No. | compound | fu | RB | CLP, in vivo | FPO, in vivo | CLH, int, in vivo | CLint, in vitro, mean | SFmean | CLH, predicted, mean | FH, predicted, mean | CLH, predicted, biol | FH, predicted, biol |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
ml/min/kg | ml/min/kg | ml/min/109cells | 109 cells/kg | ml/min/kg | ml/min/kg | |||||||
1 | Naloxone | 0.559 | 1.221-150 | 24.8 | 0.02 | 154.9 | 34.7 ± 8.2 | 4.5 | 25.3 ± 0.1 | 0.00 ± 0.00 | 23.8 ± 0.7 | 0.06 ± 0.03 |
2 | Buspirone | 0.050 | 0.811-150 | 28.3 ± 10.3 | 0.04 ± 0.04 | 79.1 | 12.1 ± 6.9 | 6.5 | 16.2 ± 0.6 | 0.04 ± 0.03 | 13.2 ± 1.9 | 0.22 ± 0.11 |
3 | Verapamil | 0.100 | 0.77 | 11.8 ± 5.0 | 0.20 ± 0.12 | 31.0 | 7.3 ± 3.6 | 4.3 | 14.5 ± 0.9 | 0.09 ± 0.05 | 10.6 ± 1.9 | 0.34 ± 0.12 |
4 | Lidocaine | 0.296 | 0.84 | 12.5 ± 1.5 | 0.24 ± 0.05 | 29.8 | 2.3 ± 0.7 | 12.9 | 10.6 ± 1.9 | 0.39 ± 0.11 | 5.5 ± 1.4 | 0.68 ± 0.08 |
5 | Imipramine | 0.185 | 1.08 | 11.8 ± 8.1 | 0.42 ± 0.08 | 21.8 | 1.5 ± 0.6 | 14.5 | 8.6 ± 2.7 | 0.61 ± 0.12 | 4.0 ± 1.4 | 0.82 ± 0.06 |
6 | Metoprolol | 0.883 | 1.13 | 10.8 ± 1.5 | 0.50 ± 0.11 | 17.8 | 2.3 ± 0.8 | 7.8 | 12.0 ± 2.5 | 0.49 ± 0.10 | 5.8 ± 1.6 | 0.75 ± 0.07 |
7 | Timolol | 0.400 | 0.841-150 | 7.7 ± 1.2 | 0.61 ± 0.06 | 9.1 | 1.0 ± 0.6 | 9.0 | 6.0 ± 2.8 | 0.65 ± 0.16 | 2.7 ± 1.4 | 0.84 ± 0.08 |
average SFmean | 8.5 ± 4.0 |
All these values were quoted from the literature as follows. Naloxone [Asali and Brown (1984); Holford (1998)]; buspirone [Gammans et al. (1986)]; verapamil [Gross et al. (1988); McAllister and Kirsten (1982); Obach (1999)]; lidocaine; [Wing et al. (1984), Remmel et al. (1991)]; imipramine [the pharmacokinetics were mean value of the report of Nagy and Johansson (1975) and Ciraulo et al. (1988)]; metoprolol [Johansson et al. (1974); Regardh et al. (1974); Regardh et al. (1981)]; timolol [Wilson et al. (1982), [Holford (1998].
fu, unbound fraction in plasma;RB, blood-to-plasma concentration ratio (reported); CLP, in vivo, plasma clearance in humans, (reported); FPO, in vivo, oral bioavailability in humans (reported); CLH, int, in vivo, hepatic intrinsic clearance values calculated from FPO, in vivo by th dispersion model (using the Goal Seek method attached to Microsoft Excel); CLint, in vitro, mean, in vitro intrinsic clearance observed when test compounds were metabolized by 10 individual lots of human hepatocytes suspended in human serum; SFmean, mean of scaling factor calculated from CLint, in vitro, mean/ CLH, int, in vivo for 10 individual lots; CLH, predicted, mean, predicted hepatic clearance from CLint, in vitro, mean and average SFmean (8.5 × 109 cells/kg) as a scaling factor;FH, predicted, mean, predicted hepatic availability from CLint, in vitro, mean and average SFmean (8.5 × 109 cells/kg) as a scaling factor; CLH, predicted, biol, predicted hepatic clearance from CLint, in vitro, mean and biologically based scaling factor of hepatocellularity (SFbiol = 3.1 × 109cells/kg); FH, predicted, biol, predicted hepatic availability from CLint, in vitro, mean and biologically based scaling factor of hepatocellularity (SFbiol = 3.1 × 109 cells/kg).
↵1-150 In house data.