Exploring the impact of CYP2D6 and UGT2B7 gene-drug interactions, and CYP-mediated DDI on oxycodone and oxymorphone pharmacokinetics using physiologically-based pharmacokinetic modeling and simulation
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Oxycodone is one of the most commonly used opioids to treat moderate to severe pain. It is metabolized mainly by CYP3A4 and CYP2D6, while only a small fraction of the dose is excreted unchanged into the urine. Oxymorphone, the metabolite primarily formed by CYP2D6, has a 40- to 60-fold higher mu-opioid receptor affinity than the parent compound. While CYP2D6-mediated gene-drug-interactions (GDIs) and drug-drug interactions (DDIs) are well-studied, they only account for a portion of the variability in oxycodone and oxymorphone exposure. The combined impact of CYP2D6-mediated GDIs and DDIs, CYP3A4-mediated DDIs, and UGT2B7 GDIs is not fully understood yet and hard to study in head-to-head clinical trials given the relatively large number of scenarios. Instead, we propose the use of a physiologically-based pharmacokinetic model that integrates available information on oxycodone's metabolism to characterize and predict the impact of DDIs and GDIs on the exposure of oxycodone and its major, pharmacologically-active metabolite oxymorphone. To this end, we first developed and verified a PBPK model for oxycodone and its metabolites using published clinical data. The verified model was then applied to determine the dose-exposure relationship of oxycodone and oxymorphone stratified by CYP2D6 and UGT2B7 phenotypes respectively, and administered perpetrators of CYP-based drug interactions. Our simulations demonstrate that the combination of CYP2D6 UM and a UGT2B7Y (268) mutation may lead to a 2.3-fold increase in oxymorphone exposure compared to individuals who are phenotyped as CYP2D6 NM / UGT2B7 NM. The extent of oxymorphone exposure increases up to 3.2-fold in individuals concurrently taking CYP3A4 inhibitors, such as ketoconazole. Inhibition of the CYP3A4 pathway results in a relative increase in the partial metabolic clearance of oxycodone to oxymorphone. Oxymorphone is impacted to a higher extent by GDIs and DDIs than oxycodone. We predict oxymorphone exposure to be highest in CYP2D6 UMs/UGT2B7 PMs in the presence of ketoconazole (strong CYP3A4 index inhibitor) and lowest in CYP2D6 PMs/UGT2B7 NMs in the presence of rifampicin (strong CYP3A4 index inducer) covering a 55-fold exposure range.
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 | 0.003 | 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 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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".