DMD Large equally mixed donor pool

Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] --
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Drug Metabolism and Disposition Fast Forward
First published on October 23, 2008; DOI: 10.1124/dmd.108.022483


This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow All Versions of this Article:
dmd.108.022483v1
37/1/187    most recent
Right arrow Submit a response
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me when eLetters are posted
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Sun, H.
Right arrow Articles by Pang, K. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Sun, H.
Right arrow Articles by Pang, K. S.


Received for publication May 27, 2008.
Revised October 19, 2008.
Accepted for publication October 20, 2008.

Disparity in intestine disposition between formed and preformed metabolites and implications: a theoretical study

Huadong Sun 1 K. Sandy Pang 1*

1 University of Toronto

* Address correspondence to: E-mail: ks.pang{at}utoronto.ca

Abstract

Metabolite in safety testing has been proposed for toxicity assessments. The question on how exposure of the synthetic metabolite compared to that of the formed metabolite was appraised kinetically using physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models, the (traditional) physiological model (TM) and segregated-flow (SFM) models. The SFM differs from the TM and describes a partial (~10% total) intestinal flow that perfuses the absorptive, metabolic, and secretory enterocyte layer so as to account for the higher extent of metabolism observed with oral vs. systemic dosing of drugs. Theoretical solutions for the areas under the curve of the formed metabolite after oral (po) and intravenous (iv) administration of the precursor (AUC{mi,P}) and preformed, synthetic metabolite (AUC{pmi}) showed identical AUCiv{mi,P}, AUCpo{mi,P}, and AUCpo{pmi} for the TM and SFM, whereas a larger AUCiv{pmi} existed for the SFM. The AUC{pmi} was influenced by metabolite parameters only: binding, absorptive (ka{mi}) and luminal degradation (kg{mi}) constants, intrinsic clearances for metabolism (CLint,met,I{mi}), apical efflux (CLint,sec,I{mi}), and basolateral transfer (CLd1{mi} and CLd2{mi}). By contrast, the AUC{mi,P} was influenced additionally by precursor parameters: rate constants ka and kg, and CLint,met,I and CLint,sec,I, but not the basolateral transfer clearances. The drug parameters: CLint,met,I and ka increased whereas CLint,sec,I decreased AUC{mi,P}, and secretion was counterbalanced by reabsorption with high kas. The simulated time-courses and the AUC{pmi} and AUC{mi,P} resulting from iv and po routes of administration of preformed metabolite and precursor differed, inferring that the kinetics of the preformed and formed metabolites is not identical.


Key words: drug toxicity, drug transport, metabolite kinetics, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling, pharmacokinetic modeling, physiologically-based modeling, physiologically-based pharmacokinetics, toxicity testing, toxicokinetics





Home Help [Feedback] [For Subscribers] [Archive] [Search] --
All ASPET Journals Molecular Pharmacology Pharmacological Reviews
 Molecular Interventions Drug Metabolism and Disposition

Copyright © 2008 by the American Society for Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics.