Extension de temps QT
Effets indésirables des médicaments
Variantes ✨Pour l'évaluation intensive en calcul des variantes, veuillez choisir l'abonnement standard payant.
Explications pour les patients
Nous n'avons aucun avertissement supplémentaire pour l'association de abirateron et de oméprazole. Veuillez également consulter les informations spécialisées pertinentes.
|Oméprazole||4.2 [1.34,7.99] 1||4.2|
Les changements d'exposition mentionnés sont liés aux changements de la courbe concentration plasmatique en fonction du temps [ASC]. L'exposition à la oméprazole augmente à 420%, lorsqu'il est combiné avec la abirateron (420%). L'ASC est comprise entre 134% et 799% selon le
Les paramètres pharmacocinétiques de la population moyenne sont utilisés comme point de départ pour calculer les changements individuels d'exposition dus aux interactions.
La abirateron a une biodisponibilité orale moyenne [ F ] de 50%, raison pour laquelle les concentrations plasmatiques maximales [Cmax] ont tendance à changer avec une interaction. La demi-vie terminale [ t12 ] est de 18 heures et les taux plasmatiques constants [ Css ] sont atteints après environ 9 999 heures. La liaison aux protéines [ Pb ] est très forte à 99.8% et le volume de distribution [ Vd ] est très important à 2815 litres, Le métabolisme s'effectue principalement via le CYP3A4.
La oméprazole a une biodisponibilité orale moyenne [ F ] de 41%, raison pour laquelle les concentrations plasmatiques maximales [Cmax] ont tendance à changer avec une interaction. La demi-vie terminale [ t12 ] est assez courte à 0.9 heures et des taux plasmatiques constants [ Css ] sont atteints rapidement. La liaison aux protéines [ Pb ] est modérément forte à 95% et le volume de distribution [ Vd ] est petit à 21 litres, Étant donné que la substance a un faible taux d'extraction hépatique de 0,9, le déplacement de la liaison aux protéines [Pb] dans le contexte d'une interaction peut augmenter l'exposition. Le métabolisme a lieu via le CYP2C19 et le CYP3A4, entre autres et le transport actif se fait notamment via PGP.
|Les scores||∑ Points||abi||omé|
|Effets sérotoninergiques a||0||Ø||Ø|
Évaluation: Selon nos connaissances, ni la abirateron ni la oméprazole n'augmentent l'activité sérotoninergique.
|Les scores||∑ Points||abi||omé|
|Kiesel & Durán b||0||Ø||Ø|
Évaluation: Selon nos résultats, ni la abirateron ni la oméprazole n'augmentent l'activité anticholinergique.
Extension de temps QT
|Les scores||∑ Points||abi||omé|
Évaluation: En association, la abirateron et la oméprazole peuvent potentiellement déclencher des arythmies ventriculaires de type torsades de pointes.
Effets secondaires généraux
|Effets secondaires||∑ la fréquence||abi||omé|
|Œdème périphérique||20.0 %||20.0||n.a.|
|ALT élevé||13.0 %||13.0||n.a.|
|AST élevé||13.0 %||13.0||n.a.|
|Infection urinaire||10.0 %||10.0||n.a.|
|La diarrhée||9.3 %||5.5||4.0↑|
|Mal de crâne||7.0 %||n.a.||7.0↑|
|Douleur abdominale||5.0 %||n.a.||5.0↑|
La nausée (4%): oméprazole
Flatulence (3%): oméprazole
Vomissements (3%): oméprazole
Constipation (2%): oméprazole
Diarrhée à Clostridium difficile: oméprazole
Fibrillation auriculaire (2.6%): abirateron
Angine de poitrine (1.6%): abirateron
Réactions cutanées allergiques: oméprazole
Lupus érythémateux cutané: oméprazole
Érythème polymorphe: oméprazole
Syndrome de Stevens-Johnson: oméprazole
Nécrolyse épidermique toxique: oméprazole
Transaminases élevées: oméprazole
Encéphalopathie hépatique: oméprazole
Insuffisance hépatique: oméprazole
Réaction anaphylactique: oméprazole
Sur la base de vos
Abstract: The pharmacokinetics of omeprazole have been studied to varying extent in the mouse, rat, dog and in man. The drug is rapidly absorbed in all these species. The systemic availability is relatively high in the dog and in man provided the drug is protected from acidic degradation in the stomach. In man the fraction of the oral dose reaching the systemic circulation was found to increase from an average of 40.3 to 58.2% when the dose was raised from 10 to 40 mg, suggesting some dose-dependency in this parameter. The drug distributes rapidly to extra-vascular sites. The volume of distribution, V beta, in man is comparable to the volume of the extracellular water. The penetration into the red cells is low, the ratio between the concentration in whole blood and in plasma being about 0.6. Omeprazole is bound to about 95% to proteins in human plasma. The binding is lower in the dog and rat (90 and 87%, respectively). Omeprazole is eliminated almost completely by metabolism and no unchanged drug has been recovered in the urine in the species studied. Two metabolites, characterised as the sulfone and sulfide of omeprazole, have been identified and quantified in human plasma. The mean elimination half-life in man and in the dog is about 1 hour, whereas half-lives in the range of 5 to 15 minutes have been recorded in the mouse. In two studies in man, the mean total body clearance was 880 and 1097 ml X min-1, indicating that omeprazole belongs to the group of high clearance drugs. In the dog, too, the drug appears to be rapidly cleared from the blood, the mean total body clearance being about 10.5 ml X min-1 X kg-1. In the rat and dog, 20 to 30% of an i.v. or oral dose of omeprazole is excreted as metabolites in the urine and the remaining fraction is recovered in the faeces within three days after the administration. In man, the excretion of radioactivity via the kidneys is much more efficient and the recoveries in the excreta are approximately the reverse of those in the rat and dog. In vitro studies with rat liver microsome preparations suggest that omeprazole and cimetidine inhibit cytochrome P-450-mediated metabolic reactions to about the same extent in equimolar concentrations. However, since the molar daily dose of cimetidine will be 25 to 50 times higher than that of omeprazole, the latter might have less influence on the mixed function oxidase system than cimetidine.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)
Abstract: OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to evaluate the absolute bioavailability and the metabolism of omeprazole following single intravenous and oral administrations to healthy subjects in relation to CYP2C19 genotypes. METHODS: Twenty subjects, of whom 6 were homozygous extensive metabolizers (hmEMs), 8 were heterozygous EMs (htEMs) and 6 were poor metabolizers (PMs) for CYP2C19, were enrolled in this study. Each subject received either a single omeprazole 20 mg intravenous dose (IV) or 40 mg oral dose (PO) in a randomized fashion during 2 different phases. RESULTS: Mean omeprazole AUC (0,infinity) was 1164, 3093 and 10511 ng h/mL after PO, and 1435, 2495 and 6222 ng h/mL after IV in hmEMs, htEMs and PMs, respectively. Therefore, the absolute bioavailability of omeprazole in PMs was significantly higher than that in hmEMs (p < 0.001) and htEMs (p < 0.001). Hydroxylation metabolic indexes after IV and PO were significantly lower in PMs than in hmEMs (p < 0.001) and htEMs (p < 0.001), and was correlated with the absolute bioavailability (p < 0.0001 for both IV and PO). Sulfoxidation metabolic index after IV was significantly different between the CYP2C19 genotypes, whereas no difference was found after a single oral dose. CONCLUSION: This study indicates that the absolute bioavailability of omeprazole differs among the three different CYP2C19 genotypes after a single dose of omeprazole orally or intravenously. Hydroxylation metabolic index of omeprazole may be mainly attributable to the genotype of CYP2C19. As for the sulfoxidation metabolic index after a single oral dose, intestinal CYP3A may be contributed to omeprazole metabolism.
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: Three open-label, single-dose studies investigated the impact of hepatic or renal impairment on abiraterone acetate pharmacokinetics and safety/tolerability in non-cancer patients. Patients (n = 8 each group) with mild/moderate hepatic impairment or end-stage renal disease (ESRD), and age-, BMI-matched healthy controls received a single oral 1,000 mg abiraterone acetate (tablet dose); while patients (n = 8 each) with severe hepatic impairment and matched healthy controls received 125- and 2,000-mg abiraterone acetate (suspension doses), respectively (systemic exposure of abiraterone acetate suspension is approximately half to that of tablet formulation). Blood was sampled at specified timepoints up to 72 or 96 hours postdose to measure plasma abiraterone concentrations. Abiraterone exposure was comparable between healthy controls and patients with mild hepatic impairment or ESRD, but increased by 4-fold in patients with moderate hepatic impairment. Despite a 16-fold reduction in dose, abiraterone exposure in patients with severe hepatic impairment was about 22% and 44% of the Cmax and AUC∞ of healthy controls, respectively. These results suggest that abiraterone pharmacokinetics were not changed markedly in patients with ESRD or mild hepatic impairment. However, the capacity to eliminate abiraterone was substantially compromised in patients with moderate or severe hepatic impairment. A single-dose administration of abiraterone acetate was well-tolerated.
Abstract: Two novel oral drugs that target androgen signaling have recently become available for the treatment of metastatic castration-resistant prostate cancer (mCRPC). Abiraterone acetate inhibits the synthesis of the natural ligands of the androgen receptor, whereas enzalutamide directly inhibits the androgen receptor by several mechanisms. Abiraterone acetate and enzalutamide appear to be equally effective for patients with mCRPC pre- and postchemotherapy. Rational decision making for either one of these drugs is therefore potentially driven by individual patient characteristics. In this review, an overview of the pharmacokinetic characteristics is given for both drugs and potential and proven drug-drug interactions are presented. Additionally, the effect of patient-related factors on drug disposition are summarized and the limited data on the exposure-response relationships are described. The most important pharmacological feature of enzalutamide that needs to be recognized is its capacity to induce several key enzymes in drug metabolism. The potency to cause drug-drug interactions needs to be addressed in patients who are treated with multiple drugs simultaneously. Abiraterone has a much smaller drug-drug interaction potential; however, it is poorly absorbed, which is affected by food intake, and a large interpatient variability in drug exposure is observed. Dose reductions of abiraterone or, alternatively, the selection of enzalutamide, should be considered in patients with hepatic dysfunction. Understanding the pharmacological characteristics and challenges of both drugs could facilitate decision making for either one of the drugs.
Abstract: We present a case of a 77 year-old gentleman with previous coronary artery bypass grafting, admitted to hospital with recurrent torsades de pointes (TdP) due to abiraterone-induced hypokalaemia and prolonged QTc. The patient was on abiraterone and prednisone for metastatic prostate cancer. He required multiple defibrillations for recurrent TdP. Abiraterone is a relatively novel drug used in metastatic prostate cancer and we discuss this potential adverse effect and its management in this unusual presentation.
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: The accurate estimation of "in vivo" inhibition constants () of inhibitors and fraction metabolized () of substrates is highly important for drug-drug interaction (DDI) prediction based on physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models. We hypothesized that analysis of the pharmacokinetic alterations of substrate metabolites in addition to the parent drug would enable accurate estimation of in vivoandTwenty-four pharmacokinetic DDIs caused by P450 inhibition were analyzed with PBPK models using an emerging parameter estimation method, the cluster Newton method, which enables efficient estimation of a large number of parameters to describe the pharmacokinetics of parent and metabolized drugs. For each DDI, two analyses were conducted (with or without substrate metabolite data), and the parameter estimates were compared with each other. In 17 out of 24 cases, inclusion of substrate metabolite information in PBPK analysis improved the reliability of bothandImportantly, the estimatedfor the same inhibitor from different DDI studies was generally consistent, suggesting that the estimatedfrom one study can be reliably used for the prediction of untested DDI cases with different victim drugs. Furthermore, a large discrepancy was observed between the reported in vitroand the in vitro estimates for some inhibitors, and the current in vivoestimates might be used as reference values when optimizing in vitro-in vivo extrapolation strategies. These results demonstrated that better use of substrate metabolite information in PBPK analysis of clinical DDI data can improve reliability of top-down parameter estimation and prediction of untested DDIs.