4.6 Review

Role of Transporters in Drug Interactions

期刊

ARCHIVES OF PHARMACAL RESEARCH
卷 34, 期 11, 页码 1865-1877

出版社

PHARMACEUTICAL SOC KOREA
DOI: 10.1007/s12272-011-1107-y

关键词

Transporter; Drug interaction; Efflux; Uptake; ADME

资金

  1. NRF
  2. MEST [2010-0008596]
  3. National Research Foundation of Korea [2010-0008596] Funding Source: Korea Institute of Science & Technology Information (KISTI), National Science & Technology Information Service (NTIS)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Over the past few decades, a tremendous amount of work has been done on the molecular characterization of transport proteins in animals and humans, leading to a better understanding of the physiological roles of a number of transport proteins. Furthermore, there is increasing preclinical and clinical evidence to support the importance of transport proteins in the pharmacokinetics and toxicokinetics of a wide variety of structurally diverse drugs. As a consequence, the degree of expression and functionality of transport proteins may directly affect the therapeutic effectiveness, safety and target specificity of drugs. Recently, there has also been increased awareness about potential drug-drug, drug-herb and drug-food interactions involving transporters. Traditionally, a change in metabolic clearance of a drug, particularly via cytochrome P450-mediated metabolism, has been considered the cause of many clinically important drug interactions. However, increasing evidence suggests that some drug interactions result from changes in the activity and/or expression of drug transporters. Accordingly, assessment of the clinical relevance of transporter-mediated drug interactions has become a regulatory issue during the drug approval process and also the evaluation of drug interaction potential has become an integral part of risk assessment during drug development processes. Therefore, this review will highlight the role of some selected drug transporters in drug interactions, as well as their clinical implication.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据