About this Journal Submit a Manuscript Table of Contents
Journal of Biomedicine and Biotechnology
Volume 2011 (2011), Article ID 187103, 14 pages
http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2011/187103
Review Article

Sex Differences in Drug Disposition

1Departments of Oncology, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC 20057, USA
2Departments of Medicine, Physiology, Obstetrics and Gynecology, Georgetown University Medical Center, Washington, DC 20057, USA
3Lombardi Comprehensive Cancer Center, LL, S-166, Georgetown University Medical Center, 3800 Reservoir Road, N.W., Washington, DC 20057, USA
4Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, National Institutes of Health, Rockville, MD 20852-3902, USA

Received 29 October 2010; Revised 20 December 2010; Accepted 5 January 2011

Academic Editor: Stelvio M. Bandiera

Copyright © 2011 Offie P. Soldin et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

Abstract

Physiological, hormonal, and genetic differences between males and females affect the prevalence, incidence, and severity of diseases and responses to therapy. Understanding these differences is important for designing safe and effective treatments. This paper summarizes sex differences that impact drug disposition and includes a general comparison of clinical pharmacology as it applies to men and women.

1. Introduction

At the core of personalized medicine is the identification of factors influencing disease processes and therapy [1, 2]. Consequently, characterizing the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of a drug in diverse populations is essential in improving therapeutic effectiveness while minimizing adverse events [3]. For a drug to work, it is necessary to reach and maintain a minimum drug concentration at the site(s) of action. Exceeding the effective concentration will increase risk of adverse events. Accordingly, drug concentrations must be maintained within a defined therapeutic range.

Many factors influence circulating drug concentrations, as well as the concentrations at the sites of action, and determine the resulting outcome [4]. Sex, in particular, can influence how the body handles a drug as well as what the drug does to the body. This paper, which examines sex differences in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, is an update of current knowledge on this topic and includes peer-reviewed literature published until October 2010 [5]. The keywords used were: sex/gender differences, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, adverse drug events, and sex differences in drug metabolism/elimination. All reviewed manuscripts pertain to publications concerning humans only, written and published in the English language.

1.1. Gender Differences versus Sex Differences

Gender, a social construct, is expressed in terms of masculinity and femininity. It is defined by the way people perceive themselves and how they expect others to behave. Gender is largely determined by culture. Sex differences result from the classification of organisms based on genetic composition as well as reproductive organs and function [6]. Men and women differ in response to drug treatment and occupational exposures, a consequence of differences in body weight, height, body surface area, total body water, and the amount of extracellular and intracellular water. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics are also attributable to the differences seen between males and females [5, 79].

1.2. General Background

Since pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and responses during clinical trials differ between men and women, U.S. FDA regulations and guidance are in place to ensure that both sexes are represented in all phases of clinical trials and that medical products are labeled to alert physicians and patients to sex differences in drug responses. In 1999, the National Institutes of Health published the “Agenda for Research on Women’s Health for the 21st Century,” concluding that sex-related differences in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics must be further assessed.

In an effort to overcome gaps in knowledge regarding the actions of drugs in women, more women are now included in clinical trials. The NIH Biennial Report of the Director of 2006-2007 reported that in 2006, of 624 extramural and intramural phase III clinical research protocols (499,430 participants), 63% were women [10, 11]. More attention is currently being drawn towards the ways in which clinical therapeutics can be tailored according to sex, age, body weight, and genotype to yield the best possible outcomes [12].

2. Sex Differences in Adverse Events

The FDA Adverse Events Reporting System (AERS) is a voluntary database of adverse events. Based on an analysis of AERS data and other data resources, women experience more adverse events than men, and in general, these adverse events are of a more serious nature [1317]. The U.S. General Accounting Office (GAO) reviewed the ten drugs withdrawn from the market during the period January 1, 1997 through December 2000; eight of the ten were withdrawn due to greater risks of adverse effects in women [18].

Sex-related differences in the frequencies of adverse events reporting may be due to pharmacokinetic or pharmacodynamic factors, polypharmacy, or differences in reporting patterns [19] (Table 1). Women are generally smaller and have a different body composition than men, the recommended dose may result in higher drug concentrations or area under the concentration time curve (AUC) in women because the drug has lower clearance and/or smaller volume of distribution ( ) [20]. Alternatively, pharmacodynamic factors (alterations in drug-target numbers or responses) may increase female sensitivity to specific drugs [21]. In this instance, free drug concentrations and drug persistence would be similar in men and women, but women would respond to a greater or lesser extent. It is also possible that sex differences between men and women result in similar rates of adverse events but that women experience more severe events. Another plausible explanation might be attributed to prescribing patterns; women ingest more medications than men, increasing the risk of adverse events from drug-drug interactions.

tab1
Table 1: Suggested reasons for sex differences in adverse event reporting.

3. Sex Differences in Pharmacokinetics

3.1. Drug Absorption and Bioavailability

Drug absorption and bioavailability are influenced by drug- and route-specific factors (oral, dermal, rectal, vaginal, intramuscular, intravenous, intra-arterial, intrathecal, and intraperitoneal). Routes of absorption occur across body surfaces, such as the gastrointestinal tract, respiratory tract, or skin, which differ in males and females. For example, drug absorption occurs at different sites throughout the gastrointestinal tract, and rate of absorption is influenced by gut transit times, lipid solubility of the agent, pH at the site of absorption, and the ionization and molecular weight of the agent [5]. Transit times differ significantly in men and women, with mean transit times being shorter in men (44.8 hours) than in women (91.7 hours) [22]. While fiber ingestion decreases transit time, female gut transit times are consistently longer [22]. Sex differences have also been noted in bile acid composition, which may impact the solubility of various drugs. Men have higher concentrations of cholic acid, while women have higher concentrations of chenodeoxycholic acid [23].

The FDA evaluated sex differences in bioequivalence among 26 studies submitted to the agency between 1977 and 1995 [20, 24]. It is a major concern that over a 20-year period, only 26 studies submitted to the FDA had data addressing sex differences in drug absorption. Among the 26 studies, there were 47 datasets addressing sex differences in maximum concentration (Cmax) and AUC. None of the datasets had more than 20 individuals of each sex. Most had no more than 10 men or women, so the sample size available to assess sex differences in bioavailability was limited. However, among these studies, the Cmax was greater in women 87% of the time and AUC was greater in women 71% of the time.

Other investigators have utilized multidrug cocktails to assess bioavailability and metabolism across age and sex [25]. The advantage of this approach is the ability to phenotype multiple cytochrome P450 (CYP) enzymes including CYP1A2, 2C19, 2D6, 2E1, and 3A4 (although differences in intestinal and hepatic metabolism and transport may complicate the interpretation of the data). Using this approach, the investigators suggested that the activities of CYPs 2C19, 2D6, and 3A4 were equivalent and that the activities of CYPs 1A2 and 2E1 were decreased in women than in men. However, using well-characterized human liver samples, another group of investigators observed ~2-fold greater hepatic CYP3A4 activity in women, suggesting sex differences in first pass metabolism and bioavailability [26]. Analysis of 24 studies of CYP3A4 substrates observed that clearance was greater in women than men for 15 substrates (60%) [27]. These divergent data suggest that sex differences in absorption and bioavailability remain unresolved.

In addition to sex differences in bioavailability, it is important to consider that food interactions (e.g., grapefruit juice), gut motility and transit time, gut pH, biliary secretion and gut flora, enterohepatic circulation and oral contraceptives can differentially influence the bioavailability of a drug in men and women [28, 29]. For example, it was recently observed that polyethylene glycol enhances the bioavailability of ranitidine in men and decreases it in women [30]. Sex differences in bioavailability of Cyclosporine A have also been observed after a fat-rich meal: decreased bioavailability in females and increased bioavailability in males [31]. It has been hypothesized that, because of differences in subcutaneous lipid content, the bioavailability of transdermally administered drugs is different in women [32]. Additionally, women have greater respiratory minute ventilation and lower tidal volume, which may result in decreased ingestion of inhaled aerosol drugs, such as ribavirin and cyclosporine, although only limited data are available so far [23, 33].

3.1.1. Gastric and Hepatic Enzymes

An important part of bioavailability includes the gastric and hepatic enzymes and transport proteins that oral drugs interact with prior to reaching the systemic circulation [34, 35]. Gastric and hepatic enzymes and transporters change across the course of development, forming the basis for sex differences [36]. These metabolic and transport processes are critical for the success or failure of drugs developed for oral use [35]. Successful oral drugs are soluble, permeable, and poorly metabolized by intestinal and hepatic enzymes. For example, the bioavailability of alcohol is greater in women than in men, with Cmax and AUC being greater. These can be partly ascribed to differences in and gastric alcohol dehydrogenase activity [37].

3.1.2. Transport Proteins

Transport proteins play a critical role in transporting drugs into and out of all cells and are consequently involved in hepatobiliary and urinary excretion [34]. Tissue distribution and elimination pathways, as well as efficacy and toxicity of drugs, are explained in many cases by transport proteins. One interesting example is paclitaxel neurotoxicity, which appears to be dependent on phenotypic and genotypic variation in CYP3A4/5, as well as transport proteins (OATP 1B1/3 and PGP), which vary with sex [38]. Variability in the intestinal expression of transport proteins may result in sex differences in plasma drug concentrations. For example, p-glycoprotein (PGP), a membrane adenosine triphosphatase transporter protein found in high concentrations in the enterocytes of the small intestine, is encoded by the multidrug resistance transporter-1 gene (MDR1) expressed in the human intestine, liver and other tissues [39]. PGP, expressed in higher numbers in men, has been shown to decrease intracellular concentrations of certain drugs at the intestine by transporting them out of the enterocytes and back into the intestinal lumen. This mechanism results in the drug being repeatedly exposed to intestinal drug-metabolizing enzymes [23, 40]. Synthetic and endogenous sex hormones have been shown to regulate PGP expression and inhibit PGP function at the gut wall, enhancing drug absorption [41]. Absorptive transporters such as H+/ditripeptide transporter and organic anion transporting polypeptide (OATP) facilitate drug absorption, while efflux transporters such as PGP sometimes work as drug absorption barriers [42].

Sex differences are also exhibited by the serotonin 5-HT1A receptor and serotonin transporter (5-HTT), which is a target for selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs), psychotropic drugs used in the treatment of depression, anxiety, and personality disorders. Women have significantly higher 5-HT1A receptor and lower 5-HTT binding potentials throughout the cortical and subcortical brain regions and exhibit a positive correlation between 5-HT1A receptor and 5-HTT binding potentials for the hippocampus. Thus, sex differences in 5-HT1A receptor and 5-HTT binding potentials may result in biological distinctions in the serotonin system, thereby contributing to sex differences in the prevalence of psychiatric disorders such as depression and anxiety [43].

3.1.3. Enterohepatic and Renal Handling of Drugs or Metabolites

Gastric fluids are generally more acidic in males than females (pH 1.92 versus pH 2.59), and basal and maximal flow of gastric fluid and acid secretion are both higher in men [44]. Reduced pH results in decreased absorption of weak acids and increased absorption of weak bases. The absorption of antidepressants, the majority of which are weak bases, is greatly increased in women, further enhanced by slower rates of gastric emptying and prolonged gut transit times [45].

The kidneys are responsible for the maintenance of water/electrolyte balance, the synthesis, metabolism, and secretion of hormones, and excretion of waste products from metabolism as well as most drugs and xenobiotics. The human kidney demonstrates sex-related differences in the subunits of glutathione-S-transferase isoenzyme [46].

Iron also has significant differences between males and females in gastrointestinal absorption. In preadolescent males and females, it has been shown that 45% of ingested iron is incorporated into erythrocytes by females compared to 35% in males (iron-regulated surface determinant −0.78) [47, 48].

3.2. Distribution

Once absorbed and in the circulation, most drugs bind to plasma proteins. Distribution is a function of multiple physiologic and body composition characteristics. Sex differences in these parameters may account for differences in the concentration of a drug at the target site and result in varying responses. However, differences in protein binding between men and women are generally rare, and there is still no convincing link between protein-binding differences and sex-specific ADRs, with the exception of lignocaine and diazepam [48]. On average, total body water, extracellular water, intracellular water, total blood volume, plasma volume, and red blood cell volume are greater for men. Therefore, if an average man and an average woman are exposed to the same dose of a water-soluble drug, will be increased in the man, thus decreasing drug concentration.

For lipid-soluble drugs, there is generally an increased in females. Alcohol, a water-soluble drug, has a smaller in women than in men, producing higher Cmax in women [49]. The values of salbutamol (albuterol) and ofloxacin have been shown to be significantly greater in men, most likely due to sex differences in lean body mass [50]. The liver accounts for a greater percentage of lean body mass in women compared to men. It is currently believed that the larger liver mass and smaller observed in women accounts for the more rapid rate of elimination of alcohol from the blood [51].

Sex differences in blood distribution and regional blood flow can also impact pharmacokinetics. In general, the reference values for resting blood flow to organs and tissues for 35-year-old males and females show significant differences as a percentage of cardiac output. For example, blood flow to skeletal muscle is greater for men and to adipose tissue is greater for women. These differences may reflect sexbased differences in the percentage of total body mass represented by each tissue [52]. Blood distribution will also impact clearance rates. Females exhibit decreased liver blood flow rates which, despite higher CYP3A4 amounts and activity, may result in lower drug clearance [45].

The main binding proteins for various drugs in plasma are albumin, -acid glycoprotein (AAG), and globulins. AAG levels and AAG glycosylations vary in association with endogenous and exogenous estrogen, inducing hepatic glycosylation of these proteins and thus decreasing plasma AAG levels. Albumin concentrations do not consistently vary by sex [53]. Estrogens also increase the levels of the serum-binding globulins (sex-hormone-binding globulin, corticosteroid-binding globulin, and thyroxin-binding globulin) [54]. Sex-related differences in plasma binding of selected compounds are listed in Table 2. Variations in levels of plasma binding can alter the free (active) fraction of drugs.

tab2
Table 2: Sex differences in plasma binding.

Therapeutic drug monitoring is the measurement of specific drugs in order to maintain a relatively constant circulating drug concentration. Drugs that are monitored tend to have a narrow “therapeutic range”—the drug quantity required to be effective is not far removed from the quantity that causes significant side effects and/or signs of toxicity. Maintaining drug concentrations within the therapeutic range is not as simple as giving a standard dose of medication. Often, if the free fraction increases, there is a shift of the drug to the tissues/target or resultant higher clearance, with the total concentration not changing, for example, phenytoin.

3.2.1. Body Composition

Body fat as a percentage of total body weight is higher in women than in men and increases by age in both sexes [55]. The total body fat values are 13.5 kg in an adult reference male and 16.5 kg for an adult reference female [56]. The larger proportions of body fat in women may increase the body burden of lipidsoluble, slowly metabolized toxicants. Differences in body fat and in organ blood flow in women have been implicated in the faster onset of action and prolonged duration of neuromuscular blockade in women (e.g., vecuronium and rocuronium) [57, 58]. Differences in body fat content and in protein binding are responsible for sex-related pharmacokinetic differences in the distribution of diazepam (free fraction: in females 1.67% versus 1.46% in males). Females have been shown to have larger than males ( = 1.87 versus 1.34 L/kg) [59].

Several studies have observed that when dose is corrected by body weight, some of the sex differences seen in pharmacokinetics disappear [20]. This suggests body weight (and by inference, composition) may be responsible for some differences seen in drug disposition. A recent study examined the plasma concentrations of the antibiotic clindamycin in twenty-four male and female subjects. Higher plasma concentrations were seen in women. However, when the 600 mg dose was normalized to individual body weight, plasma concentrations between men and women were comparable [60]. Aliskirin, an antihypertensive rennin inhibitor, as well as fluconazole, an antifungal drug, both appear to require dosage adjustments by body weight [61, 62]. Furthermore, the pharmacokinetics of citalopram does not display differences between males and females when adjusted by dose and body weight [63].

3.2.2. Cardiac Output

Cardiac output and regional distribution of flow are important for drug disposition. Cardiac output is commonly standardized and reported as the cardiac index, which is similar for both sexes between 18 and 44 years of age. The distribution of cardiac output, or regional blood flow, is similar for men and women for some organs (adrenal 0.3%, bone 5%, brain 12%, lung 2.5%, skin 5%, and thyroid 1.5%, reported as percent of cardiac output) and different for others (adipose: male = 5%, female = 8.5%; heart: male = 4%, female = 5%; kidney: male = 19%, female = 17%; liver: male = 25%, female = 27%; muscle: male = 17%, female = 12%), reflecting sex-based differences in body composition [64].

3.3. Drug Metabolism

Drug metabolism (biotransformation) occurs predominantly in the liver, as well as in extrahepatic sites such as the intestinal tract, lung, kidney, and skin. Hepatocytes and intestinal cells express significant levels of CYP3A and phase II enzymes such as uridine diphosphate glucoronosyltransferase (UGT), which may significantly contribute to the first pass metabolism of many orally administered drugs (see discussion above on bioavailability). Lipid solubility, protein binding, the dose, and the route of exposure all affect the rate of biotransformation.

Despite the large variations in drug metabolism among individuals, correction for height, weight, surface area, and body composition eliminates some but not all of the “sex-dependent” differences. However, sex-dependent differences in biotransformation have been observed for drugs such as nicotine, chlordiazepoxide, flurazepam, aspirin (acetylsalicylic acid), and heparin [6569].

3.3.1. Cytochrome P450 (CYP) Group

The main enzymes involved in drug metabolism belong to the CYPs. These are a large family of related enzymes housed in the smooth endoplasmic reticulum of the cell. While the CYP enzymes discussed in this paper are all coded for by autosomal chromosomes, it is possible that sex-related disparities in pharmacokinetics arise from variations in the regulation of the expression and activity of CYP enzymes through endogenous hormonal influences. For reviews that deal specifically with CYP enzymes, please refer to [23, 7076].

3.3.2. Hepatic and Extrahepatic Metabolism

Ingested compounds may remain unchanged (and possibly accumulate in a storage compartment) or, based on their degree of lipophilicity and polarity, they may be subject to metabolism. Hepatic drug metabolism is divided into two usually sequential enzymatic reactions: phase I and phase II reactions. Some of the CYP enzymes show clear sex-related differences (Table 3). In general, lipophilic compounds have a tendency to pass through biological membranes and/or be stored and are often susceptible to phase I types of metabolism [77].

tab3
Table 3: Sex differences in hepatic clearance by route of metabolism/elimination.

Sex-related differences have been shown for some CYPs, with a higher activity in females for CYP3A4 (Table 3) [78]. An analysis of previously published studies of 14 different drugs demonstrated that females displayed an average of 20–30% increased clearance for drugs that were CYP3A substrates compared to those of males [27]. In 2009, Lutz and colleagues demonstrated for the first time in a Caucasian population that the endogenous marker for CYP3A activity—the metabolic ratio of 6 -hydroxycortisol to cortisol found in urine—was significantly increased in females compared to males [79].

By studying the activity of sex hormones, as a consequence of physiological, pathological, or pharmacological manipulations, researchers now believe that many of the changes seen in CYP enzymes may be gender specific [36]. The sex-dependent expression of CYP3A4 is thought to be regulated by sex-specific temporal patterns of plasma growth hormone release by the pituitary gland. Males display a pulsatile pattern while females exhibit a more continuous pattern of release. Growth hormone regulation of CYP3A4 has been discerned in primary human hepatocyte cultures; CYP3A4 protein and mRNA are induced by continuous treatment with growth hormone and suppressed with pulsatile treatment [80]. CYP3A4 activity, however, has not been seen to vary throughout the menstrual cycle, suggesting that sex hormones may not be responsible for the gender-specific expression observed [23].

Antihistamines, in particular, have been shown to exhibit sex-specific differences in pharmacokinetics. They act as CYP2D6 substrates, which have been shown to exhibit slower metabolic elimination in women. This may explain why women are more vulnerable to sedation and drowsiness effects of antihistamines than men. Gender differences in PGP expression in the brain may also underlie the sedative side effects often experienced by women [23].

However, even if there are true sex differences in drug pharmacokinetics, only few drugs exhibit significantly different plasma concentrations in women. A comprehensive review of second-generation (atypical) antipsychotics concludes that even though sex differences in cases of adverse events have not been well studied, some adverse effects such as weight gain, hyperprolactinemia, and cardiac effects, are particularly problematic for women [81]. Most studies that were reviewed indicate that clozapine and olanzapine are associated with greater body weight gain than other atypical antipsychotics and that serious adverse effects such as metabolic syndrome (which includes increased visceral adiposity, hyperglycemia, hypertension and dyslipidemia induced by atypical antipsychotics) are more frequent in females. Although women are at a lower risk of sudden cardiac death, they have a higher risk of induced long-QT syndrome from antiarrhythmic and, probably, antipsychotic drugs [82, 83]. This adverse effect has been seen with drugs that block cardiac voltage-gated potassium channels, prolonging repolarization and the QT interval [23].

Metabolism of chemicals may be estimated by basal metabolic rates. For all ages, on average, men have a higher basal metabolic rate than women. Since the metabolism of adipose tissue differs from that of muscle tissue, some of the differences between men and women are attributable to body composition metabolism of adipose tissue [84]. A lower basal metabolic rate per unit body surface area reflects the lower lean body mass in women due to a smaller skeletal muscle component [85].

Hepatic clearance of drugs is a function of liver blood flow and hepatic enzyme activity. Although cardiac output and hepatic blood flow are lower in women than in men normalized per m2/kg, sex differences in hepatic enzymes also play a major role in determining sex-related pharmacokinetic activity. At the canalicular surface of hepatocytes, PGP will direct the biliary excretion of certain drugs, and its expression has been found to be twofold lower in women than in men. Consequently, women display increased and sustained intracellular concentrations of PGP substrates, increased activity of hepatic drug-metabolizing enzymes, and thus increased clearance of the drug [23]. Much is unknown regarding PGP expression although it is currently thought to be controlled and regulated by sex hormones.

3.4. Drug Elimination

Two processes, metabolism and elimination, are responsible either separately or together for drug inactivation. Without these means, drugs would continuously circulate throughout our bodies, bind to various receptors, and interrupt important physiological processes. Drugs are generally eliminated from the body by renal, hepatic, or pulmonary routes. Consequently, drugs may be eliminated from the body in sweat, tears, breast milk, and expired air. The most common routes are via feces and urine.

The kidney is the major organ of drug excretion of either the parent drug compounds or drug metabolites. There are known sex differences in all three major renal functions-glomerular filtration, tubular secretion and tubular reabsorption. Renal clearance is generally higher in men [86, 87]. A recent study on the transdermal absorption of fentanyl, a pain management drug for cancer patients, found that particularly at high doses, urinary excretion of fentanyl was markedly decreased in women. Gender also has a significant impact on the elimination of the loop diuretic torasemide, contributing to higher rates of adverse drug reactions in women. Hospitalizations due to ADRs from diuretics are more prevalent in women, irrespective of differences in prescription rates between the sexes [88]. Adjusting for age, body mass index (BMI), and modification of diet in renal disease (MDRD), oral clearance of torasemide was on average one-third lower in women, associated with 30%–40% higher mean AUC24 and   values in females than in males [88].

Renal function is important for elimination. Chemicals can be excreted into the urine through glomerular filtration, passive diffusion, and active secretion. Increases in renal blood flow and glomerular filtration increase the elimination rate of drugs cleared by the kidneys. When standardized for body surface area, renal blood flow, glomerular filtration, tubular secretion, and tubular reabsorption are all greater in men than in women [89, 90].

3.5. Anesthesia and Opioids

Sex-dependent differences among the three primary opioid receptor subtypes—mu, delta, and kappa—have been extensively studied. The kappa opioid receptor subtype may be sex-dependently modulated by Mc1r, a gene that encodes for melanocortin-1 receptors. Women with two or more variant alleles of this gene were more responsive to pentazocine than women with one or no variants of the gene. This antinociceptive phenomenon was not seen in men [91]. Morphine, a mu-opioid receptor agonist, has been shown to be more potent and also exhibits a slower onset and offset in women [92]. Additionally, women perceived more pain and required greater dosages of morphine to achieve the same antinociceptive effect as men [93]. This may be explained by the higher mu-opioid receptor binding in various cortical and subcortical brain regions exhibited in women than in men. According to a 2009 comprehensive review on sex-specific influences on pain, women appear to be not only more sensitive to pain but also more vulnerable to chronic, widespread, and postprocedural pain conditions [94]. Designing and tailoring treatment plans for pain may certainly need to take sex into account.

3.6. Self-Administered Drugs

Sex differences in pharmacokinetics of self administered drugs and in drug dependence have also been explored. Biologically, it is believed that sex and gonadal hormones underlie many of the differences seen in drug sensitivity, addictive behavior, and susceptibility to drug abuse. In general, women appear to be more vulnerable to the rewarding and dependent properties of cannabinoids, alcohol, opioids, and cocaine. Many animal models of gender influences on substance abuse have confirmed clinical findings [95]. With an ever-growing population using self-administered drugs and the pressing need to effectively address and treat substance abuse, larger clinical studies focusing on this topic must be carried out.

4. Sex Differences in Pharmacodynamics

For cortisol and first-generation antihistamines, there appears to be significant sex differences in pharmacodynamics. Because women are more sensitive to cortisol suppression, they may also be more sensitive to the effects on basophils and helper T lymphocytes [9698]. This is interesting because of the balance in sex differences in both pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, suggesting that men and women should receive the same dose and treatment schedule. A recent epidemiological study showed that women being treated for allergic diseases display lowered levels of eosinophils and IgE than men [23]. Additionally, there appear to be a lower expression of ERK/MAPK signaling genes, leukocyte extravasation, antigen presentation, and chemokine signaling in women than in men [23]. Sex differences in pharmacodynamics may also affect cardiovascular medications. Digoxin therapy has been shown to differ by sex and was associated with an increase in all-cause death among women [99].

5. Sex-Specific Conditions That Impact Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics

5.1. Influence of Sex Hormones

There are numerous examples supporting the contention that female sex hormones impact drug-metabolizing pathways. For example, drug-induced long QT syndrome has a higher rate of incidence in females, particularly during the ovulatory phase of the menstrual cycle compared to the luteal phase [100]. It has been established that there exists a basal sex hormonal regulatory impact on cardiac potassium channels and that in drug-induced QT prolongation, drug-hormone interactions seen at particular doses cause a blockade in these channels [101103]. Heightened sensitivity to opioids in females has been consistently observed. We now know that opioid receptor density and dopaminergic function is influenced by female hormones, leading to a higher rate of ADRs in women under anesthesia [104], such as difficulties in respiration and increased chronic pain. Moreover, sex hormones have also been implicated in functional altering of GABA receptors, the target of anesthetic drugs [105].

Estrogen has membrane, cytosolic, and nuclear targets [106]. Estrogen has been shown to bind and modulate membrane ion channels and receptors, such as cardiac ATP-K+ cardiac channels and opioid receptors. The estrogen receptor is a cytosolic target which serves to trigger downstream kinase activation [107]. Nuclear targets include hormone receptors such as ER , which directly modulates CYP1B1 expression [108]. A recent review on sex differences in pharmacokinetics of antidepressants highlights possible hormone-drug competition for hepatic metabolic enzymes. Since estrogen is a substrate for CYP3A4 and CYP1A2, antidepressant metabolism may be significantly impacted during the late luteal phase of the menstrual cycle or with estrogen replacement therapy [45].

5.2. Changes in Sex Hormone Levels

Increased levels of estrogen and progesterone alter hepatic enzyme activity, which can increase drug accumulation or decrease elimination of some drugs. Female steroid hormones and prolactin play a role in autoimmunity. Regulation of immunity and interactions between the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal and hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal axes contribute to the 2- to 10-fold incidence and severity of autoimmune/inflammatory diseases in females compared to males. Most autoimmune diseases are detected in females of childbearing age. Metabolic changes can also depend on hormone levels that change during the menstrual cycle, with use of oral contraceptives, throughout pregnancy, or during menopause. For example, some asthmatic women have worsening symptoms before or during menstruation [109]. An increase in oxidative stress in females has been described during intensive physical exercise, particularly in postmenopausal women [110]. Moreover, sex hormone levels throughout the menstrual cycle are associated with the activation of specific hepatic enzymes and the rate of clearance of certain drugs. Caffeine and theophylline clearance, for example, is higher during the early follicular phase and prolonged during the mid-luteal phase [39].

Although sex hormones are thought to play a dominant role in modulating sex-based differences in pharmacokinetics, studies examining this have yielded conflicting results. Midazolam clearance (reflecting CYP3A4 metabolic activity) failed to show fluctuations during the menstrual cycle [111]. Similarly, studies of eletriptan (to treat migraines) demonstrated no sex-related or menstrual cycle-related differences [112].

5.3. Menopause

There are conflicting data that exist on pharmacokinetic changes in women relating to menopausal status. To examine menopause-related alterations in intestinal or hepatic CYP3A4 activity, several studies compared the pharmacokinetics of midazolam, erythromycin, and prednisolone clearance in pre- and postmenopausal women and found no significant differences in drug metabolism according to menopausal status [113].

5.4. Use of Data in Pharmacokinetics

Data acquired on sex differences in absorption, distribution, metabolism and elimination allow exploration of sex differences in disposition and response to chemicals and drugs. Results from clinical trials focusing on HIV-infected female subjects have suggested that there are clinically relevant sex-related differences in the efficacy and safety of drug treatment (Table 4) [114].

tab4
Table 4: Some drugs that display sex differences in pharmacokinetics.*

6. Conclusions

Males and females may differ in specific drug pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. It is, therefore, essential to understand those sex differences in drug disposition and response, as they may affect drug safety and effectiveness. To minimize therapeutic adverse events, clinicians and the pharmaceutical industry must establish clear therapeutic goals for the drugs of choice prior to treatment of women. It must be determined if the treatment should be assessed by clinical signs and symptoms or by laboratory test results whether drug toxicity will be evaluated by clinical or laboratory assessment, and what determines the appropriate duration of treatment. Furthermore, clinicians should be aware of and understand the principles of clinical pharmacology and absorption, disposition, metabolism, and elimination as they apply to the drug of choice. In particular, the prescribing physician should understand the relationship between drug dose, drug concentration and desired biological effect at the action site, the mechanism of action of the drug, the impact of the chosen drug on the patient’s signs, symptoms of adverse effects, and laboratory testing.

In general, data on sex differences are mostly obtained by post hoc analysis; therefore, the conclusions that can be drawn are limited. For a better understanding of the basic mechanisms of sex differences, future large-scale prospective studies should be designed with a primary focus on this topic. Although we have been able to articulate many of the sex differences in drug absorption, metabolism, and elimination, it is still necessary to identify the specific ADRs these differences can lead to as well as the mechanisms behind differences seen in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics between the sexes. In particular, the potential for competitive hormone-drug interactions could provide us with more detailed mechanisms behind the pharmacokinetic differences seen between sexes. Further genetic studies in the context of drug toxicity and ADRs would contribute to our understanding of gender-specific pharmacokinetics. More specific data will help to determine the extent to which these differences will have implications for clinical management.

Abbreviations

AAG:Alpha-1 acid glycoprotein
ADR:Adverse Drug Reactions
AERS:Adverse Events Reporting System
ABC:ATP-binding cassette
ADME:Absorption, distribution, metabolism, and excretion
BMR:Basal metabolic rates
CO:Cardiac output
CYP3A:Cytochrome P450-3A
ER:Elimination rate
FDA:Food and Drug Administration
GAO:General Accounting Office
GFR:Glomerular filtration rate
GST:Glutathione-S-transferase isoenzyme
HPA:Hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal
HPG:Hypothalamic-pituitary-gonadal
IOM:Institute of Medicine
MDR1:Multidrug resistance transporter-1
NIH:National Institutes of Health
OATP:Organic anion transporting polypeptide
PEPT1:H+/ditripeptide transporter
PGP:p-glycoprotein
SGAs:Second-generation (atypical) antipsychotics
SSRI:Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors
UGT:Uridine diphosphate glucoronosyl transferase.

Conflict of Interests

The authors declare no conflict of interests.

Acknowledgment

Dr. Soldin is partially supported by NIH/NICHD-supplement to the Obstetric-Fetal Pharmacology Research Unit Network Grant 5U10HD0478925, funds from the Office of Research on Women’s Health and FAMRI Clinical Innovator Award.

References

  1. M. J. Legato, Principles of Gender-Specific Medicine, Academic Press, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2010.
  2. M. J. Legato and J. P. Bilezikian, Principles of Gender-Specific Medicine, Elsevier Academic Press, Boston, Mass, USA, 2004.
  3. M. A. Hamburg and F. S. Collins, “The path to personalized medicine,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 363, no. 4, pp. 301–304, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  4. J. G. Hardman, L. E. Limbird, and A. G. Gilman, Goodman & Gilman's the Pharmacological Basis of Therapeutics, McGraw-Hill, New York, NY, USA, 2001.
  5. O. P. Soldin and D. R. Mattison, “Sex differences in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics,” Clinical Pharmacokinetics, vol. 48, no. 3, pp. 143–157, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  6. “Exploring the biological contributions to human health: does sex matter?” Journal of Women's Health and Gender-Based Medicine, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 433–439, 2001.
  7. K. Messing and J. Mager Stellman, “Sex, gender and women's occupational health: the importance of considering mechanism,” Environmental Research, vol. 101, no. 2, pp. 149–162, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  8. S. H. Zahm, A. Blair, and D. D. Weisenburger, “Sex differences in the risk of multiple myeloma associated with agriculture,” British Journal of Industrial Medicine, vol. 49, no. 11, pp. 815–816, 1992. View at Scopus
  9. “The Science of Sex and Gender in Human Health,” 2010, http://sexandgendercourse.od.nih.gov/.
  10. A. Marrocco and D. E. Stewart, “We've come a long way, maybe: recruitment of women and analysis of results by sex in clinical research,” Journal of Women's Health and Gender-Based Medicine, vol. 10, no. 2, pp. 175–179, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  11. “Report of the Advisory Committee on Research on Women's Health; Fiscal Years,” 2005-2006, http://orwh.od.nih.gov/pubs/complete_ICD_report05_06.pdf.
  12. G. R. Robertson, D. M. Grant, and M. Piquette-Miller, “Pharmacogenetics of pharmacoecology: which route to personalized medicine?” Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, vol. 85, no. 4, pp. 343–348, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  13. Y. Zopf, C. Rabe, A. Neubert, E. G. Hahn, and H. Dormann, “Risk factors associated with adverse drug reactions following hospital admission: a prospective analysis of 907 patients in two German university hospitals,” Drug Safety, vol. 31, no. 9, pp. 789–798, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  14. C. Tran, S. R. Knowles, B. A. Liu, and N. H. Shear, “Gender differences in adverse drug reactions,” Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, vol. 38, no. 11, pp. 1003–1009, 1998. View at Scopus
  15. J. Gray, “Why can't a woman be more like a man?” Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, vol. 82, no. 1, pp. 15–17, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  16. J. B. Schwartz, “The current state of knowledge on age, sex, and their interactions on clinical pharmacology,” Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, vol. 82, no. 1, pp. 87–96, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  17. A. L. H. J. Aarnoudse, J. P. Dieleman, and B. H. C. Stricker, “Age- and gender-specific incidence of hospitalisation for digoxin intoxication,” Drug Safety, vol. 30, no. 5, pp. 431–436, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  18. “Drug safety: most drugs withdrawn in recent years had greater health risks for women,” 2010, http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d01286r.pdf.
  19. H. Zhang, D. Cui, B. Wang et al., “Pharmacokinetic drug interactions involving 17α-ethinylestradiol: a new look at an old drug,” Clinical Pharmacokinetics, vol. 46, no. 2, pp. 133–157, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  20. M. L. Chen, S. C. Lee, M. J. Ng, D. J. Schuirmann, L. J. Lesko, and R. L. Williams, “Pharmacokinetic analysis of bioequivalence trials: implications for sex-related issues in clinical pharmacology and biopharmaceutics,” Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, vol. 68, no. 5, pp. 510–521, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  21. S. J. Coker, “Drugs for men and women—how important is gender as a risk factor for TdP?” Pharmacology and Therapeutics, vol. 119, no. 2, pp. 186–194, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  22. A. M. Stephen, H. S. Wiggins, and H. N. Englyst, “The effect of age, sex and level of intake of dietary fibre from wheat on large-bowel function in thirty healthy subjects,” British Journal of Nutrition, vol. 56, no. 2, pp. 349–361, 1986. View at Scopus
  23. J. M. Nicolas, P. Espie, and M. Molimard, “Gender and interindividual variability in pharmacokinetics,” Drug Metabolism Reviews, vol. 41, no. 3, pp. 408–421, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  24. M. L. Chen, S. C. Lee, M. J. Ng, D. J. Schuirmann, L. J. Lesko, and R. L. Williams, “Pharmacokinetic analysis of bioequivalence trials: implications for sex-related issues in clinical pharmacology and biopharmaceutics,” Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, vol. 68, no. 5, pp. 510–521, 2000. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  25. Z. Bebia, S. C. Buch, J. W. Wilson et al., “Bioequivalence revisited: influence of age and sex on CYP enzymes,” Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, vol. 76, no. 6, pp. 618–627, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  26. R. Wolbold, K. Klein, O. Burk et al., “Sex is a major determinant of CYP3A4 expression in human liver,” Hepatology, vol. 38, no. 4, pp. 978–988, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  27. D. J. Greenblatt and L. L. von Moltke, “Gender has a small but statistically significant effect on clearance of CYP3A substrate drugs,” Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, vol. 48, no. 11, pp. 1350–1355, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  28. A. Karim, Z. Zhao, M. Slater, D. Bradford, J. Schuster, and A. Laurent, “Replicate study design in bioequivalency assessment, pros and cons: bioavailabilities of the antidiabetic drugs pioglitazone and glimepiride present in a fixed-dose combination formulation,” Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, vol. 47, no. 7, pp. 806–816, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  29. A. Karim, M. Slater, D. Bradford et al., “Oral antidiabetic drugs: bioavailability assessment of fixed-dose combination tablets of pioglitazone and metformin. Effect of body weight, gender, and race on systemic exposures of each drug,” Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, vol. 47, no. 1, pp. 37–47, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  30. D. A. I. Ashiru, R. Patel, and A. W. Basit, “Polyethylene glycol 400 enhances the bioavailability of a BCS class III drug (ranitidine) in male subjects but not females,” Pharmaceutical Research, vol. 25, no. 10, pp. 2327–2333, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  31. F. Kees, M. Bucher, F. Schweda, H. Gschaidmeier, L. Faerber, and R. Seifert, “Neoimmun versus Neoral: a bioequivalence study in healthy volunteers and influence of a fat-rich meal on the bioavailability of Neoimmun,” Naunyn-Schmiedeberg's Archives of Pharmacology, vol. 375, no. 6, pp. 393–399, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  32. M. Gandhi, F. Aweeka, R. M. Greenblatt, and T. F. Blaschke, “Sex differences in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics,” Annual Review of Pharmacology and Toxicology, vol. 44, pp. 499–523, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  33. K. Lindahl, L. Stahle, A. Bruchfeld, and R. Schvarcz, “High-dose ribavirin in combination with standard dose peginterferon for treatment of patients with chronic hepatitis C,” Hepatology, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 275–279, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  34. K. M. Giacomini, S. M. Huang, D. J. Tweedie et al., “Membrane transporters in drug development,” Nature Reviews Drug Discovery, vol. 9, no. 3, pp. 215–236, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  35. K. Kadono, T. Akabane, K. Tabata, K. Gato, S. Terashita, and T. Teramura, “Quantitative prediction of intestinal metabolism in humans from a simplified intestinal availability model and empirical scaling factor,” Drug Metabolism and Disposition, vol. 38, no. 7, pp. 1230–1237, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  36. M. J. Kennedy, “Hormonal regulation of hepatic drug-metabolizing enzyme activity during adolescence,” Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, vol. 84, no. 6, pp. 662–673, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  37. A. Parlesak, M. H. U. Billinger, C. Bode, and J. C. Bode, “Gastric alcohol dehydrogenase activity in man: influence of gender, age, alcohol consumption and smoking in a Caucasian population,” Alcohol and Alcoholism, vol. 37, no. 4, pp. 388–393, 2002. View at Scopus
  38. S. Leskelä, C. Jara, L. J. Leandro-García et al., “Polymorphisms in cytochromes P450 2C8 and 3A5 are associated with paclitaxel neurotoxicity,” Pharmacogenomics Journal. In press. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  39. F. F. Buchanan, P. S. Myles, and F. Cicuttini, “Patient sex and its influence on general anaesthesia,” Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, vol. 37, no. 2, pp. 207–218, 2009. View at Scopus
  40. G. Englund, F. Rorsman, A. Rönnblom et al., “Regional levels of drug transporters along the human intestinal tract: co-expression of ABC and SLC transporters and comparison with Caco-2 cells,” European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences, vol. 29, no. 3-4, pp. 269–277, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  41. M. Fröhlich, N. Albermann, A. Sauer, I. Walter-Sack, W. E. Haefeli, and J. Weiss, “In vitro and ex vivo evidence for modulation of P-glycoprotein activity by progestins,” Biochemical Pharmacology, vol. 68, no. 12, pp. 2409–2416, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  42. I. Tamai, A. Saheki, R. Saitoh, Y. Sai, I. Yamada, and A. Tsuji, “Nonlinear intestinal absorption of 5-hydroxytryptamine receptor antagonist caused by absorptive and secretory transporters,” Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics, vol. 283, no. 1, pp. 108–115, 1997. View at Scopus
  43. H. Jovanovic, J. Lundberg, P. Karlsson et al., “Sex differences in the serotonin 1A receptor and serotonin transporter binding in the human brain measured by PET,” NeuroImage, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 1408–1419, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  44. B. J. Salena and R. H. Hunt, “The stomach and duodenum,” in First Principles of Gastroenterology: The Basis of Disease and an Approach to Management, A. B. R. Thomson and E. A. Shaffer, Eds., Canadian Association of Gastroenterology/Astra Pharma, Mississauga, Canada, 2nd edition, 1994.
  45. K. L. Bigos, B. G. Pollock, B. A. Stankevich, and R. R. Bies, “Sex differences in the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of antidepressants: an updated review,” Gender Medicine, vol. 6, no. 4, pp. 522–543, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  46. L. Butera, D. A. Feinfeld, and M. Bhargava, “Sex differences in the subunits of glutathione-S-transferase isoenzyme from rat and human kidney,” Enzyme, vol. 43, no. 4, pp. 175–182, 1990. View at Scopus
  47. A. Jacobs, “Sex differences in iron absorption,” Proceedings of the Nutrition Society, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 159–162, 1976. View at Scopus
  48. P. A. Routledge, W. W. Stargel, B. B. Kitchell, A. Barchowsky, and D. G. Shand, “Sex-related differences in the plasma protein binding of lignocaine and diazepam,” British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, vol. 11, no. 3, pp. 245–250, 1981. View at Scopus
  49. M. J. P. Arthur, A. Lee, and R. Wright, “Sex differences in the metabolism of ethanol and acetaldehyde in normal subjects,” Clinical Science, vol. 67, no. 4, pp. 397–401, 1984. View at Scopus
  50. K. M. Sowinski, S. R. Abel, W. R. Clark, and B. A. Mueller, “Effect of gender on the pharmacokinetics of ofloxacin,” Pharmacotherapy, vol. 19, no. 4, pp. 442–446, 1999. View at Scopus
  51. A. W. Jones, “Evidence-based survey of the elimination rates of ethanol from blood with applications in forensic casework,” Forensic Science International, vol. 200, no. 1–3, pp. 1–20, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  52. L. R. Williams and R. W. Leggett, “Reference values for resting blood flow to organs of man,” Clinical Physics and Physiological Measurement, vol. 10, no. 3, pp. 187–217, 1989. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  53. M. Succari, M. J. Foglietti, and F. Percheron, “Microheterogeneity of α-acid glycoprotein: variation during the menstrual cycle in healthy women, and profile in women receiving estrogen-progestogen treatment,” Clinica Chimica Acta, vol. 187, no. 3, pp. 235–242, 1990. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  54. I. Wiegratz, E. Kutschera, J. H. Lee et al., “Effect of four different oral contraceptives on various sex hormones and serum-binding globulins,” Contraception, vol. 67, no. 1, pp. 25–32, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  55. C. M. Young and R. S. Tensuan, “Estimating the lean body mass of young women. Use of skeletal measurements,” Journal of the American Dietetic Association, vol. 42, pp. 46–51, 1963. View at Scopus
  56. F. E. Hytten, “Weight gain in pregnancy—30 years of research,” South African Medical Journal, vol. 60, no. 1, pp. 15–19, 1981. View at Scopus
  57. I. T. Houghton, C. S. T. Aun, and T. E. Oh, “Vecuronium: an anthropometric comparison,” Anaesthesia, vol. 47, no. 9, pp. 741–746, 1992. View at Scopus
  58. F. S. Xue, S. Y. Tong, X. Liao, J. H. Liu, G. An, and L. K. Luo, “Dose-response and time course of effect of rocuronium in male and female anesthetized patients,” Anesthesia and Analgesia, vol. 85, no. 3, pp. 667–671, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  59. H. R. Ochs, D. J. Greenblatt, and M. Divoll, “Diazepam kinetics in relation to age and sex,” Pharmacology, vol. 23, no. 1, pp. 24–30, 1981. View at Scopus
  60. M. del Carmen Carrasco-Portugal, M. Luján, and F. J. Flores-Murrieta, “Evaluation of gender in the oral pharmacokinetics of clindamycin in humans,” Biopharmaceutics and Drug Disposition, vol. 29, no. 7, pp. 427–430, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  61. V. Jarugula, C.-M. Yeh, D. Howard, C. Bush, D. L. Keefe, and W. P. Dole, “Influence of body weight and gender on the pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and antihypertensive efficacy of aliskiren,” Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, vol. 50, no. 12, pp. 1358–1366, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  62. T. Guo, W. J. Sun, D. Y. Xia, and L. S. Zhao, “The pharmacokinetics of fluconazole in healthy Chinese adult volunteers: influence of ethnicity and gender,” Journal of Clinical Pharmacy and Therapeutics, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 231–237, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  63. S. Fudio, A. M. Borobia, E. Piñana et al., “Evaluation of the influence of sex and CYP2C19 and CYP2D6 polymorphisms in the disposition of citalopram,” European Journal of Pharmacology, vol. 626, no. 2-3, pp. 200–204, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  64. ILSI Risk Science Institute Working Group on Physiological Parameters, International Life Sciences Institute, 1994.
  65. S. F. Cooper, D. Drolet, and R. Dugal, “Comparative bioavailability of two oral formulations of flurazepam in human subjects,” Biopharmaceutics and Drug Disposition, vol. 5, no. 2, pp. 127–139, 1984. View at Scopus
  66. D. J. Greenblatt, R. I. Shader, and K. Franke, “Kinetics of intravenous chlordiazepoxide: sex differences in drug distribution,” Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, vol. 22, no. 6, pp. 893–903, 1977. View at Scopus
  67. L. Aarons, K. Hopkins, M. Rowland, S. Brossel, and J. F. Thiercelin, “Route of administration and sex differences in the pharmacokinetics of aspirin, administered as its lysine salt,” Pharmaceutical Research, vol. 6, no. 8, pp. 660–666, 1989. View at Scopus
  68. N. R. C. Campbell, R. D. Hull, R. Brant, D. B. Hogan, G. F. Pineo, and G. E. Raskob, “Different effects of heparin in males and females,” Clinical and Investigative Medicine, vol. 21, no. 2, pp. 71–78, 1998. View at Scopus
  69. Z. Trnavska and K. Trnavsky, “Sex differences in the pharmacokinetics of salicylates,” European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, vol. 25, no. 5, pp. 679–682, 1983. View at Scopus
  70. M. J. Cupp and T. S. Tract, “Cytochrome P450: new nomenclature and clinical implications,” American Family Physician, vol. 57, no. 1, pp. 107–116, 1998. View at Scopus
  71. E. L. Michalets, “Update: clinically significant cytochrome P-450 drug interactions,” Pharmacotherapy, vol. 18, no. 1, pp. 84–112, 1998. View at Scopus
  72. B. Kalra, “Cytochrome P450 enzyme isoforms and their therapeutic implications: an update,” Indian Journal of Medical Sciences, vol. 61, no. 2, pp. 102–116, 2007. View at Scopus
  73. M. T. Donato and J. V. Castell, “Strategies and molecular probes to investigate the role of cytochrome P450 in drug metabolism: focus on in vitro studies,” Clinical Pharmacokinetics, vol. 42, no. 2, pp. 153–178, 2003. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  74. J. H. Lin and A. Y. H. Lu, “Inhibition and induction of cytochrome P450 and the clinical implications,” Clinical Pharmacokinetics, vol. 35, no. 5, pp. 361–390, 1998. View at Scopus
  75. G. K. Dresser, J. D. Spence, and D. G. Bailey, “Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic consequences and clinical relevance of cytochrome P450 3A4 inhibition,” Clinical Pharmacokinetics, vol. 38, no. 1, pp. 41–57, 2000. View at Scopus
  76. S. Zhou, S. Y. Chan, B. C. Goh et al., “Mechanism-based inhibition of cytochrome P450 3A4 by therapeutic drugs,” Clinical Pharmacokinetics, vol. 44, no. 3, pp. 279–304, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  77. J. M. Custodio, C. Y. Wu, and L. Z. Benet, “Predicting drug disposition, absorption/elimination/transporter interplay and the role of food on drug absorption,” Advanced Drug Delivery Reviews, vol. 60, no. 6, pp. 717–733, 2008. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  78. G. D. Anderson, “Sex differences in drug metabolism: cytochrome P-450 and uridine diphosphate glucuronosyltransferase,” Journal of Gender-Specific Medicine, vol. 5, no. 1, pp. 25–33, 2002. View at Scopus
  79. U. Lutz, N. Bittner, M. Ufer, and W. K. Lutz, “Quantification of cortisol and 6 beta-hydroxycortisol in human urine by LC-MS/MS, and gender-specific evaluation of the metabolic ratio as biomarker of CYP3A activity,” Journal of Chromatography B, vol. 878, no. 1, pp. 97–101, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  80. D. J. Waxman and M. G. Holloway, “Sex differences in the expression of hepatic drug metabolizing enzymes,” Molecular Pharmacology, vol. 76, no. 2, pp. 215–228, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  81. W. Aichhorn, A. B. Whitworth, E. M. Weiss, H. Hinterhuber, and J. Marksteiner, “Differences between men and women in side effects of second-generation antipsychotics,” Nervenarzt, vol. 78, no. 1, pp. 45–52, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  82. S. Choi, B. DiSilvio, J. Unangst, and J. D. Fernstrom, “Effect of chronic infusion of olanzapine and clozapine on food intake and body weight gain in male and female rats,” Life Sciences, vol. 81, no. 12, pp. 1024–1030, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  83. T. Furukawa and J. Kurokawa, “Regulation of cardiac ion channels via non-genomic action of sex steroid hormones: implication for the gender difference in cardiac arrhythmias,” Pharmacology and Therapeutics, vol. 115, no. 1, pp. 106–115, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  84. H. Ljunggren, “Studies on body composition; with special reference to the composition of obesity tissue and non-obesity tissue,” Acta Endocrinologica, vol. 25, no. 33, pp. 1–58, 1957. View at Scopus
  85. J. J. Cunningham, “Body composition and resting metabolic rate: the myth of feminine metabolism,” American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, vol. 36, no. 4, pp. 721–726, 1982. View at Scopus
  86. S. E. Gaudry, D. S. Sitar, D. D. Smyth, J. K. McKenzie, and F. Y. Aoki, “Gender and age as factors in the inhibition of renal clearance of amantadine by quinine and quinidine,” Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, vol. 54, no. 1, pp. 23–27, 1993. View at Scopus
  87. U. B. Berg, “Differences in decline in GFR with age between males and females. Reference data on clearances of inulin and PAH in potential kidney donors,” Nephrology Dialysis Transplantation, vol. 21, no. 9, pp. 2577–2582, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  88. U. Werner, D. Werner, S. Heinbüchner et al., “Gender is an important determinant of the disposition of the loop diuretic torasemide,” Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, vol. 50, no. 2, pp. 160–168, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  89. F. E. Hytten and G. Chamberlain, Clinical Physiology in Obstetrics, Blackwell Scientific, Oxford, UK, 1980.
  90. T. Silvaggio and D. R. Mattison, “Setting occupational health standards: toxicokinetic differences among and between men and women,” Journal of Occupational Medicine, vol. 36, no. 8, pp. 849–854, 1994. View at Scopus
  91. J. S. Mogil, J. Ritchie, S. B. Smith et al., “Melanocortin-1 receptor gene variants affect pain and μ-opioid analgesia in mice and humans,” Journal of Medical Genetics, vol. 42, no. 7, pp. 583–587, 2005. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  92. E. Sarton, E. Olofsen, R. Romberg et al., “Sex differences in morphine analgesia: an experimental study in healthy volunteers,” Anesthesiology, vol. 93, no. 5, pp. 1245–1254, 2000.
  93. M. S. Cepeda and D. B. Carr, “Women experience more pain and require more morphine than men to achieve a similar degree of analgesia,” Anesthesia and Analgesia, vol. 97, no. 5, pp. 1464–1468, 2003. View at Scopus
  94. R. B. Fillingim, C. D. King, M. C. Ribeiro-Dasilva, B. Rahim-Williams, and J. L. Riley, “Sex, gender, and pain: a review of recent clinical and experimental findings,” Journal of Pain, vol. 10, no. 5, pp. 447–485, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  95. L. Fattore, P. Fadda, and W. Fratta, “Sex differences in the self-administration of cannabinoids and other drugs of abuse,” Psychoneuroendocrinology, vol. 34, supplement 1, pp. S227–S236, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar
  96. F. Leblhuber, C. Neubauer, M. Peichl et al., “Age and sex differences of dehydroepiandrosterone sulfate (DHEAS) and cortisol (CRT) plasma levels in normal controls and Alzheimer's disease (AD),” Psychopharmacology, vol. 111, no. 1, pp. 23–26, 1993. View at Scopus
  97. K. Tanaka, N. Shimizu, H. Imura et al., “Human corticotropin-releasing hormone (hCRH) test: sex and age differences in plasma ACTH and cortisol responses and their reproducibility in healthy adults,” Endocrine Journal, vol. 40, no. 5, pp. 571–579, 1993.
  98. H. Vierhapper, P. Nowotny, and W. Waldhäusl, “Sex-specific differences in cortisol production rates in humans,” Metabolism, vol. 47, no. 8, pp. 974–976, 1998. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  99. S. S. Rathore, Y. Wang, and H. M. Krumholz, “Sex-based differences in the effect of digoxin for the treatment of heart failure,” New England Journal of Medicine, vol. 347, no. 18, pp. 1403–1411, 2002. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  100. I. Rodriguez, M. J. Kilborn, X. K. Liu, J. C. Pezzullo, and R. L. Woosley, “Drug-induced QT prolongation in women during the menstrual cycle,” Journal of the American Medical Association, vol. 285, no. 10, pp. 1322–1326, 2001. View at Scopus
  101. R. Hreiche, P. Morissette, H. Zakrzewski-Jakubiak, and J. Turgeon, “Gender-related differences in drug-induced prolongation of cardiac repolarization in prepubertal guinea pigs,” Journal of Cardiovascular Pharmacology and Therapeutics, vol. 14, no. 1, pp. 28–37, 2009. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  102. C. Möller and R. Netzer, “Effects of estradiol on cardiac ion channel currents,” European Journal of Pharmacology, vol. 532, no. 1-2, pp. 44–49, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  103. B. D. Johnson, W. Zheng, K. S. Korach, T. Scheuer, W. A. Catterall, and G. M. Rubanyi, “Increased expression of the cardiac L-type calcium channel in estrogen receptor-deficient mice,” Journal of General Physiology, vol. 110, no. 2, pp. 135–140, 1997. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  104. K. Ueno, “Gender differences in pharmacokinetics of anesthetics,” Japanese Journal of Anesthesiology, vol. 58, no. 1, pp. 51–58, 2009. View at Scopus
  105. C. A. Frye and J. E. Duncan, “Progesterone metabolites, effective at the GABA(A) receptor complex, attenuate pain sensitivity in rats,” Brain Research, vol. 643, no. 1-2, pp. 194–203, 1994. View at Scopus
  106. T. J. Nicolson, H. R. Mellor, and R. R. A. Roberts, “Gender differences in drug toxicity,” Trends in Pharmacological Sciences, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 108–114, 2010. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  107. Y. Tsuchiya, M. Nakajima, S. Kyo, T. Kanaya, M. Inoue, and T. Yokoi, “Human CYP1B1 is regulated by estradiol via estrogen receptor,” Cancer Research, vol. 64, no. 9, pp. 3119–3125, 2004. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  108. K. M. Wu and J. G. Farrelly, “Regulatory perspectives of Type II prodrug development and time-dependent toxicity management: nonclinical Pharm/Tox analysis and the role of comparative toxicology,” Toxicology, vol. 236, no. 1-2, pp. 1–6, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  109. N. K. Ostrom, “Women with asthma: a review of potential variables and preferred medical management,” Annals of Allergy, Asthma and Immunology, vol. 96, no. 5, pp. 655–665, 2006. View at Scopus
  110. A. A. Miller, T. M. de Silva, K. A. Jackman, and C. G. Sobey, “Effect of gender and sex hormones on vascular oxidative stress,” Clinical and Experimental Pharmacology and Physiology, vol. 34, no. 10, pp. 1037–1043, 2007. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  111. E. D. Kharasch, D. Mautz, T. Senn, G. Lentz, and K. Cox, “Menstrual cycle variability in midazolam pharmacokinetics,” Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 275–280, 1999. View at Scopus
  112. A. K. Shah, L. LaBoy-Goral, N. Scott, T. Morse, and G. Apseloff, “Pharmacokinetics and safety of oral eletriptan during different phases of the menstrual cycle in healthy volunteers,” Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, vol. 41, no. 12, pp. 1339–1344, 2001. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  113. R. Z. Harris, S. M. Tsunoda, P. Mroczkowski, H. Wong, and L. Z. Benet, “The effects of menopause and hormone replacement therapies on prednisolone and erythromycin pharmacokinetics,” Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics, vol. 59, no. 4, pp. 429–435, 1996. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus
  114. O. C. Umeh and J. S. Currier, “Sex differences in pharmacokinetics and toxicity of antiretroviral therapy,” Expert Opinion on Drug Metabolism and Toxicology, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 273–283, 2006. View at Publisher · View at Google Scholar · View at Scopus