Skeletal muscle relaxant drug-drug-drug interactions and unintentional traumatic injury: Screening to detect three-way drug interaction signals.

AIM: The aim of this study was to identify skeletal muscle relaxant (SMR) drug-drug-drug interaction (3DI) signals associated with increased rates of unintentional traumatic injury. METHODS: We conducted automated high-throughput pharmacoepidemiologic screening of 2000-2019 healthcare data for members of United States commercial and Medicare Advantage health plans. We performed a self-controlled case series study for each drug triad consisting of an SMR base-pair (i.e., concomitant use of an SMR with another medication), and a co-dispensed medication (i.e., candidate interacting precipitant) taken during ongoing use of the base-pair. We included patients aged ≥16 years with an injury occurring during base-pair-exposed observation time. We used conditional Poisson regression to calculate adjusted rate ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for injury with each SMR base-pair + candidate interacting precipitant (i.e., triad) versus the SMR-containing base-pair alone. RESULTS: Among 58 478 triads, 29 were significantly positively associated with injury; confounder-adjusted RRs ranged from 1.39 (95% CI = 1.01-1.91) for tizanidine + omeprazole with gabapentin to 2.23 (95% CI = 1.02-4.87) for tizanidine + diclofenac with alprazolam. Most identified 3DI signals are new and have not been formally investigated. CONCLUSION: We identified 29 SMR 3DI signals associated with increased rates of injury. Future aetiologic studies should confirm or refute these SMR 3DI signals.

Comparative Risk of Injury with Concurrent Use of Opioids and Skeletal Muscle Relaxants.

Concurrent use of skeletal muscle relaxants (SMRs) and opioids has been linked to an increased risk of injury. However, it remains unclear whether the injury risks differ by specific SMR when combined with opioids. We conducted nine retrospective cohort studies within a US Medicaid population. Each cohort consisted exclusively of person-time exposed to both an SMR and one of the three most dispensed opioids-hydrocodone, oxycodone, and tramadol. Opioid users were further divided into three cohorts based on the initiation order of SMRs and opioids-synchronically triggered, opioid-triggered, and SMR-triggered. Within each cohort, we used Cox proportional hazard models to compare the injury rates for different SMRs compared to methocarbamol, adjusting for covariates. We identified 349,543, 139,458, and 218,967 concurrent users of SMRs with hydrocodone, oxycodone, and tramadol, respectively. In the oxycodone-SMR-triggered cohort, the adjusted hazard ratios (HRs) were 1.86 (95% CI, 1.23-2.82) for carisoprodol and 1.73 (1.09-2.73) for tizanidine. In the tramadol-synchronically triggered cohort, the adjusted HRs were 0.69 (0.49-0.97) for metaxalone and 0.62 (0.42-0.90) for tizanidine. In the tramadol-SMR-triggered cohort, the adjusted HRs were 1.51 (1.01-2.26) for baclofen and 1.48 (1.03-2.11) for cyclobenzaprine. All other HRs were statistically nonsignificant. In conclusion, the relative injury rate associated with different SMRs used concurrently with the three most dispensed opioids appears to vary depending on the specific opioid and the order of combination initiation. If confirmed by future studies, clinicians should consider the varying injury rates when prescribing SMRs to individuals using hydrocodone, oxycodone, and tramadol.

Predicting substrates of the human breast cancer resistance protein using a support vector machine method.

BACKGROUND: Human breast cancer resistance protein (BCRP) is an ATP-binding cassette (ABC) efflux transporter that confers multidrug resistance in cancers and also plays an important role in the absorption, distribution and elimination of drugs. Prediction as to if drugs or new molecular entities are BCRP substrates should afford a cost-effective means that can help evaluate the pharmacokinetic properties, efficacy, and safety of these drugs or drug candidates. At present, limited studies have been done to develop in silico prediction models for BCRP substrates. In this study, we developed support vector machine (SVM) models to predict wild-type BCRP substrates based on a total of 263 known BCRP substrates and non-substrates collected from literature. The final SVM model was integrated to a free web server. RESULTS: We showed that the final SVM model had an overall prediction accuracy of ~73% for an independent external validation data set of 40 compounds. The prediction accuracy for wild-type BCRP substrates was ~76%, which is higher than that for non-substrates. The free web server (http://bcrp.althotas.com) allows the users to predict whether a query compound is a wild-type BCRP substrate and calculate its physicochemical properties such as molecular weight, logP value, and polarizability. CONCLUSIONS: We have developed an SVM prediction model for wild-type BCRP substrates based on a relatively large number of known wild-type BCRP substrates and non-substrates. This model may prove valuable for screening substrates and non-substrates of BCRP, a clinically important ABC efflux drug transporter.

Application of receiver operating characteristic analysis to refine the prediction of potential digoxin drug interactions.

In the 2012 Food and Drug Administration (FDA) draft guidance on drug-drug interactions (DDIs), a new molecular entity that inhibits P-glycoprotein (P-gp) may need a clinical DDI study with a P-gp substrate such as digoxin when the maximum concentration of inhibitor at steady state divided by IC50 ([I1]/IC50) is ≥0.1 or concentration of inhibitor based on highest approved dose dissolved in 250 ml divide by IC50 ([I2]/IC50) is ≥10. In this article, refined criteria are presented, determined by receiver operating characteristic analysis, using IC50 values generated by 23 laboratories. P-gp probe substrates were digoxin for polarized cell-lines and N-methyl quinidine or vinblastine for P-gp overexpressed vesicles. Inhibition of probe substrate transport was evaluated using 15 known P-gp inhibitors. Importantly, the criteria derived in this article take into account variability in IC50 values. Moreover, they are statistically derived based on the highest degree of accuracy in predicting true positive and true negative digoxin DDI results. The refined criteria of [I1]/IC50 ≥ 0.03 and [I2]/IC50 ≥ 45 and FDA criteria were applied to a test set of 101 in vitro-in vivo digoxin DDI pairs collated from the literature. The number of false negatives (none predicted but DDI observed) were similar, 10 and 12%, whereas the number of false positives (DDI predicted but not observed) substantially decreased from 51 to 40%, relative to the FDA criteria. On the basis of estimated overall variability in IC50 values, a theoretical 95% confidence interval calculation was developed for single laboratory IC50 values, translating into a range of [I1]/IC50 and [I2]/IC50 values. The extent by which this range falls above the criteria is a measure of risk associated with the decision, attributable to variability in IC50 values.

Antidepressant drug-drug-drug interactions associated with unintentional traumatic injury: Screening for signals in real-world data.

Antidepressants are associated with traumatic injury and are widely used with other medications. It remains unknown how drug-drug-drug interactions (3DIs) between antidepressants and two other drugs may impact potential injury risks associated with antidepressants. We aimed to generate hypotheses regarding antidepressant 3DI signals associated with elevated injury rates. Using 2000-2020 Optum's de-identified Clinformatics Data Mart, we performed a self-controlled case series study for each drug triad consisting of an antidepressant + codispensed drug (base-pair) with a candidate interacting medication (precipitant). We included persons aged greater than or equal to 16 years who (1) experienced an injury and (2) used a candidate precipitant, during base-pair therapy. We compared injury rates during observation time exposed to the drug triad versus the base-pair only, adjusting for time-varying covariates. We calculated adjusted rate ratios (RRs) using conditional Poisson regression and accounted for multiple comparisons via semi-Bayes shrinkage. Among 147,747 eligible antidepressant users with an injury, we studied 120,714 antidepressant triads, of which 334 (0.3%) were positively associated with elevated injury rates and thus considered potential 3DI signals. Adjusted RRs for signals ranged from 1.31 (1.04-1.65) for sertraline + levothyroxine with tramadol (vs. without tramadol) to 6.60 (3.23-13.46) for escitalopram + simvastatin with aripiprazole (vs. without aripiprazole). Nearly half of the signals (137, 41.0%) had adjusted RRs greater than or equal to 2, suggesting strong associations with injury. The identified signals may represent antidepressant 3DIs of potential clinical concern and warrant future etiologic studies to test these hypotheses.

Importance of multi-p450 inhibition in drug-drug interactions: evaluation of incidence, inhibition magnitude, and prediction from in vitro data.

Drugs that are mainly cleared by a single enzyme are considered more sensitive to drug-drug interactions (DDIs) than drugs cleared by multiple pathways. However, whether this is true when a drug cleared by multiple pathways is coadministered with an inhibitor of multiple P450 enzymes (multi-P450 inhibition) is not known. Mathematically, simultaneous equipotent inhibition of two elimination pathways that each contribute half of the drug clearance is equal to equipotent inhibition of a single pathway that clears the drug. However, simultaneous strong or moderate inhibition of two pathways by a single inhibitor is perceived as an unlikely scenario. The aim of this study was (i) to identify P450 inhibitors currently in clinical use that can inhibit more than one clearance pathway of an object drug in vivo and (ii) to evaluate the magnitude and predictability of DDIs caused by these multi-P450 inhibitors. Multi-P450 inhibitors were identified using the Metabolism and Transport Drug Interaction Database. A total of 38 multi-P450 inhibitors, defined as inhibitors that increased the AUC or decreased the clearance of probes of two or more P450s, were identified. Seventeen (45%) multi-P450 inhibitors were strong inhibitors of at least one P450, and an additional 12 (32%) were moderate inhibitors of one or more P450s. Only one inhibitor (fluvoxamine) was a strong inhibitor of more than one enzyme. Fifteen of the multi-P450 inhibitors also inhibit drug transporters in vivo, but such data are lacking on many of the inhibitors. Inhibition of multiple P450 enzymes by a single inhibitor resulted in significant (>2-fold) clinical DDIs with drugs that are cleared by multiple pathways such as imipramine and diazepam, while strong P450 inhibitors resulted in only weak DDIs with these object drugs. The magnitude of the DDIs between multi-P450 inhibitors and diazepam, imipramine, and omeprazole could be predicted using in vitro data with similar accuracy as probe substrate studies with the same inhibitors. The results of this study suggest that inhibition of multiple clearance pathways in vivo is clinically relevant, and the risk of DDIs with object drugs may be best evaluated in studies using multi-P450 inhibitors.

Population-based screening to detect benzodiazepine drug-drug-drug interaction signals associated with unintentional traumatic injury.

Drug interactions involving benzodiazepines and related drugs (BZDs) are increasingly recognized as a contributor to increased risk of unintentional traumatic injury. Yet, it remains unknown to what extent drug interaction triads (3DIs) may amplify BZDs' inherent injury risk. We identified BZD 3DI signals associated with increased injury rates by conducting high-throughput pharmacoepidemiologic screening of 2000-2019 Optum's health insurance data. Using self-controlled case series design, we included patients aged ≥ 16 years with an injury while using a BZD + co-dispensed medication (i.e., base pair). During base pair-exposed observation time, we identified other co-dispensed medications as candidate interacting precipitants. Within each patient, we compared injury rates during time exposed to the drug triad versus to the base pair only using conditional Poisson regression, adjusting for time-varying covariates. We calculated rate ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) and accounted for multiple estimation via semi-Bayes shrinkage. Among the 65,123 BZD triads examined, 79 (0.1%) were associated with increased injury rates and considered 3DI signals. Adjusted RRs for signals ranged from 3.01 (95% CI = 1.53-5.94) for clonazepam + atorvastatin with cefuroxime to 1.42 (95% CI = 1.00-2.02, p = 0.049) for alprazolam + hydrocodone with tizanidine. These signals may help researchers prioritize future etiologic studies to investigate higher-order BZD interactions.

Population-based signals of benzodiazepine drug interactions associated with unintentional traumatic injury.

Benzodiazepine receptor agonists and related medications, such as Z-drugs and dual orexin receptor antagonists (BZDs), have been associated with unintentional traumatic injury due to their central nervous system (CNS)-depressant effects. Drug-drug interactions (DDIs) may contribute to the known relationship between BZD use and unintentional traumatic injury, yet evidence is still lacking. We conducted high-throughput pharmacoepidemiologic screening using the self-controlled case series design in a large US commercial health insurance database to identify potentially clinically relevant DDI signals among new users of BZDs. We used conditional Poisson regression to estimate rate ratios (RRs) between each co-exposure (vs. not) and unintentional traumatic injury (primary outcome), typical hip fracture (secondary outcome), and motor vehicle crash (secondary outcome). We identified 48 potential DDI signals (1.1%, involving 39 unique co-dispensed drugs), i.e., with statistically significant elevated adjusted RRs for injury. Signals were strongest for DDI pairs involving zolpidem, lorazepam, temazepam, alprazolam, eszopiclone, triazolam, and clonazepam. We also identified four potential DDI signals for typical hip fracture, but none for motor vehicle crash. Many signals have biologically plausible explanations through additive or synergistic pharmacodynamic effects of co-dispensed antidepressants, opioids, or muscle relaxants on CNS depression, impaired psychomotor and cognitive function, and/or somnolence. While other signals that lack an obvious mechanism may represent true associations that place patients at risk of injury, it is also prudent to consider the roles of chance, reverse causation, and/or confounding by indication, which merit further exploration. Given the high-throughput nature of our investigation, findings should be interpreted as hypothesis generating.

Consensus recommendations for systematic evaluation of drug-drug interaction evidence for clinical decision support.

BACKGROUND: Healthcare organizations, compendia, and drug knowledgebase vendors use varying methods to evaluate and synthesize evidence on drug-drug interactions (DDIs). This situation has a negative effect on electronic prescribing and medication information systems that warn clinicians of potentially harmful medication combinations. OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to provide recommendations for systematic evaluation of evidence for DDIs from the scientific literature, drug product labeling, and regulatory documents. METHODS: A conference series was conducted to develop a structured process to improve the quality of DDI alerting systems. Three expert workgroups were assembled to address the goals of the conference. The Evidence Workgroup consisted of 18 individuals with expertise in pharmacology, drug information, biomedical informatics, and clinical decision support. Workgroup members met via webinar 12 times from January 2013 to February 2014. Two in-person meetings were conducted in May and September 2013 to reach consensus on recommendations. RESULTS: We developed expert consensus answers to the following three key questions. (i) What is the best approach to evaluate DDI evidence? (ii) What evidence is required for a DDI to be applicable to an entire class of drugs? (iii) How should a structured evaluation process be vetted and validated? CONCLUSION: Evidence-based decision support for DDIs requires consistent application of transparent and systematic methods to evaluate the evidence. Drug compendia and clinical decision support systems in which these recommendations are implemented should be able to provide higher-quality information about DDIs.