Abstract

A recent publication from the Innovation and Quality Consortium Induction Working Group collated a large clinical data set with the goal of evaluating the accuracy of drug-drug interaction (DDI) prediction from in vitro data. Somewhat surprisingly, comparison across studies of the mean- or median-reported area under the curve ratio showed appreciable variability in the magnitude of outcome. This commentary explores the possible drivers of this range of outcomes observed in clinical induction studies. While recommendations on clinical study design are not being proposed, some key observations were informative during the aggregate analysis of clinical data. Although DDI data are often presented using median data, individual data would enable evaluation of how differences in study design, baseline expression, and the number of subjects contribute. Since variability in perpetrator pharmacokinetics (PK) could impact the overall DDI interpretation, should this be routinely captured? Maximal induction was typically observed after 5–7 days of dosing. Thus, when the half-life of the inducer is less than 30 hours, are there benefits to a more standardized study design? A large proportion of CYP3A4 inducers were also CYP3A4 inhibitors and/or inactivators based on in vitro data. In these cases, using CYP3A selective substrates has limitations. More intensive monitoring of changes in area under the curve over time is warranted. With selective CYP3A substrates, the net effect was often inhibition, whereas less selective substrates could discern induction through mechanisms not susceptible to inhibition. The latter included oral contraceptives, which raise concerns of reduced efficacy following induction. Alternative approaches for modeling induction, such as applying biomarkers and physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling (PBPK), are also considered.