SEARCH

SEARCH BY CITATION

Keywords:

  • CYP2C19;
  • fluvoxamine;
  • genotype;
  • omeprazole

Abstract

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. References

Aims

Omeprazole is mainly metabolized by the polymorphic cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2C19. The inhibitory effect of fluvoxamine, an inhibitor of CYP2C19 as well as CYP1A2, on the metabolism of omeprazole was compared between different genotypes for CYP2C19.

Methods

Eighteen volunteers, of whom six were homozygous extensive metabolizers (EMs), six were heterozygous EMs and six were poor metabolizers (PMs) for CYP2C19, participated in the study. A randomized double-blind, placebo-controlled crossover study was performed. All subjects received two six-day courses of either daily 50 mg fluvoxamine or placebo in a randomized fashion with a single oral 40 mg dose of omeprazole on day six in both cases. Plasma concentrations of omeprazole and its metabolites, 5-hydroxyomeprazole, omeprazole sulphone, and fluvoxamine were monitored up to 8 h after the dosing.

Results

During placebo administration, geometric means of peak concentration (Cmax), under the plasma concentration-time curve from 0 to 8 h (AUC(0,8 h)) and elimination half-life (t1/2) of omeprazole were 900 ng ml−1, 1481 ng ml−1 h, and 0.6 h in homozygous EMs, 1648 ng ml−1, 4225 ng ml−1 h, and 1.1 h in heterozygous EMs, and 2991 ng ml−1, 11537 ng ml−1 h, and 2.8 h in PMs, respectively. Fluvoxamine treatment increased Cmax of omeprazole by 3.7-fold (95%CI, 2.4, 5.0-fold, P < 0.01) and 2.0-fold (1.4, 2.6-fold, P < 0.01), AUC(0,8 h) by 6.0-fold (3.3, 8.7-fold, P < 0.001) and 2.4-fold (1.7, 3.2-fold, P < 0.01), AUC(0,∞) by 6.2-fold (3.0, 9.3-fold, P < 0.01) and 2.5-fold (1.6, 3.4-fold, P < 0.001) and prolonged t½ by 2.6-fold (1.9, 3.4-fold, P < 0.001) and 1.4-fold (1.02, 1.7-fold, P < 0.05), respectively. However, no pharmacokinetic parameters were changed in PMs. The AUC(0,8 h) ratios of 5-hydroxyomeprazole to omeprazole were decreased with fluvoxamine in homozygous EMs (P < 0.05) and heterozygous EMs (P < 0.01).

Conclusions

Even a low dose of fluvoxamine increased omeprazole exposure in EMs, but did not increase omeprazole exposure in PMs after a single oral dose of omeprazole. These findings confirm a potent inhibitory effect of fluvoxamine on CYP2C19 activity. The bioavailability of omeprazole might, to some extent, be increased through inhibition of P-glycoprotein during fluvoxamine treatment.


Introduction

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. References

Omeprazole is one of the most widely used proton pump inhibitors for the treatment of gastric acid-related disorders [1]. Omeprazole is completely metabolized, mainly by hydroxylation catalyzed by CYP2C19 [2], which shows genetically determined polymorphism, yielding extensive metabolizers (EMs) and poor metabolizers (PMs) [3]. Since the rate of omeprazole hydroxylation correlates with the hydroxylation of S-mephenytoin, the metabolic ratio of 5-hydroxyomeprazole to omeprazole has been used to assess the activity of CYP2C19 [4]. Omeprazole is also metabolized by CYP3A4 to omeprazole sulphone. In PMs, this is the predominant metabolic pathway [5].

Fluvoxamine, a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), is metabolized in the liver by CYP2D6 and CYP1A2 [6]. Fluvoxamine is regarded as a potent CYP1A2 inhibitor based on many drug interactions of fluvoxamine with caffeine [7], clozapine [8, 9], olanzapine [10], imipramine [11, 12], amitriptyline [13], clomipramine [13, 14] and theophylline [15], each of which is a substrate for CYP1A2. In addition, it has been suggested that fluvoxamine inhibits the metabolism of CYP2C19 substrates such as citalopram [16], omeprazole [17, 18] and chloroguanide hydrochloride (INN, proguanil) [19]. Thus, fluvoxamine has been regarded as a potent inhibitor of not only CYP1A2 but also CYP2C19. Also, fluvoxamine increased plasma concentrations of alprazolam [20], a substrate of CYP3A4 [21], suggesting that fluvoxamine has an inhibitory effect on CYP3A4 to some degree.

Our previous study has shown that low doses of fluvoxamine in EMs for CYP2C19 decreased the area under  the  plasma  concentration-time  curve  from  time 0 to 8 h [AUC(0,8 h)] ratio of 5-hydroxyomeprazole : omeprazole by 3.4-fold [18], suggesting that fluvoxamine has a potent inhibitory effect on CYP2C19 activity. We presumed that no changes in omeprazole concentrations would be found in PMs if this interaction was only due to CYP2C19 inhibition by fluvoxamine. However, there is no published information about the difference in this interaction between EMs and PMs of CYP2C19. Therefore, in the present study, the inhibitory effects of fluvoxamine on the metabolism of omeprazole were compared between three different CYP2C19 genotypes.

Methods

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. References

Study design

Eighteen Japanese healthy volunteers (14 males and four females; age range 22–44 years; weight range 40–90 kg) participated in the study after written informed consent was obtained. The mutated alleles for CYP2C19, CYP2C19*3(*3) and CYP2C19*2(*2) had been identified using the PCR-RFLP methods of de Morais et al.[22], prior to this study. The CYP2C19 genotype analyses revealed five different patterns as follows: *1/*1 in 6, *1/*2 in 3, *1/*3 in 3, *2/*2 in 4 and *2/*3 in 2. These were divided into three groups, homozygous EMs (*1/*1, n = 6), heterozygous EMs (*1/*2 and *1/*3, n = 6) and PMs (*2/*2 and *2/*3, n = 6). The protocol was approved by the Ethics Committee of Hirosaki University School of Medicine.

A randomized double-blind placebo-controlled crossover study design in two phases was conducted at intervals of 2 weeks. Fluvoxamine (25 mg) as the capsule formulation containing a tablet formulation (Luvox®, Fujisawa Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd, Osaka, Japan) or matched placebo (as the capsule formulation with the same appearance and size of that of fluvoxamine) was given orally twice a day (09.00 h, 21.00 h) for 6 days. Nine volunteers each as a group were allocated to either of the different drug sequences: placebo-fluvoxamine or fluvoxamine-placebo. On day 6, they took a single oral 40 mg dose of omeprazole (Omepral®, AstraZeneca Co., Ltd, Osaka, Japan) and 25 mg dose of fluvoxamine or placebo after overnight fasting (09.00 h) with 240 ml of tap water. Compliance of test drugs was confirmed by pill-count. No other medications were taken during the study periods. No meal was allowed until 4 h after the dosing (13.00 h). The use of alcohol, tea, coffee and cola was forbidden during the test days.

Blood sampling

Blood samples (10 ml each) for determination of omeprazole and its metabolites, 5-hydroxyomeprazole and omeprazole sulphone, and fluvoxamine, were taken into heparinized tubes just before and 0.5, 1, 1.5, 2, 3, 4, 6 and 8 h after the administration of omeprazole. Plasma was separated immediately and kept at −30°C until analysis.

Assay

Plasma concentrations of omeprazole and its metabolites, 5-hydroxyomeprazole and omeprazole sulphone were determined by HPLC methods described by Kobayashi et al.[23] with minor modification. The method was validated for the concentration range 10–10000 ng ml−1. Intra- and inter-day relative standard deviations were  less  than  8.9% at  the  concentration  10 ng ml−1. The limit of quantification was 10 ng ml−1 for each compound.

Plasma concentrations of fluvoxamine were determined by HPLC methods developed in our laboratory. In brief, all solvents used were of HPLC grade (Wako Pure Chemical Industries, Kyoto, Japan). All reagents were purchased from Wako Pure Chemical Industries (Kyoto, Japan). After sample alkalization with 0.5 ml of NaOH (2.5 m), the test compound and internal standard, alprazolam, were extracted from 1000 µl of plasma using 4000 µl of chloroform-n-heptane (30 : 70, v/v). The organic phase was evaporated to dryness and the residue was dissolved with 800 µl of mobile phase. An aliquot (500 µl) of the solution was injected into a C18 STR ODS-II analytical column (5 µl, 150 x 4.6 mm I.D.). The mobile phase consisted of phosphate buffer (0.02 m, pH 4.6), perchloric acid (6 m) and acetonitrile (58.93 : 0.07 : 41, v/v) for fluvoxamine and was delivered at a flow rate of 0.6 ml min−1. The peak was detected using a UV detector set at 254 nm for fluvoxamine. The method was validated for the concentration range 1–100 ng ml−1, and good linearity (r > 0.999) was confirmed. Intra- and inter-day coefficient variations were less than 7.6% at the concentration 0.8 ng ml−1 for the test compound. Relative errors ranged from −5–10% and mean recoveries were 87–95%. The limit of quantification was 0.8 ng ml−1 for fluvoxamine.

Data analyses of pharmacokinetics

The peak concentration (Cmax) and concentration peak time (tmax) were obtained directly from the original data. The area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC(0,8 h)) was calculated with use of the trapezoidal rule. The terminal rate constant (ke) used for the extrapolation was determined by regression analysis of the log-linear part of the concentration-time curve for each subject. The elimination half-life was determined by 0.693/ke. AUC from zero to infinity (0,∞) was calculated by AUC (0,last) + Clast/ke, where Clast is last detectable plasma drug concentration.

Statistical analyses

The paired t-test for the comparison of placebo vs fluvoxamine treatment was conducted on pharmacokinetic parameters, while Wilcoxon signed-rank test was performed on the parameter tmax. Percentages of placebo in pharmacokinetic parameters between the three genotype groups were compared using one-way anova followed by Scheffe test, whereas percentages of placebo in parameter tmax were compared using the Kruskal–Wallis test. The comparison between the AUC of omeprazole during fluvoxamine coadministration in homozygous and heterozygous EMs groups, and during placebo administration in PMs was performed with the use of one-way anova followed by Scheffe test. Correlations between the percentage of placebo AUC of omeprazole during fluvoxamine and AUC ratio of 5-hydroxyomeprazole : omeprazole were tested using Spearman rank test. A P value of 0.05 or less was regarded as significant. SPSS 8.0.1 for Windows (SPSS Japan Inc., Tokyo) was used for these statistical analyses.

Results

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. References

Although none of the subjects needed to be withdrawn from this study, mild to moderate side-effects were observed during fluvoxamine administration: mild to moderate nausea in six subjects, mild appetite loss in three subjects, mild drowsiness in five subjects, dry mouth in two subjects. These side-effects continued until day 6 and ameliorated the day after discontinuation of fluvoxamine. No adverse events were reported during placebo administration or after omeprazole plus placebo administration.

No differences between the CYP2C19 genotypes, homozygous EMs, heterozygous EMs and PMs were found in subject profiles, including age (mean ± SD, 25 ± 3, 26 ± 4 and 30 ± 6 years, P = 0.135), body weight (66 ± 14, 61 ± 15 and 62 ± 12 kg, P = 0.807) and genders (M/F; 5/1, 5/1and 4/2). Geometric mean (95% confidence interval) of trough plasma concentrations of fluvoxamine on day 6 were 19.8 (4.9, 44.9) in homozygous EMs, 21.4 (11.8, 41.3) in heterozygous EMs, and 19.2 (14.4, 39.2) ng ml−1 in PMs, respectively, which did not differ between CYP2C19 genotypes (P = 0.902).

Plasma concentration-time curves of omeprazole during both phases in each genotype group for CYP2C19 are shown in Figure 1. Compared with control, fluvoxamine treatment increased Cmax of omeprazole by 3.7-fold (95%CI, 2.4, 5.0-fold, P < 0.01) and 2.0-fold (1.4, 2.6-fold, P < 0.01), AUC(0,8 h) by 6.0-fold (3.3, 8.7-fold, P < 0.001) and 2.4-fold (1.7, 3.2-fold, P < 0.01), AUC(0,∞)  by  6.2-fold  (3.0,  9.3-fold,  P < 0.01)  and 2.5-fold (1.6, 3.4-fold, P < 0.001) and prolonged t1/2 by 2.6-fold (1.9, 3.4-fold, P < 0.001) and 1.4-fold (1.02, 1.7-fold, P < 0.05), respectively. However, no pharmacokinetic parameters were changed in PMs (Table 1). There were no differences in tmax of omeprazole between the control and fluvoxamine phases in any genotype patterns (Table 1).

image

Figure 1. Mean plasma concentration-time curves of omeprazole during placebo and fluvoxamine treatment in homozygous extensive metabolizers (EMs) (n = 6), heterozygous EMs (n = 6) and poor metabolizers (PMs) (n = 6) for CYP2C19. Data are shown as mean and bars are SD. Data during control (○); data during fluvoxamine treatment (•)

Download figure to PowerPoint

Table 1.  Pharmacokinetic parameters of omeprazole during placebo or fluvoxamine treatment in homozygous EMs, heterozygous EMs and PMs for CYP2C19
  Homozygous EMs (= 6)valueHeterozygous EMs (= 6)valuePMs (= 6)value
  1. Data are shown as geometric mean (95% confidence interval); *tmax is given as median (range); P values were shown when compared with fluvoxamine.

Cmax (ng ml−1)With placebo900 (617, 1287)  0.0071648 (949, 2566)0.009 2991 (2319, 3845)0.101
With fluvoxamine 3131 (1968, 4914) 3145 (2612, 3769)  3352 (2607, 4311) 
*tmax (h)With placebo 1.75 (1.5, 4.0)  0.414   2.5 (1.0, 4.0)0.059   2.0 (1.5, 4.0)0.786
With fluvoxamine 2.0 (1.5, 3.0)    4.0 (1.5, 4.0)    2.0 (1.5, 3.0) 
AUC(0,8 h)  (ng ml−1 h)With placebo 1481 (667, 2843)  0.0014225 (2322, 6577)0.002 11537 (8413, 15548)0.112
With fluvoxamine 7911 (5329, 11730) 9567 (8039, 11363) 13940 (10417, 18664) 
AUC(0,8)  (ng ml−1 h)With placebo1483 (664, 2858)  0.0024411 (2511, 6766)0.00115044 (10474, 21149)0.209
With fluvoxamine8340 (5533, 12557) 10507 (9082, 12129) 17348 (12171, 24688) 
Elimination  half-life (h)With placebo0.55 (0.40, 0.76)< 0.00011.08 (0.62, 1.67)0.049  2.83 (2.12, 3.71)0.277
With fluvoxamine1.39 (1.21, 1.60)   1.43 (1.04, 1.95)   2.59 (1.81, 3.64) 

There was a significant difference between the control AUC(0,8 h) of omeprazole in PMs during placebo administration and the AUC(0,8 h) of omeprazole after fluvoxamine in homozygous EMs and heterozygous EMs (anova; P = 0.024). Post hoc analyses revealed significant difference between the AUC(0,8 h) during the placebo phase in PMs and the increased AUC(0,8 h) in homozygous EMs (Scheffe; P = 0.032), but not between AUC(0,8 h) during the placebo phase in PMs and increased AUC(0,8 h) in heterozygous EMs (Scheffe; P = 0.108).

Although there were almost no changes in pharmacokinetic parameters of the metabolites, 5-hydroxyomeprazole (Table 2) or omeprazole sulphone (Table 3) between control and fluvoxamine phases, the AUC(0,8 h) ratios of 5-hydroxyomeprazole to omeprazole were significantly decreased during fluvoxamine treatment to 17 ± 5% (P < 0.05) in homozygous EMs and to 49 ± 15% (P < 0.01) in heterozygous EMs (Table 2). In PMs, no pharmacokinetic parameters were changed.

Table 2.  Pharmacokinetic parameters of 5-hydroxyomeprazole during placebo or fluvoxamine treatment in homozygous EMs, heterozygous EMs and PMs for CYP2C19
  Homozygous EMs (= 6)valueHeterozygous EMs (= 6)valuePMs (= 6)value
  1. Data are shown as geometric mean (95% confidence interval);*tmax is given as median (range); P values were shown when compared with fluvoxamine.

Cmax (ng ml−1)With placebo277 (165, 474)0.011 340 (269, 486)0.856   54 (33, 84)0.098
With fluvoxamine154 (68, 325)  358 (292, 437)    74 (31, 158) 
*tmax (h)With placebo1.75 (1.0, 4.0)0.854  2.5 (1.5, 6.0)0.917  3.5 (2.0, 6.0)0.129
With fluvoxamine 2.0 (1.5, 3.0)   4.0 (1.5, 4.0)   3.5 (2.0, 4.0) 
AUC(0,8 h) (ng ml−1 h)With placebo586 (362, 978)0.9721083 (844, 1286)0.560  262 (152, 422)0.145
With fluvoxamine540 (262, 1072)  1201 (1025, 1405)   304 (139, 602) 
AUC ratio to omeprazoleWith placebo0.39 (0.20, 0.85)0.0190.25 (0.19, 0.32)0.0060.017 (0.009, 0.030)0.736
With fluvoxamine0.07 (0.03, 0.13)  0.11 (0.10, 0.12) 0.018 (0.011, 0.030) 
Table 3.  Pharmacokinetic parameters of omeprazole sulphone during placebo or fluvoxamine treatment in homozygous EMs, heterozygous EMs and PMs for CYP2C19
  Homozygous EMs (= 6)valueHeterozygous EMs (= 6)valuePMs (= 6)value
  1. Data are shown as geometric mean (95% confidence interval). *tmax is given as median (range). P values were shown when compred with fluvoxamine.

Cmax (ng ml−1)With placebo  82 (42, 149)0.061160 (89, 201)0.025 274 (215, 347)0.156
With fluvoxamine133 (80, 213) 316 (203, 483)  316 (198, 493) 
*tmax (h)With placebo 2.5 (1.5, 4.0)0.257  3.5 (3.0, 8.0)0.083  7.0 (4.0, 8.0)0.783
With fluvoxamine 3.0 (3.0, 4.0)   6.0 (4.0, 8.0)   6.0 (4.0, 8.0) 
AUC(0,8 h) (ng ml−1 h)With placebo245 (107, 528)0.012 758 (326, 970)0.0091442 (991, 2047)0.062
With fluvoxamine717 (439, 1154) 1527 (962, 2376)  1710 (1114, 2590) 
AUC ratio to omeprazoleWith placebo0.16 (0.10, 0.26)0.0150.17 (0.12, 0.26)0.3400.10 (0.06, 0.15)0.805
With fluvoxamine0.09 (0.07, 0.11) 0.15 (0.11, 0.20) 0.10 (0.06, 0.15) 

Figure 2 shows the effect of CYP2C19 genotype on the mean fluvoxamine-mediated percent increase in pharmacokinetic parameters such as peak concentration (Cmax), AUC(0,8 h), and elimination half-life. The fluvoxamine-mediated percent increase in Cmax (anova, P = 0.0005), AUC(0,8 h) (P = 0.002) and elimination half-life (P < 0.0001), but not tmax (P = 0.300) significantly differed between the three CYP2C19 genotypes. Figure 3 shows the effect of CYP2C19 genotype on the mean fluvoxamine-mediated percent decrease in the AUC(0,8 h) ratio of 5-hydroxyomeprazole to omeprazole and the AUC(0,8 h) ratio of omeprazole sulphone to omeprazole. There was also a significant difference in the percent decrease in the AUC ratio of 5-hydroxyomeprazole to omeprazole between CYP2C19 genotypes (P < 0.0001), but not in the percent decrease in AUC(0,8 h) ratio of omeprazole sulphone to omeprazole (P = 0.079). The results of post hoc (Scheffe test) analyses are shown in Figures 2 and 3.

image

Figure 2. Effect of CYP2C19 genotype on the mean fluvoxamine-mediated percent increase in pharmacokinetic parameters such as peak concentration (Cmax), area under concentration-time curve (AUC) and elimination half-life. Error bars indicate SD

Download figure to PowerPoint

image

Figure 3. Effect of CYP2C19 genotype on the mean fluvoxamine-mediated percent decrease in the AUC ratio of 5-hydroxyomeprazole to omeprazole and the AUC ratio of omeprazole sulphone to omeprazole. Error bars indicate SD

Download figure to PowerPoint

There was a significant correlation between the fluvoxamine-mediated percent increase in AUC(0,8 h) of omeprazole and the AUC ratio of 5-hydroxyomeprazole to omeprazole (rs = 0.886, P < 0.001).

Discussion

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. References

Fluvoxamine has been regarded as a potent inhibitor of CYP1A2 [7–15], based on several drug–drug interaction studies. However, it is unlikely that the inhibitory effect of fluvoxamine on CYP1A2 had a significant effect upon the interaction in this study because the major enzyme catalyzing omeprazole metabolism is not CYP1A2, but CYP2C19 and CYP3A4.

The present study showed that a low dose of fluvoxamine (50 mg daily) significantly increased plasma omeprazole concentrations in both homozygous EMs and heterozygous EMs of CYP2C19, which is in line with our previous report [18]. Moreover, a pronounced reduction of the AUC ratio of 5-hydroxyomeprazole to omeprazole, which is regarded as an index of CYP2C19 activity, was found in homozygous EMs and heterozygous EMs. Therefore, this study confirms that fluvoxamine is a potent inhibitor of CYP2C19 in EMs of CYP2C19. On the other hand, in PMs, no difference in plasma concentration of omeprazole or the AUC ratio of 5-hydroxyomeprazole to omeprazole was found between control and fluvoxamine. This is a reasonable finding because CYP2C19, which fluvoxamine is expected to inhibit, has no activity in PMs. Based on these results in EMs and PMs therefore we concluded that the inhibitory effect of fluvoxamine on omeprazole metabolism was different between EMs and PMs. This phenomenon is in accordance with previous reports [24, 25].

There was a significant difference between the AUC(0,8 h) during placebo in PMs and the increased AUC(0,8 h) in homozygous EMs, but not between AUC(0,8 h) during placebo in PMs and the increased AUC(0,8 h) in heterozygous EMs. These findings were contrary to our expectations. Since the inhibitory effect of fluvoxamine occurs in a dose-dependent manner [18], pretreatment with 50 mg fluvoxamine daily for 5 days might not fully inhibit CYP2C19 activity in homozygous EMs, but it completely inhibited the CYP2C19 activity in heterozygous EMs, which is lower than that in in homozygous EMs.

The fluvoxamine-mediated percent increase in pharmacokinetic parameters of omeprazole except tmax and the percent decrease in the AUC ratio of 5-hydroxyomeprazole to omeprazole significantly differed between the three CYP2C19 genotypes (Figure 2). Furthermore, a significant correlation between the percentage of control in AUC of omeprazole and the AUC ratio of 5-hydroxyomeprazole to omeprazole was found. These findings suggest that the inhibitory effect of fluvoxamine occurs in a gene-dose-dependent manner and is clearly influenced by CYP2C19 activity.

A recent in vitro study has shown some involvement of P-glycoprotein in omeprazole transport [26], while an in vitro study with cell lines has recently demonstrated that the inhibitory effect of fluvoxamine on P-glycoprotein is intermediate [27]. Therefore, these findings imply possible mechanisms other than CYP2C19 inhibition. The bioavailability of omeprazole might, to some extent, be increased through inhibition of omeprazole transporting back to the intestinal lumen after absorption by fluvoxamine treatment, though the contribution of P-glycoprotein to omeprazole disposition and the inhibitory effect of fluvoxamine on P-glycoprotein is under further in vivo investigation.

The increased AUC of omeprazole during fluvoxamine treatment in heterozygous EMs similar to that during placebo in PMs has significant clinical implications, although the increased AUC in homozygous EMs was still significantly lower than the AUC in PMs. Several studies have suggested that the CYP2C19 genotype influences the cure rate of gastric acid-related disorders including eradication rate of H. pylori[28–32]. PMs for CYP2C19 have significantly higher eradication rates of H. pylori following treatment with such proton pump inhibitors as omeprazole, lansoprazole and rabeprazole than do EMs [28–31]. Therefore, the combination therapy of omeprazole and low dose of fluvoxamine may be helpful in the treatment of acid-related disorders. In addition, lack of major changes in AUC of omeprazole during fluvoxamine treatment in PMs suggests that co-administration of low-dose fluvoxamine does not influence outcomes in the treatment of acid-related disorders in PMs. If CYP2C19 genotype is not available, co-administration of low-dose fluvoxamine may be safer than increasing the omeprazole dose because low-dose fluvoxamine increases omeprazole exposure selectively in EMs, but not in PMs. However, further study is necessary to determine whether or not co-administration of low dose of fluvoxamine is clinically relevant as adjunctive therapy for eradication of H. pylori because several subjects suffered from side-effects probably caused by low dose of fluvoxamine treatment in the present study.

Although no side-effects due to the increased omeprazole exposure during the fluvoxamine administration were observed under the conditions of this study, repeated administration of both omeprazole and fluvoxamine might cause some adverse reaction to omeprazole. Furthermore, adverse reactions to fluvoxamine itself (e.g. serotonin toxicity) should be carefully monitored when clinical doses of these drugs are concomitantly prescribed.

In conclusion, even a low dose of fluvoxamine increased omeprazole exposure in EMs, but did not increase omeprazole exposure in PMs. The increased AUC(0,8 h) in heterozygous EMs was similar to that in PMs. These findings confirm a potent inhibitory effect of fluvoxamine on CYP2C19 activity.

We thank and Mr Daigo Nobumoto and Miss Mari Ito, Hirosaki University, School of Medicine (Hirosaki, Japan) for excellent technical assistance with HPLC.

References

  1. Top of page
  2. Abstract
  3. Introduction
  4. Methods
  5. Results
  6. Discussion
  7. References
  • 1
    Guerreiro AS, Neves BC, Quina MG. Omeprazole in the treatment of peptic ulcers resistant to H2-receptor antagonists. Aliment Pharmacol Ther 1990; 4: 30913.
  • 2
    Tybring G, Bottiger Y, Widen J, Bertilsson L. Enantioselective hydroxylation of omeprazole catalyzed by CYP2C19 in Swedish white subjects. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1997; 62: 12937.
  • 3
    De Morais SM, Wilkinson GR, Blaisdell J, Nakamura K, Meyer UA, Goldstein JA. The major genetic defect responsible for the polymorphism of S-mephenytoin metabolism in humans. J Biol Chem 1994; 269: 1541922.
  • 4
    Kimura M, Ieiri I, Wada Y, Mamiya K, Urae A, Iimori E, Sakai T, Otsubo K, Higuchi S. Reliability of the omeprazole hydroxylation index for CYP2C19 phenotyping. Possible effect of age, liver disease and length of therapy. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1999; 47: 1159.
  • 5
    Bottiger Y, Tybring G, Gotharson E, Bertilsson L. Inhibition of the sulfoxidation of omeprazole by ketoconazole in poor and extensive metabolizers of S-mephenytoin. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1997; 62: 38491.
  • 6
    Carrillo JA, Dahl ML, Svensson JO, Alm C, Rodriguez I, Bertilsson L. Disposition of fluvoxamine in humans is determined by the polymorphic CYP2D6 and also by the CYP1A2 activity. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1996; 60: 18390.
  • 7
    Jeppesen U, Loft S, Poulsen HE, Brsen K. A fluvoxamine–caffeine interaction study. Pharmacogenetics 1996; 6: 21322.
  • 8
    Jerling M, Lindstrom L, Bondesson U, Bertilsson L. Fluvoxamine inhibition and carbamazepine induction of the metabolism of clozapine: evidence from a therapeutic drug monitoring service. Ther Drug Monit 1994; 16: 36874.
  • 9
    Hiemke C, Weigmann H, Hartter S, Dahmen N, Wetzel H, Muller H. Elevated levels of clozapine in serum after addition of fluvoxamine. J Clin Psychopharmacol 1994; 14: 27981.
  • 10
    Callaghan JT, Bergstrom RF, Ptak LR, Beasley CM. Olanzapine. Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic profile. Clin Pharmacokinet 1999; 37: 17793.
  • 11
    Skjelbo E, Brosen K. Inhibitors of imipramine metabolism by human liver microsomes. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1992; 34: 25661.
  • 12
    Spina E, Pollicino AM, Avenoso A, Campo GM, Perucca E, Caputi AP. Effect of fluvoxamine on the pharmacokinetics of imipramine and desipramine in healthy subjects. Ther Drug Monit 1993; 15: 2436.
  • 13
    Vandel S, Bertschy G, Baumann P, Bouquet S, Bonin B, Francois T, Sechter D, Bizouard P. Fluvoxamine and fluoxetine. interaction studies with amitriptyline, clomipramine and neuroleptics in phenotyped patients. Pharmacol Res 1995; 31: 34753.
  • 14
    Bertschy G, Vandel S, Vandel B, Allers G, Volmat R. Fluvoxamine–tricyclic antidepressant interaction. An accidental finding. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1991; 40: 11920.
  • 15
    Sperber AD. Toxic interaction between fluvoxamine and sustained release theophylline in an 11-year-old boy. Drug Saf 1991; 6: 4602.
  • 16
    Rochat B, Amey M, Gillet M, Meyer UA, Baumann P. Identification of three cytochrome P450 isozymes involved in N-demethylation of citalopram enantiomers in human liver microsomes. Pharmacogenetics 1997; 7: 110.
  • 17
    Andersson T, Miners JO, Veronese ME, Birkett DJ. Identification of human liver cytochrome P450 isoforms mediating secondary omeprazole metabolism. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1994; 37: 597604.
  • 18
    Christensen M, Tybring G, Mihara K, Yasui-Furukori N, Carrillo JA, Ramos SI, Andersson K, Dahl ML, Bertilsson L. Low daily 10-mg and 20-mg doses of fluvoxamine inhibit the metabolism of both caffeine (cytochrome P4501A2) and omeprazole (cytochrome P4502C19). Clin Pharmacol Ther 2002; 71: 14152.
  • 19
    Jeppesen U, Rasmussen BB, Brosen K. Fluvoxamine inhibits the CYP2C19-catalyzed bioactivation of chloroguanide. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1997; 62: 27986.
  • 20
    Yasui N, Otani K, Kaneko S, Ohkubo T, Osanai T, Sugawara K, Chiba K, Ishizaki T. A kinetic and dynamic study of oral alprazolam with and without erythromycin in humans: in vivo evidence for the involvement of CYP3A4 in alprazolam metabolism. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1996; 59: 5149.
  • 21
    Fleishaker JC, Hulst LK. A pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic evaluation of the combined administration of alprazolam and fluvoxamine. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1994; 46: 359.
  • 22
    De Morais SM, Wilkinson GR, Blaisdell J, Meyer UA, Nakamura K, Goldstein JA. Identification of a new genetic defect responsible for the polymorphism of (S)-mephenytoin metabolism in Japanese. Mol Pharmacol 1994; 46: 5948.
  • 23
    Kobayashi K, Chiba K, Sohn DR, Kato Y, Ishizaki T. Simultaneous determination of omeprazole and its metabolites in plasma and urine by reversed-phase high-performance liquid chromatography with an alkaline-resistant polymer-coated C18 column. J Chromatogr 1992; 579: 299305.
  • 24
    , YuKS, Yim DS, Cho JY, Park SS, Park JY, Lee KH, Jang IJ, Yi SY, Bae KS, Shin SG. Effect of omeprazole on the pharmacokinetics of moclobemide according to the genetic polymorphism of CYP2C19. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2001; 69: 26673.
  • 25
    Cho JYYuKS, Jang IJ, Yang BH, Shin SG, Yim DS. Omeprazole hydroxylation is inhibited by a single dose of moclobemide in homozygotic EM genotype for CYP2C19. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2002; 53: 3937.
  • 26
    Pauli-Magnus C, Rekersbrink S, Klotz U, Fromm MF. Interaction of omeprazole, lansoprazole and pantoprazole with P-glycoprotein. Naunyn Schmiedebergs Arch Pharmacol 2001; 364: 5517.
  • 27
    Weiss J, Dormann SM, Martin-Facklam M, Kerpen CJ, Ketabi-Kiyanvash N, Haefeli WE. Inhibition of P-glycoprotein by newer antidepressants. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 2003; 305: 197204.
  • 28
    Furuta T, Ohashi K, Kamata T, Takashima M, Kosuge K, Kawasaki T, Hanai H, Kubota T, Ishizaki T, Kaneko E. Effect of genetic differences in omeprazole metabolism on cure rates for Helicobacter pylori infection and peptic ulcer. Ann Intern Med 1998; 129: 102730.
  • 29
    Tanigawara Y, Aoyama N, Kita T, Shirakawa K, Komada F, Kasuga M, Okumura K. CYP2C19 genotype-related efficacy of omeprazole for the treatment of infection caused by Helicobacter pylori. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1999; 66: 52834.
  • 30
    Furuta T, Shirai N, Takashima M, Xiao F, Hanai H, Nakagawa K, Sugimura H, Ohashi K, Ishizaki T. Effects of genotypic differences in CYP2C19 status on cure rates for Helicobacter pylori infection by dual therapy with rabeprazole plus amoxicillin. Pharmacogenetics 2001; 11: 3418.
  • 31
    Furuta T, Shirai N, Takashima M, Xiao F, Hanai H, Sugimura H, Ohashi K, Ishizaki T, Kaneko E. Effect of genotypic differences in CYP2C19 on cure rates for Helicobacter pylori infection by triple therapy with a proton pump inhibitor, amoxicillin, and clarithromycin. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2001; 69: 15868.
  • 32
    Furuta T, Shirai N, Watanabe F, Honda S, Takeuchi K, Iida T, Sato Y, Kajimura M, Futami H, Takayanagi S, Yamada M, Ohashi K, Ishizaki T, Hanai H. Effect of cytochrome P4502C19 genotypic differences on cure rates for gastroesophageal reflux disease by lansoprazole. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2002; 72: 45340.