QT time prolongation
Adverse drug events
Variants ✨For the computationally intensive evaluation of the variants, please choose the paid standard subscription.
Explanations of the substances for patients
We have no additional warnings for the combination of abarelix and pantoprazole. Please also consult the relevant specialist information.
|Pantoprazole||1 [0.68,5.09] 1||1|
The reported changes in exposure correspond to the changes in the plasma concentration-time curve [ AUC ]. We do not expect any change in exposure for abarelix, when combined with pantoprazole (100%). We do not expect any change in exposure for pantoprazole, when combined with abarelix (100%). The AUC is between 68% and 509% depending on the CYP2C19
The pharmacokinetic parameters of the average population are used as the starting point for calculating the individual changes in exposure due to the interactions.
The bioavailability of abarelix is unknown. The terminal half-life [ t12 ] is rather long at 316.8 hours and constant plasma levels [ Css ] are only reached after more than 1267.2 hours. The protein binding [ Pb ] is 97.5% strong. The metabolism via cytochromes is currently still being worked on.
Pantoprazole has a mean oral bioavailability [ F ] of 77%, which is why the maximum plasma levels [Cmax] tend to change with an interaction. The terminal half-life [ t12 ] is rather short at 1.5 hours and constant plasma levels [ Css ] are reached quickly. The protein binding [ Pb ] is 98% strong and the volume of distribution [ Vd ] is small at 17 liters. The metabolism takes place via CYP2C19 and CYP3A4, among others and the active transport takes place partly via BCRP and PGP.
|Serotonergic Effects a||0||Ø||Ø|
Rating: According to our knowledge, neither abarelix nor pantoprazole increase serotonergic activity.
|Kiesel & Durán b||0||Ø||Ø|
Rating: According to our knowledge, neither abarelix nor pantoprazole increase anticholinergic activity.
QT time prolongation
Rating: In combination, abarelix and pantoprazole can potentially trigger ventricular arrhythmias of the torsades de pointes type.
General adverse effects
|Side effects||∑ frequency||aba||pan|
|Cutaneous lupus erythematosus||0.0 %||n.a.||n.a.|
|Stevens johnson syndrome||0.0 %||n.a.||n.a.|
|Toxic epidermal necrolysis||0.0 %||n.a.||n.a.|
|Clostridium difficile diarrhea||0.0 %||n.a.||0.01|
|Elevated GGT||0.0 %||n.a.||0.1|
Elevated transaminases: pantoprazole
Tubulointerstitial nephritis: pantoprazole
Based on your answers and scientific information, we assess the individual risk of undesirable side effects. These recommendations are intended to advise professionals and are not a substitute for consultation with a doctor. In the restricted test version (alpha), the risk of all substances has not yet been conclusively assessed.
Abstract: The plasma pharmacokinetics of pantoprazole have been investigated following single intravenous infusion and single oral administration at a dose of 40 mg to 12 healthy male subjects in a randomised cross-over study. Both treatments were generally well tolerated and no relevant compound-related adverse events were noted. The plasma pharmacokinetics of pantoprazole following intravenous infusion in this group of subjects were characterised by a total plasma clearance of 0.13 l.h-1 x kg-1 and apparent terminal elimination half-life 1.9 h. The apparent volume of distribution estimated at steady state (0.17 l.kg-1) was compatible with the localization of a major fraction of the compound in extracellular water. Following oral administration as an enteric-coated tablet formulation, a variable onset of absorption was followed by rapid attainment of maximum plasma concentrations of pantoprazole. Pantoprazole was well absorbed following oral administration; the absolute systemic bioavailability of the compound was estimated as 77% (95% CI, 67 to 89%).
Abstract: BACKGROUND: Anticholinergic drugs are often involved in explicit criteria for inappropriate prescribing in older adults. Several scales were developed for screening of anticholinergic drugs and estimation of the anticholinergic burden. However, variation exists in scale development, in the selection of anticholinergic drugs, and the evaluation of their anticholinergic load. This study aims to systematically review existing anticholinergic risk scales, and to develop a uniform list of anticholinergic drugs differentiating for anticholinergic potency. METHODS: We performed a systematic search in MEDLINE. Studies were included if provided (1) a finite list of anticholinergic drugs; (2) a grading score of anticholinergic potency and, (3) a validation in a clinical or experimental setting. We listed anticholinergic drugs for which there was agreement in the different scales. In case of discrepancies between scores we used a reputed reference source (Martindale: The Complete Drug Reference®) to take a final decision about the anticholinergic activity of the drug. RESULTS: We included seven risk scales, and evaluated 225 different drugs. Hundred drugs were listed as having clinically relevant anticholinergic properties (47 high potency and 53 low potency), to be included in screening software for anticholinergic burden. CONCLUSION: Considerable variation exists among anticholinergic risk scales, in terms of selection of specific drugs, as well as of grading of anticholinergic potency. Our selection of 100 drugs with clinically relevant anticholinergic properties needs to be supplemented with validated information on dosing and route of administration for a full estimation of the anticholinergic burden in poly-medicated older adults.
Abstract: No Abstract available
Abstract: No Abstract available
Abstract: Transporters in proximal renal tubules contribute to the disposition of numerous drugs. Furthermore, the molecular mechanisms of tubular secretion have been progressively elucidated during the past decades. Organic anions tend to be secreted by the transport proteins OAT1, OAT3 and OATP4C1 on the basolateral side of tubular cells, and multidrug resistance protein (MRP) 2, MRP4, OATP1A2 and breast cancer resistance protein (BCRP) on the apical side. Organic cations are secreted by organic cation transporter (OCT) 2 on the basolateral side, and multidrug and toxic compound extrusion (MATE) proteins MATE1, MATE2/2-K, P-glycoprotein, organic cation and carnitine transporter (OCTN) 1 and OCTN2 on the apical side. Significant drug-drug interactions (DDIs) may affect any of these transporters, altering the clearance and, consequently, the efficacy and/or toxicity of substrate drugs. Interactions at the level of basolateral transporters typically decrease the clearance of the victim drug, causing higher systemic exposure. Interactions at the apical level can also lower drug clearance, but may be associated with higher renal toxicity, due to intracellular accumulation. Whereas the importance of glomerular filtration in drug disposition is largely appreciated among clinicians, DDIs involving renal transporters are less well recognized. This review summarizes current knowledge on the roles, quantitative importance and clinical relevance of these transporters in drug therapy. It proposes an approach based on substrate-inhibitor associations for predicting potential tubular-based DDIs and preventing their adverse consequences. We provide a comprehensive list of known drug interactions with renally-expressed transporters. While many of these interactions have limited clinical consequences, some involving high-risk drugs (e.g. methotrexate) definitely deserve the attention of prescribers.
Abstract: Pantoprazole is a frequently prescribed proton pump inhibitor (PPI) commonly utilized in the management of gastrointestinal symptoms. Few substances have proved to cause a false-positive cannabinoid urine screen. However, a case of false-positive urine cannabinoid screen in a patient who received a pantoprazole dose has been recently published. The purpose of this study was to determine the potential cross-reactivity of pantoprazole in the cannabinoid immunoassays: Alere Triage® TOX Drug Screen, KIMS® Cannabinoids II and DRI® Cannabinoids Assay. Drug-free urine to which pantoprazole was added up to 12,000 μg/mL produced negative results in the DRI® Cannabinoids and KIMS® Cannabinoids II. Alere Triage® TOX Drug Screen assay gave positive results at pantoprazole concentrations higher than 1,000 μg/mL. Urine samples from 8 pediatric patients were collected at the beginning of their pantoprazole treatment. Alere Triage® TOX Drug Screen assay produced positive test results in all patient samples and KIMS® Cannabinoids II immunoassay produced positive test results in one patient sample. None patient sample gave a false-positive result when analyzed by the DRI® Cannabinoids Assay. Our findings demonstrate that some cannabinoids immunoassays are susceptible to cross-reaction errors resulting from the presence in urine of pantoprazole and the resulting metabolism of the parent drug. Clinicians should be aware of the possibility of false-positive results for cannabinoids after a pantoprazole treatment.
Abstract: The objective of this study was to develop pediatric physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models for pantoprazole and esomeprazole. Pediatric PBPK models were developed by Simcyp version 15 by incorporating cytochrome P450 (CYP)2C19 maturation and auto-inhibition. The predicted-to-observed pantoprazole clearance (CL) ratio ranged from 0.96-1.35 in children 1-17 years of age and 0.43-0.70 in term infants. The predicted-to-observed esomeprazole CL ratio ranged from 1.08-1.50 for children 6-17 years of age, and 0.15-0.33 for infants. The prediction was markedly improved by assuming no auto-inhibition of esomeprazole in infants in the PBPK model. Our results suggested that the CYP2C19 auto-inhibition model was appropriate for esomeprazole in adults and older children but could not be directly extended to infants. A better understanding of the complex interplay of enzyme maturation, inhibition, and compensatory mechanisms for CYP2C19 is necessary for PBPK modeling in infants.