MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2326174046 · doi:10.1097/cad.0000000000000212

Effect of gastric pH on erlotinib pharmacokinetics in healthy individuals

2015· article· en· W2326174046 on OpenAlex

Why this work is in the frame

A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.

affAt least one author lists a Canadian institution in the pinned OpenAlex snapshot.

Bibliographic record

VenueAnti-Cancer Drugs · 2015
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicLung Cancer Treatments and Mutations
Canadian institutionsHamilton Medical Research Group
FundersGenentech
KeywordsErlotinibRanitidinePharmacologyCmaxPharmacokineticsMedicineOmeprazoleErlotinib HydrochlorideTolerabilityProton-pump inhibitorGastroenterologyInternal medicineEpidermal growth factor receptorAdverse effectCancer

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of coadministration of acid-reducing agents on the pharmacokinetic exposure of orally administered epidermal growth factor receptor inhibitor erlotinib, a drug that displays pH-dependent solubility. Two studies were conducted, the first with the proton pump inhibitor omeprazole and the second with the H2-receptor antagonist ranitidine. Twenty-four healthy male and female volunteers were enrolled in each study. Erlotinib was administered as a single oral 150 mg dose on day 1. After the washout a subsequent study period evaluated 150 mg erlotinib administered with the acid-reducing agent. Omeprazole (40 mg once daily) was given on days 11-14, concomitantly with erlotinib on day 15, and for two additional days (days 16-17). In the ranitidine study, on day 13, participants were randomized to either concomitant dosing (treatment B) or staggered administration (treatment C) of erlotinib and ranitidine and crossed over to the other treatment starting on day 27. For treatment B, ranitidine (300 mg once daily) was administered in the morning for 5 days, 2 h before erlotinib. For treatment C, ranitidine was administered as a divided dose (150 mg twice daily) for 5 days, with erlotinib given 10 h after the previous evening dose and 2 h before the next ranitidine morning dose. Plasma samples were obtained for determination of the concentrations of erlotinib and its metabolite OSI-420, following each erlotinib dose. All participants were monitored for safety and tolerability. The geometric mean ratios of AUC0-∞ and Cmax for erlotinib and AUC0-last and Cmax for OSI-420 were substantially decreased when erlotinib was dosed with omeprazole. The estimated mean ratio (90% confidence interval) for erlotinib was 0.54 (0.49-0.59) for AUC0-∞ and 0.39 (0.32-0.48) for Cmax. For OSI-420, the estimated mean ratio was 0.42 (0.37-0.48) for AUC0-last and 0.31 (0.24-0.41) for Cmax. AUC0-∞ and Cmax for erlotinib were substantially decreased by 33 and 54%, respectively, upon coadministration with ranitidine, but the decrease was only 15 and 17% when ranitidine and erlotinib were given staggered. Similar results were observed for the metabolite OSI-420. Erlotinib was generally well-tolerated alone or in combination with omeprazole or ranitidine. Erlotinib pharmacokinetic exposure was substantially reduced upon coadministration with omeprazole and ranitidine, but not when administered with a staggered dosing approach to ranitidine. Therefore, it is recommended that the concomitant use of erlotinib with proton pump inhibitors be avoided. If treatment with an H2-receptor antagonist such as ranitidine is required, erlotinib must be administered 10 h after the H2-receptor antagonist dosing and at least 2 h before the next dose of the H2-receptor antagonist.

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.

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not 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.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.499
Threshold uncertainty score0.469

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.024
GPT teacher head0.394
Teacher spread0.370 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it