The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Database analyses for the prediction of in vivo drug–drug interactions from in vitro data
Open accessAbstract
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
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.
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
Godoy, P., Hewitt, N. J., Albrecht, U., Andersen, M. E., Ansari, N., Bhattacharya, S., Bode, J. G., Bolleyn, J., Borner, C., Böttger, J., et al. (2013) · Archives of Toxicology · doi:10.1007/s00204-013-1078-5 · Cited by 1,280
Self-citationPregnancy-Induced Changes in Pharmacokinetics: A Mechanistic-Based Approach
Anderson, G. D. (2005) · Clinical Pharmacokinetics · doi:10.2165/00003088-200544100-00001 · Cited by 648
Simulation and prediction of in vivo drug metabolism in human populations from in vitro data
Rostami-Hodjegan, A., & Tucker, G. T. (2007) · Nature Reviews Drug Discovery · doi:10.1038/nrd2173 · Cited by 530
Zhang, D., Chando, T. J., Everett, D. W., Patten, C. J., Dehal, S. S., & Humphreys, W. G. (2005) · Drug Metabolism and Disposition · doi:10.1124/dmd.105.005447 · Cited by 286
Physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling of tea catechin mixture in rats and humans
Law, F. C. P., Yao, M., Bi, H., & Lam, S. (2017) · Pharmacology Research & Perspectives · doi:10.1002/prp2.305 · Cited by 23
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.