Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 272

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Database analyses for the prediction of in vivo drug–drug interactions from in vitro data

Open access
Ito, Kiyomi, Brown, Hayley S., Houston, J. Brian·2004·British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

Abstract

Aims: In theory, the magnitude of an in vivo drug–drug interaction arising from the inhibition of metabolic clearance can be predicted using the ratio of inhibitor concentration ([I]) to inhibition constant (Ki). The aim of this study was to construct a database for the prediction of drug–drug interactions from in vitro data and to evaluate the use of the various estimates for the inhibitor concentrations in the term [I]/Ki. Methods: One hundred and ninety‐three in vivo drug–drug interaction studies involving inhibition of CYP3A4, CYP2D6 or CYP2C9 were collated from the literature together with in vitro Ki values and pharmacokinetic parameters for inhibitors, to allow calculation of average/maximum systemic plasma concentration during the dosing interval and maximum hepatic input plasma concentration (both total and unbound concentration). The observed increase in AUC (decreased clearance) was plotted against the estimated [I]/Ki ratio for qualitative zoning of the predictions. Results: The incidence of false negative predictions (AUC ratio > 2, [I]/Ki < 1) was largest using the average unbound plasma concentration and smallest using the hepatic input total plasma concentration of inhibitor for each of the CYP enzymes. Excluding mechanism‐based inhibition, the use of total hepatic input concentration resulted in essentially no false negative predictions, though several false positive predictions (AUC ratio < 2, [I]/Ki > 1) were found. The incidence of true positive predictions (AUC ratio > 2, [I]/Ki > 1) was also highest using the total hepatic input concentration. Conclusions: The use of the total hepatic input concentration of inhibitor together with in vitro Ki values was the most successful method for the categorization of putative CYP inhibitors and for identifying negative drug–drug interactions. However this approach should be considered as an initial discriminating screen, as it is empirical and requires subsequent mechanistic studies to provide a comprehensive evaluation of a positive result.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2003.02041.x

Cites

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cited by

See all 272

Metadata

Authors
Ito, K., Brown, H. S., & Houston, J. B.
Venue
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2004-03-16
Volume
57
Issue
4
Pages
473-486
ISSN
  • 0306-5251 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2125
OpenAlex
W2172236497
Cited by
272
References
0
FWCI
14.93
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
bronze

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Database analyses for the prediction of in vivo drug–drug interactions from in vitro data. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1111/j.1365-2125.2003.02041.x
The paper
Ito, K., Brown, H. S., & Houston, J. B. (2004). Database analyses for the prediction of in vivo drug–drug interactions from in vitro data. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2125.2003.02041.x

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.