Evaluation of Chinese-Herbal-Medicine-Induced Herb-Drug Interactions: Focusing on Organic Anion Transporter 1

Table 1

Effect of 30 CHM formulae on [³H]-PAH uptake in MDCK II/hOAT1.

Inhibition order	Chinese herbal medicine	[^3H]-PAH uptake (% of control)^a	Significance^b
1	Gui Zhi Fu Ling Wan	25.89 ± 0.85	***
2	Liu Wei Ti Huang Wan	32.62 ± 0.74	***
3	Chia Wei Hsiao Yao San	43.00 ± 1.53	***
4	Chi Chu Ti Huang Wan	43.13 ± 2.40	***
5	Chih Po Ti Huang Wan	44.55 ± 3.21	***
6	Hsin I Ching Fei Tang	45.41 ± 1.19	***
7	Lung Tan Hsieh Kan Tang	47.58 ± 3.85	***
8	Kan Lu Yin	51.02 ± 0.64	***
9	Hsiao Chai Hu Tang	56.44 ± 3.27	***
10	Pan Hsia Hsieh Hsin Tang	57.99 ± 3.45	***
11	Tan Kuei Shao Yao Tang	62.22 ± 1.68	***
12	Chuan Chiung Cha Tiao San	63.25 ± 0.80	***
13	Hsieh Fu Chu Yu Tang	65.15 ± 1.62	***
14	Chang Er San	68.95 ± 5.02	***
15	Xin Yi San	69.40 ± 3.00	***
16	Shao Yao Gan Cao Tang	72.27 ± 4.18	***
17	Yin Qiao San	75.24 ± 2.83	***
18	Shu Ching Huo Hsieh Tang	77.39 ± 3.85	***
19	Ten Wang Pu Hsin Tan	77.56 ± 1.06	***
20	Hsiao Ching Lung Tang	79.29 ± 1.84	***
21	Tu Huo Chi Sheng Tang	80.84 ± 3.92	***
22	Ping Wei San	82.47 ± 2.76	***
23	Pu Chung I Chi Tang	83.43 ± 3.12	***
24	Ko Ken Tang	89.72 ± 1.43	*
25	Ma Hsing Kan Shih Tang	90.77 ± 3.83	*
26	Mai Men Dong Tang	93.15 ± 1.80
27	San Ju Yin	93.75 ± 4.83
28	Hsiang Sha Liu Chun Tzu Tang	96.96 ± 7.02
29	Kuei Pi Tang	97.74 ± 5.91
30	Huo Hsiang Cheng Chi San	102.63 ± 3.42

^aResults are expressed as mean ± SE (n = 3).
^bStatistic is performed by one-way ANOVA with posthoc LSD. *P < 0.05, ***P < 0.001.