WHAT IS ALREADY KNOWN ABOUT THIS SUBJECT • Co‐administration of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) increases plasma methotrexate (MTX) concentration in cancer patients receiving high‐dose MTX (HDMTX) therapy. • There is controversy as to whether or not co‐administration of PPIs affects plasma MTX elimination in HDMTX therapy. • Inhibitory activity of PPIs on breast cancer resistance protein (BCRP) is a possible mechanism for the drug interaction between MTX and PPIs. WHAT THIS STUDY ADDS • Co‐administration of a PPI (omeprazole, lansoprazole, or rabeprazole) was more frequently observed in the delayed MTX elimination group than in the normal MTX elimination group. • Multiple logistic regression analysis with adjustment for significant covariates revealed that PPI co‐administration was a significant risk factor for delayed plasma MTX elimination. • The half‐maximal inhibitory concentration of each PPI in inhibiting BCRP function was much higher than the therapeutic unbound concentration in the plasma. AIM To assess whether or not co‐administration of proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) is a risk factor for delayed elimination of plasma methotrexate (MTX) in high‐dose MTX (HDMTX) therapy for malignant diseases. METHODS To assess the effects of PPI co‐administration on elimination of plasma MTX, we examined plasma MTX concentration data on 171 cycles of HDMTX therapy performed in 74 patients. We performed multiple logistic regression analysis to evaluate PPI co‐administration as a risk factor. Inhibitory potencies of omeprazole, lansoprazole, rabeprazole and pantoprazole on MTX transport via breast cancer resistance protein (BCRP, ABCG2) were also investigated in an in vitro study using membrane vesicles expressing human BCRP. RESULTS We identified co‐administration of PPIs as a risk factor for delayed elimination (odds ratio 2.65, 95% confidence interval 1.03, 6.82) as well as renal and liver dysfunction. All four PPIs inhibited BCRP‐mediated transport of MTX, with half‐maximal inhibitory concentrations of 5.5–17.6 µM – considerably higher than the unbound plasma concentrations of the PPIs. CONCLUSIONS Our results support previous findings suggesting that PPI co‐administration is associated with delayed elimination of plasma MTX in patients with HDMTX therapy. This drug interaction, however, cannot be explained solely by the inhibitory effects of PPIs on BCRP‐mediated MTX transport.

Majority of bioequivalence studies are conducted in healthy volunteers. It has been argued that bioequivalence may not necessarily hold true in relevant patient populations due to a variety of reasons which affect one formulation more than the other for instance in achlorhydric patients where elevated gastric pH may lead to differential effects on formulations which are pH-sensitive with respect to release or dissolution. We therefore examined achlorhydria-related disparity in bioequivalence of levothyroxine and nifedipine formulations using virtual bioequivalence within a physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modelling framework. The in vitro dissolution profiles at neutral pH were incorporated into PBPK models to mimic the achlorhydria with in vitro-in vivo relationship established using bio-relevant pH media. The PBPK models successfully reproduced the outcome of the bioequivalence studies in healthy volunteers under the normal conditions as well as under proton pump inhibitor-induced achlorhydria. The geometric mean test/reference ratios for C and AUC between levothyroxine tablet and capsule in patients receiving proton pump inhibitor were 1.21 (90%CI, 1.13-1.29) and 1.09 (90%CI, 1.02-1.17), respectively. Extension of the virtual bioequivalence study to Japanese elderly, who show high incidence of achlorhydria, indicated bio-inequivalence which C and AUC ratios between nifedipine control-released reference and test formulations were 3.08 (90%CI, 2.81-3.38) and 1.57 (90%CI, 1.43-1.74), respectively. Virtual bioequivalence studies through the PBPK models can highlight the need for conduct of specific studies in elderly Japanese populations where there are discrepancies in pH-sensitivity of dissolution between the test and reference formulations.

No abstract

Older patients are generally not included in Phase 1 clinical trials despite being the population group who use the largest number of prescription medicines. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modelling provides an understanding of the absorption and disposition of drugs in older patients. In this review, PBPK models used for the prediction of absorption and exposure of drugs after parenteral, oral and transdermal administration are discussed. Comparisons between predicted drug pharmacokinetics (PK) and observed PK are presented to illustrate the accuracy of the predictions by the PBPK models and their potential use in informing clinical trial design and dosage adjustments in older patients. In addition, a case of PBPK modelling of a bioequivalence study on two controlled release products is described, where PBPK predictions reproduced the study showing bioequivalence in healthy volunteers but not in older subjects with achlorhydria, indicating further utility in prospectively identifying challenges in bioequivalence studies.