Premium
Drug‐drug interaction and doping, part 1: An in vitro study on the effect of non‐prohibited drugs on the phase I metabolic profile of toremifene
Author(s) -
Mazzarino Monica,
Torre Xavier,
Fiacco Ilaria,
Palermo Amelia,
Botrè Francesco
Publication year - 2014
Publication title -
drug testing and analysis
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.065
H-Index - 54
eISSN - 1942-7611
pISSN - 1942-7603
DOI - 10.1002/dta.1592
Subject(s) - pharmacology , ketoconazole , drug interaction , fluconazole , drug , cimetidine , phospholipidosis , pharmacokinetics , chemistry , medicine , biochemistry , antifungal , phospholipid , dermatology , membrane
The present study was designed to provide preliminary information on the potential impact of metabolic drug‐drug interaction on the effectiveness of doping control strategies currently followed by the anti‐doping laboratories to detect the intake of banned agents. In vitro assays based on the use of human liver microsomes and recombinant CYP isoforms were designed and performed to characterize the phase I metabolic profile of the prohibited agent toremifene, selected as a prototype drug of the class of selective oestrogen receptor modulators, both in the absence and in the presence of medicaments (fluconazole, ketoconazole, itraconazole, miconazole, cimetidine, ranitidine, fluoxetine, paroxetine, nefazodone) not included in the World Anti‐Doping Agency list of prohibited substances and methods and frequently administered to athletes. The results show that the in vitro model developed in this study was adequate to simulate the in vivo metabolism of toremifene, confirming the results obtained in previous studies. Furthermore, our data also show that ketoconazole, itraconazole, miconazole and nefazodone cause a marked modification in the production of the metabolic products (i.e. hydroxylated and carboxylated metabolites) normally selected by the anti‐doping laboratories as target analytes to detect toremifene intake; moderate variations were registered in the presence of fluconazole, paroxetine and fluoxetine; while no significant modifications were measured in the presence of ranitidine and cimetidine. This evidence imposes that the potential effect of drug‐drug interactions is duly taken into account in anti‐doping analysis, also for a broader significance of the analytical results. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.