values are much higher than the fluvoxamine therapeutic range of 0.1 to 0.7 μM (0.014–0.1 μM based on unbound plasma concentration). Yet, recent studies (Kashuba et al., 1998;Madsen et al., 2001) suggest that fluvoxamine significantly inhibits the metabolism of tolbutamide (CYP2C9), dextromethorphan (CYP2D6), and midazolam (CYP3A4) in vivo. These comparisons suggest that, for all five P450s inhibited by fluvoxamine, the inhibition potency is greater in vivo than predicted from in vitro data. It remains to be seen whether RKi values will also be in the range seen with CYP1A2 and CYP2C19 in this study. In particular, large changes in RKi values for other enzymes would support a primary role for enzyme environment, whereas no differences in RKi values would support partitioning effects (elevated fluvoxamine concentrations available to the enzyme relative to free concentrations in plasma).

Acknowledgments

We thank John M. Neal for the synthesis of (S)-mephenytoin, Dr. Isabelle Ragueneau for the review of the clinical protocol, and Dr. Ross F. Lawrence and William N. Howald for assistance with the mass spectrometry assay.

Footnotes

  • This work was supported by grants from the National Institutes of Health (GM-32165) and the General Clinical Research Center, University of Washington (MO1RR00037).

  • Abbreviations used are::
    P450
    cytochrome P450
    4-OH-meph
    4-hydroxy-mephenytoin
    p-HPPH
    5-(4′-hydroxyphenyl)-5-phenylhydantoin
    IS
    internal standard
    HLM
    human liver microsome
    LC-MSD
    liquid chromatography-mass spectrometric detection
    AUC
    area under the plasma concentration-time curve
    • Received September 30, 2002.
    • Accepted December 19, 2002.

References

  1. ↵
    1. Adedoyin A,
    2. Aarons L,
    3. Houston JB
    (1987) Plasma concentration-response relationship for cimetidine inhibition of drug metabolism in the rat. Drug Metab Dispos 15:127–132.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  2. ↵
    1. Belmadani A,
    2. Combourieu I,
    3. Bonini M,
    4. Creppy EE
    (1995) High performance liquid chromatography with ultraviolet detection used for laboratory routine determination of fluvoxamine in human plasma. Hum Exp Toxicol 14:34–37.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  3. ↵
    1. CDER
    (1999) Guidance for Industry: in vivo drug metabolism/drug interaction studies: study design, data analysis and recommendations for dosing and labeling.
  4. ↵
    1. Crewe HK,
    2. Lennard MS,
    3. Tucker GT,
    4. Woods FR,
    5. Haddock RE
    (1992) The effect of selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors on cytochrome P4502D6 (CYP2D6) activity in human liver microsomes. Br J Clin Pharmacol 34:262–265.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  5. ↵
    1. Hemeryck A,
    2. De Vriendt C,
    3. Belpaire FM
    (1999) Inhibition of CYP2C9 by selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors: in vitro studies with tolbutamide and (S)-warfarin using human liver microsomes. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 54:947–951.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  6. ↵
    1. Hickman D,
    2. Wang JP,
    3. Wang Y,
    4. Unadkat JD
    (1998) Evaluation of the selectivity of In vitro probes and suitability of organic solvents for the measurement of human cytochrome P450 monooxygenase activities. Drug Metab Dispos 26:207–215.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  7. ↵
    1. Ito K,
    2. Iwatsubo T,
    3. Kanamitsu S,
    4. Ueda K,
    5. Suzuki H,
    6. Sugiyama Y
    (1998) Prediction of pharmacokinetic alterations caused by drug-drug interactions: metabolic interaction in the liver. Pharmacol Rev 50:387–411.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  8. ↵
    1. Jeppesen U,
    2. Rasmussen BB,
    3. Brosen K
    (1997) Fluvoxamine inhibits the CYP2C19-catalyzed bioactivation of chloroguanide. Clin Pharmacol Ther 62:279–286.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  9. ↵
    1. Kashuba AD,
    2. Nafziger AN,
    3. Kearns GL,
    4. Leeder JS,
    5. Gotschall R,
    6. Rocci ML, Jr,
    7. Kulawy RW,
    8. Beck DJ,
    9. Bertino JS, Jr
    (1998) Effect of fluvoxamine therapy on the activities of CYP1A2, CYP2D6 and CYP3A as determined by phenotyping. Clin Pharmacol Ther 64:257–268.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  10. ↵
    1. Kohl C,
    2. Steinkellner M
    (2000) Prediction of pharmacokinetic drug/drug interactions from in vitro data: interactions of the nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drug lornoxicam with oral anticoagulants. Drug Metab Dispos 28:161–168.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  11. ↵
    1. Komatsu K,
    2. Ito K,
    3. Nakajima Y,
    4. Kanamitsu S,
    5. Imaoka S,
    6. Funae Y,
    7. Green CE,
    8. Tyson CA,
    9. Shimada N,
    10. Sugiyama Y
    (2000) Prediction of in vivo drug-drug interactions between tolbutamide and various sulfonamides in humans based on in vitro experiments. Drug Metab Dispos 28:475–481.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  12. ↵
    1. Kunze KL,
    2. Trager WF
    (1996) Warfarin-fluconazole. III. A rational approach to management of a metabolically based drug interaction. Drug Metab Dispos 24:429–435.
    OpenUrlAbstract
  13. ↵
    1. Kupfer A,
    2. Brilis GM,
    3. Watson JT,
    4. Harris TM
    (1980) A major pathway of mephenytoin metabolism in man. Aromatic hydroxylation to p-hydroxymephenytoin. Drug Metab Dispos 8:1–4.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  14. ↵
    1. Madsen H,
    2. Enggaard TP,
    3. Hansen LL,
    4. Klitgaard NA,
    5. Brosen K
    (2001) Fluvoxamine inhibits the CYP2C9 catalyzed biotransformation of tolbutamide. Clin Pharmacol Ther 69:41–47.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  15. ↵
    1. Meier UT,
    2. Kronbach T,
    3. Meyer UA
    (1985) Assay of mephenytoin metabolism in human liver microsomes by high-performance liquid chromatography. Anal Biochem 151:286–291.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  16. ↵
    1. Meier PJ,
    2. Mueller HK,
    3. Dick B,
    4. Meyer UA
    (1983) Hepatic monooxygenase activities in subjects with a genetic defect in drug oxidation. Gastroenterology 85:682–692.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  17. ↵
    1. Olesen OV,
    2. Linnet K
    (2000) Fluvoxamine-clozapine drug interaction: inhibition in vitro of five cytochrome P450 isoforms involved in clozapine metabolism. J Clin Psychopharmacol 20:35–42.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  18. ↵
    1. Perucca E,
    2. Gatti G,
    3. Cipolla G,
    4. Spina E,
    5. Barel S,
    6. Soback S,
    7. Gips M,
    8. Bialer M
    (1994a) Inhibition of diazepam metabolism by fluvoxamine: a pharmacokinetic study in normal volunteers. Clin Pharmacol Ther 56:471–476.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  19. ↵
    1. Perucca E,
    2. Gatti G,
    3. Spina E
    (1994b) Clinical pharmacokinetics of fluvoxamine. Clin Pharmacokinet 27:175–190.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  20. ↵
    1. Rasmussen BB,
    2. Maenpaa J,
    3. Pelkonen O,
    4. Loft S,
    5. Poulsen HE,
    6. Lykkesfeldt J,
    7. Brosen K
    (1995) Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and theophylline metabolism in human liver microsomes: potent inhibition by fluvoxamine. Br J Clin Pharmacol 39:151–159.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  21. ↵
    1. Rasmussen BB,
    2. Nielsen TL,
    3. Brosen K
    (1998) Fluvoxamine inhibits the CYP2C19-catalysed metabolism of proguanil in vitro. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 54:735–740.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  22. ↵
    1. Levy RH,
    2. Thummel KE,
    3. Trager WF,
    4. Hansten PD,
    5. Eichelbaum M
    1. Ring BJ,
    2. Wrighton SA
    (2000) Industrial viewpoint: application of in vitro drug metabolism in various phases of drug development. in Metabolic Drug Interactions, eds Levy RH, Thummel KE, Trager WF, Hansten PD, Eichelbaum M (Lippincott-Raven, Philadelphia), pp 29–39.
  23. ↵
    1. Schmider J,
    2. von Moltke LL,
    3. Shader RI,
    4. Harmatz JS,
    5. Greenblatt DJ
    (1999) Extrapolating in vitro data on drug metabolism to in vivo pharmacokinetics: evaluation of the pharmacokinetic interaction between amitriptyline and fluoxetine. Drug Metab Rev 31:545–560.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  24. ↵
    1. Shaw PN,
    2. Houston JB
    (1987) Kinetics of drug metabolism inhibition: use of metabolite concentration-time profiles. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 15:497–510.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  25. ↵
    1. Skjelbo E,
    2. Brosen K
    (1992) Inhibitors of imipramine metabolism by human liver microsomes. Br J Clin Pharmacol 34:256–261.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  26. ↵
    1. Spigset O,
    2. Axelsson S,
    3. Norstrom A,
    4. Hagg S,
    5. Dahlqvist R
    (2001) The major fluvoxamine metabolite in urine is formed by CYP2D6. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 57:653–658.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  27. ↵
    1. Spigset O,
    2. Granberg K,
    3. Hagg S,
    4. Soderstrom E,
    5. Dahlqvist R
    (1998) Non-linear fluvoxamine disposition. Br J Clin Pharmacol 45:257–263.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  28. ↵
    1. Tran A,
    2. Rey E,
    3. Pons G,
    4. Rousseau M,
    5. d'Athis P,
    6. Olive G,
    7. Mather GG,
    8. Bishop FE,
    9. Wurden CJ,
    10. Labroo R,
    11. et al.
    (1997) Influence of stiripentol on cytochrome P450-mediated metabolic pathways in humans: in vitro and in vivo comparison and calculation of in vivo inhibition constants. Clin Pharmacol Ther 62:490–504.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  29. ↵
    1. von Moltke LL,
    2. Greenblatt DJ,
    3. Cotreau-Bibbo MM,
    4. Harmatz JS,
    5. Shader RI
    (1994) Inhibitors of alprazolam metabolism in vitro: effect of serotonin-reuptake-inhibitor antidepressants, ketoconazole and quinidine. Br J Clin Pharmacol 38:23–31.
    OpenUrlPubMed
  30. ↵
    1. Xu ZH,
    2. Xie HG,
    3. Zhou HH
    (1996) In vivo inhibition of CYP2C19 but not CYP2D6 by fluvoxamine. Br J Clin Pharmacol 42:518–521.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  31. ↵
    1. Yamano K,
    2. Yamamoto K,
    3. Kotaki H,
    4. Sawada Y,
    5. Iga T
    (1999) Quantitative prediction of metabolic inhibition of midazolam by itraconazole and ketoconazole in rats: implication of concentrative uptake of inhibitors into liver. Drug Metab Dispos 27:395–402.
    OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
  32. ↵
    1. Yao C,
    2. Kunze KL,
    3. Kharasch ED,
    4. Wang Y,
    5. Trager WF,
    6. Ragueneau I,
    7. Levy RH
    (2001) Fluvoxamine-theophylline interaction: gap between in vitro and in vivo inhibition constants toward cytochrome P4501A2. Clin Pharmacol Ther 70:415–424.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
  33. ↵
    1. Yao C,
    2. Levy RH
    (2002) Inhibition-based metabolic drug-drug interactions: predictions from in vitro data. J Pharm Sci 91:1923–1935.
    OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
Back to top

In this issue

Download PDF
Article Alerts
Email Article
Citation Tools

Research ArticleArticle

Comparison of In Vitro and In Vivo Inhibition Potencies of Fluvoxamine toward CYP2C19

Caiping Yao, Kent L. Kunze, William F. Trager, Evan D. Kharasch and René H. Levy
Drug Metabolism and Disposition May 1, 2003, 31 (5) 565-571; DOI: https://doi.org/10.1124/dmd.31.5.565
Twitter logo Facebook logo Mendeley logo

Jump to section

Advertisement