Literature DB >> 11170034

Prediction of adipose tissue: plasma partition coefficients for structurally unrelated drugs.

P Poulin1, K Schoenlein, F P Theil.   

Abstract

Tissue:plasma (P(t:p)) partition coefficients (PCs) are important parameters describing tissue distribution of drugs. The ultimate goal in early drug discovery is to develop and validate in silico methods for predicting a priori the P(t:p) for each new drug candidate. In this context, tissue composition-based equations have recently been developed and validated for predicting a priori the non-adipose and adipose P(t:p) for neutral organic solvents and pollutants. For ionizable drugs that bind to different degrees to common plasma proteins, only their non-adipose P(t:p) values have been predicted with these equations. The only compound-dependent input parameters for these equations are the lipophilicity parameter, such as olive oil-water PC (K(vo:w)) or n-octanol-water PC (P(o:w)), and/or unbound fraction in plasma (fu(p)) determined under in vitro conditions. Tissue composition-based equations could potentially also be used to predict adipose tissue-plasma PCs (P(at:p)) for ionized drugs. The main objective of the present study was to modify these equations for predicting in vivo P(at:p) (white fat) for 14 structurally unrelated ionized drugs that bind substantially to plasma macromolecules in rats, rabbits, or humans. The second objective was to verify whether K(vo:w) or P(o:w) provides more accurate predictions of in vivo P(at:p) (i.e., to verify whether olive oil or n-octanol is the better surrogate for lipids in adipose tissue). The second objective was supported by comparing in vitro data on P(at:p) with those on olive oil-plasma PC (K(vo:p)) for five drugs. Furthermore, in vivo P(at:p) was not only predicted from K(vo:w) and P(o:w) of the non-ionized species, but also from K*(vo:w) and P*(o:w), taking into account the ionized species in addition. The P(at:p) predicted from K*(vo:w), P*(o:w), and P(o:w) differ from the in vivo P(at:p) by an average factor of 1.17 (SD = 0.44, r = 0.95), 15.0 (SD = 15.7, r = 0.59), and 40.7 (SD = 57.2, r = 0.33), respectively. The in vitro values of K(vo:p) differ from those of P(at:p) by an average factor of 0.86 (SD = 0.16, r = 0.99, n = 5). The results demonstrate that (i) the equation using only data on fu(p) as input and olive oil as lipophilicity surrogate is able to provide accurate predictions of in vivo P(at:p), and (ii) olive oil is a better surrogate of the adipose tissue lipids than n-octanol. The present study is an innovative method for predicting in vivo fat partitioning of drugs in mammals. Copyright 2001 Wiley-Liss, Inc. and the American Pharmaceutical Association J Pharm Sci 90:436-447, 2001

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2001        PMID: 11170034     DOI: 10.1002/1520-6017(200104)90:4<436::aid-jps1002>3.0.co;2-p

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Pharm Sci        ISSN: 0022-3549            Impact factor:   3.534


  51 in total

1.  In vitro permeability of poorly aqueous soluble compounds using different solubilizers in the PAMPA assay with liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry detection.

Authors:  Hanlan Liu; Chantel Sabus; Guy T Carter; Chao Du; Alex Avdeef; Mark Tischler
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2003-11       Impact factor: 4.200

Review 2.  Whole body pharmacokinetic models.

Authors:  Ivan Nestorov
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2003       Impact factor: 6.447

Review 3.  Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic (PBPK) Modeling and Simulation Approaches: A Systematic Review of Published Models, Applications, and Model Verification.

Authors:  Jennifer E Sager; Jingjing Yu; Isabelle Ragueneau-Majlessi; Nina Isoherranen
Journal:  Drug Metab Dispos       Date:  2015-08-21       Impact factor: 3.922

4.  A novel strategy for physiologically based predictions of human pharmacokinetics.

Authors:  Hannah M Jones; Neil Parrott; Karin Jorga; Thierry Lavé
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2006       Impact factor: 6.447

5.  Physiologically based pharmacokinetic modelling: a sub-compartmentalized model of tissue distribution.

Authors:  Max von Kleist; Wilhelm Huisinga
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2007-09-25       Impact factor: 2.745

6.  Biomedical Technologies for in vitro Screening and Controlled Delivery of Neuroactive Compounds.

Authors:  John P Frampton; Michael L Shuler; William Shain; Matthew R Hynd
Journal:  Cent Nerv Syst Agents Med Chem       Date:  2008

Review 7.  Modeling kinetics of subcellular disposition of chemicals.

Authors:  Stefan Balaz
Journal:  Chem Rev       Date:  2009-05       Impact factor: 60.622

8.  Development of a decision tree to classify the most accurate tissue-specific tissue to plasma partition coefficient algorithm for a given compound.

Authors:  Yejin Esther Yun; Cecilia A Cotton; Andrea N Edginton
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2013-11-21       Impact factor: 2.745

9.  Drug Distribution Part 2. Predicting Volume of Distribution from Plasma Protein Binding and Membrane Partitioning.

Authors:  Ken Korzekwa; Swati Nagar
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2016-12-13       Impact factor: 4.200

10.  Reduction and lumping of physiologically based pharmacokinetic models: prediction of the disposition of fentanyl and pethidine in humans by successively simplified models.

Authors:  Sven Björkman
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2003-08       Impact factor: 2.745

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.