This article is available online at http://dmd.aspetjournals.org ABSTRACT:Current regulatory guidances do not address specific study designs for in vitro and in vivo drug-drug interaction studies. There is a common desire by regulatory authorities and by industry sponsors to harmonize approaches, to allow for a better assessment of the significance of findings across different studies and drugs. There is also a growing consensus for the standardization of cytochrome P450 (P450) probe substrates, inhibitors and inducers and for the development of classification systems to improve the communication of risk to health care providers and to patients. While existing guidances cover mainly P450-mediated drug interactions, the importance of other mechanisms, such as transporters, has been recognized more recently, and should also be addressed. This article was prepared by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) Drug Metabolism and Clinical Pharmacology Technical Working Groups and represents the current industry position. The intent is to define a minimal best practice for in vitro and in vivo pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction studies targeted to development (not discovery support) and to define a data package that can be expected by regulatory agencies in compound registration dossiers.Drug-drug interactions can lead to severe side effects and have resulted in early termination of development, refusal of approval, severe prescribing restrictions, and withdrawal of drugs from the market. Regulators, including the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA 1 ) have therefore issued guidances for in vitro and in vivo drug interaction studies to be conducted during development. These guidances, however, do not address the specific designs of the studies, and there is a desire by regulatory authorities to harmonize approaches and study designs to allow for a better assessment and comparison of different drugs. In addition, the existing guidances cover mainly cytochrome P450 (P450)-mediated drug interactions and the importance of other mechanisms, such as transporters, has been recognized only recently. To address these issues, workshops have been held in

A four-part, randomized, crossover study with healthy subjects evaluated the effects of gastric pH, the dosing frequency and prandial state, food consumption timing, and gastric motility on the absorption of posaconazole. In part 1, a single dose (SD) of posaconazole (400 mg) was administered alone or with an acidic beverage or a proton pump inhibitor (PPI), or both. In part 2, posaconazole (400 mg twice daily and 200 mg four times daily) was administered for 7 days with and without a nutritional supplement (Boost). In part 3, an SD of posaconazole (400 mg) was administered while the subjects were fasting and before, during, and after a high-fat meal. In part 4, an SD of posaconazole (400 mg) and the nutritional supplement were administered alone, with metoclopramide, and with loperamide. Compared to the results obtained with posaconazole alone, administration with an acidic beverage increased the posaconazole maximum concentration in plasma (C max ) and the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) by 92% and 70%, respectively, whereas a higher gastric pH decreased the posaconazole C max and AUC by 46% and 32%, respectively. Compared to the results obtained with posaconazole alone, posaconazole at 400 mg or at 200 mg plus the nutritional supplement increased the posaconazole C max and AUC by 65% and 66%, respectively, and by up to 137% and 161%, respectively. Administration before a high-fat meal increased the C max and the AUC by 96% and 111%, respectively, while administration during and after the meal increased the C max and the AUC by up to 339% and 387%, respectively. Increased gastric motility decreased the C max and the AUC by 21% and 19%, respectively. Strategies to maximize posaconazole exposure in patients with absorption difficulties include administration with or after a high-fat meal, with any meal or nutritional supplement, with an acidic beverage, or in divided doses and the avoidance of proton pump inhibitors.

Current regulatory guidances do not address specific study designs for in vitro and in vivo drug-drug interaction studies. There is a common desire by regulatory authorities and by industry sponsors to harmonize approaches to allow for a better assessment of the significance of findings across different studies and drugs. There is also a growing consensus for the standardization of cytochrome P450 (CYP) probe substrates, inhibitors, and inducers and for the development of classification systems to improve the communication of risk to health care providers and patients. While existing guidances cover mainly CYP-mediated drug interactions, the importance of other mechanisms, such as transporters, has been recognized more recently and should also be addressed. This paper was prepared by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) Drug Metabolism and Clinical Pharmacology Technical Working Groups and represents the current industry position. The intent is to define a minimal best practice for in vitro and in vivo pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction studies targeted to development (not discovery support) and to define a data package that can be expected by regulatory agencies in compound registration dossiers.

Current regulatory guidances do not address specific study designs for in vitro and in vivo drug-drug interaction studies. There is a common desire by regulatory authorities and by industry sponsors to harmonize approaches to allow for a better assessment of the significance of findings across different studies and drugs. There is also a growing consensus for the standardization of cytochrome P450 (CYP) probe substrates, inhibitors, and inducers and for the development of classification systems to improve the communication of risk to health care providers and patients. While existing guidances cover mainly CYP-mediated drug interactions, the importance of other mechanisms, such as transporters, has been recognized more recently and should also be addressed. This paper was prepared by the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) Drug Metabolism and Clinical Pharmacology Technical Working Groups and represents the current industry position. The intent is to define a minimal best practice for in vitro and in vivo pharmacokinetic drug-drug interaction studies targeted to development (not discovery support) and to define a data package that can be expected by regulatory agencies in compound registration dossiers.

There is an increasing interest in the simultaneous administration of several probe substrates to characterize the activity of multiple drug-metabolizing enzymes, the so-called "cocktail" approach. However, this method remains controversial and is being investigated more extensively. No general consensus has emerged on the applicability of this approach in clinical investigation and during drug development. The objective of the article is to review this important yet specialized technique, as well as its merits, drawbacks, and potential application in drug development. Among the two-, three-, four-, five-, and six-drug in vivo cocktails previously evaluated in humans, a variety of substrate probe combinations have been studied. Some probe combinations have been validated not to interact in vivo and have been useful in characterizing drug-drug interaction potential and metabolic enzyme induction in humans. For drug candidates that affect two or more in vitro pathways or are potential gene inducers, the use of a cocktail approach may facilitate the rapid delineation of the drug candidate's drug interaction potential. It may also offer the potential of providing clear guidance on safely conducting larger clinical studies and limiting comedication restrictions to only those likely to be clinically relevant.

We studied the pathophysiology, natural history, and genetic basis of familial neurohypophyseal diabetes insipidus (FNDI) in a caucasian kindred. Twelve members had polyuria and a deficiency of plasma vasopressin (AVP), which progressed in severity over time. Another had normal urine volumes and plasma AVP when first tested at age 3 yr, but developed severe FNDI a year later. For unknown reasons, one man had a normal urine volume despite severe AVP deficiency and a history of polyuria in the past. When the AVP-neurophysin-II gene was amplified and sequenced, exon 2/3 was normal, but 7 of 12 clones of exon 1 contained a base substitution (G-->A) predicting a substitution of threonine for alanine at the -1 position of the signal peptide. Restriction analysis found the mutation in all 14 affected members, but in none of the 41 controls or 19 adult members with normal urine volumes and plasma or urinary AVP (lod score = 5.7). The mutation was also found in 2 infants in whom AVP was normal when tested at 6 and 9 months of age. We hypothesize that a mutation in exon 1 of the AVP-neurophysin-II gene causes FNDI in this kindred by making an abnormally processed precursor that gradually destroys vasopressinergic neurons.

Drug-induced respiratory depression (DIRD) is a common problem encountered post-operatively and can persist for days after surgery. It is not always possible to predict the timing or severity of DIRD due to the number of contributing factors. A safe and effective respiratory stimulant could improve patient care by avoiding the use of reversal agents (e.g., naloxone, which reverses analgesia as well as respiratory depression) thereby permitting better pain management by enabling the use of higher doses of analgesics, facilitate weaning from prolonged ventilation, and ameliorate sleep-disordered breathing peri-operatively. The purpose of this review is to discuss the current pharmaceutical armamentarium of drugs (doxapram and almitrine) that are licensed for use in humans as respiratory stimulants and that could be used to reverse drug-induced respiratory depression in the post-operative period. We also discuss new chemical entities (AMPAkines and GAL-021) that have been recently evaluated in Phase 1 clinical trials and where the initial regulatory registration would be as a respiratory stimulant.

All authors are employed by and J.B.K., Y.H.W., and J.F.M. own stock in Novartis Pharmaceuticals. Abbreviations: AUC, area under the curve; C max , maximum plasma concentration; ECG, electrocardiogram; t max , time to reach C max .A table elsewhere in this issue shows conventional and Système International (SI) units and conversion factors for many substances. Mealtime Glucose Regulation With Nateglinide in Healthy VolunteersComparison with repaglinide and placebo O R I G I N A L A R T I C L EOBJECTIVE -This study was designed to compare the pharmacodynamic effects of single doses of nateglinide (A-4166), repaglinide, and placebo on mealtime insulin secretion and glycemic control in healthy subjects. RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS -Fifteen healthy volunteers participated inthis open-label five-period crossover study. They received single 10-min preprandial doses of 120 mg nateglinide, 0.5 or 2 mg repaglinide, or placebo or 1 min preprandially of 2 mg repaglinide. Subjects received each dose only once, 48 h apart. Pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic assessments were performed from 0 to 12 h postdose.RESULTS -Nateglinide induced insulin secretion more rapidly than 2 and 0.5 mg repaglinide and placebo (10 min preprandial), with mean rates of insulin rise of 2.3, 1.3, 1.15, and 0.8 µU и ml Ϫ1 и min Ϫ1 , respectively, over the 0-to 30-min postmeal interval. After peaking, insulin concentrations decreased rapidly in the nateglinide-treated group and were similar to placebo within 2 h postdose. After 2 mg repaglinide, peak insulin concentrations were delayed and returned to baseline more slowly than with nateglinide treatment. Nateglinide treatment produced lower average plasma glucose concentrations in the 0-to 2-h postdose interval than either dose of repaglinide and placebo (P Ͻ 0.05 vs. 0.5 mg repaglinide and placebo). Plasma glucose concentrations returned more rapidly to predose levels with nateglinide treatment than with either dose of repaglinide. Treatment with repaglinide produced a sustained hypoglycemic effect up to 6 h postdose. E m e r g i n g T r e a t m e n t s a n d T e c h n o l o g i e s CONCLUSIONS 74DIABETES CARE, VOLUME Study designThis open-label randomized crossover study consisted of five treatment periods separated by 48-h interdose intervals. Subjects received, in a fully randomized order, single oral doses of 120 mg nateglinide, 0.5 or 2 mg repaglinide, or placebo 10 min before or 2 mg repaglinide 1 min before a standardized 800-kcal breakfast (55% carbohydrate, 25% fat, and 20% protein).Subjects remained at the clinical research center (Clinical Pharmacology Associates, Miami, FL) throughout the entire study. They fasted overnight before each treatment period. To explore the pharmacological effects, subjects resumed fasting and were permitted only water and minimal physical activity for 8 h after breakfast. Study evaluationsPharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Plasma concentrations of nateglinide and repaglinide were assessed predose and at 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 4, 6, 8, and 12 h after drug admin...