Lack of Interaction of Buprenorphine With Flunitrazepam Metabolism
Bibliographic record
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: The authors' goal was to determine if the reported clinical adverse interaction of flunitrazepam and buprenorphine was caused by inhibition of drug metabolism. METHOD: Inhibition of flunitrazepam metabolism by buprenorphine and norbuprenorphine were determined in three human liver microsome preparations carrying the CYP2C19*1/*1 allele. Omeprazole metabolism mediated by CYP2C19 and CYP3A4 was used as a control reaction. Apparent K(i) values were determined. RESULTS: Norbuprenorphine did not inhibit the metabolism of flunitrazepam or omeprazole. Buprenorphine inhibited the formation of CYP3A4-mediated pathways of 3-hydroxyflunitrazepam and omeprazole sulfone formation (K(i) 118 and 16 microM) in human liver microsomes. Corresponding values were 38 and 90 microM in cDNA-expressed CYP3A4 microsomes. Projected in vivo inhibition of CYP3A4-mediated metabolism of flunitrazepam by buprenorphine is 0. 1%-2.5%. Estimated inhibition of buprenorphine N-dealkylation by flunitrazepam in vivo is 0.08%. CONCLUSIONS: The clinical interaction of flunitrazepam and buprenorphine is likely based on a pharmacodynamic mechanism.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".