The impact of proton pump inhibitors on the pharmacokinetics of voriconazole in vitro and in vivo
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Voriconazole (VRC) and proton pump inhibitors (PPIs) have similar metabolic pathways. The objectives of the study are to evaluate the impact of PPIs on the pharmacokinetics of VRC. Human liver microsomes model was applied to assess the inhibitory effects of PPIs on the metabolism of VRC in vitro. A retrospective study was also carried out to explore the relationship between the plasma VRC trough concentrations and PPIs uses. Patients were divided into six groups: control (n = 166), lansoprazole (LAN, n = 38), esomeprazole (ESO, n = 19), omeprazole (OME, n = 45), pantoprazole (PAN, n = 43), and ilaprazole (ILA, n = 38) groups. All five PPIs showed concentration-dependent inhibitory effects on the VRC metabolism in human liver microsomes, among which LAN, OME and ESO were three of the most potent inhibitors. Consistently, co-administered with LAN, OME and ESO significantly increased the plasma VRC trough levels (p < 0.05), whereas there was no significant association between VRC concentrations and PAN or ILA use. Interestingly, patients in the PPIs groups were more likely to reach the therapeutic VRC range of 1-5.5 μg/mL in steady state when compared with control patients (75-81% VS 69%). In conclusion, although all PPIs showed inhibitory effects on the VRC metabolism in vitro, only LAN, OME and ESO significantly increased VRC plasma concentrations. This study should be helpful for choice of the type of PPIs for patients administered with VRC.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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".