| Literature DB >> 31533299 |
Seul Gee Lee1, Jaeok Lee2, Kyung Min Kim3, Kee-In Lee4, Yun Soo Bae5, Hwa Jeong Lee6,7.
Abstract
In a previous study, the specific NOX1/2/4 inhibitor Ewha-18278 was confirmed as a possible treatment for osteoporosis both in vitro and in vivo. Here, we investigated the pharmacokinetics (PK) of the compound by intravenous (IV) and oral administrations to rats. Dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO)-based and diazepam injection-based formulations were used to dissolve the compound. In the latter formulation applicable to humans, the changes in PK parameters were monitored at two different concentrations (1 mg/mL and 2 mg/mL). The area under the plasma concentration-time curve from zero time to infinity (AUCinf) of Ewha-18278 was highest in the DMSO-based formulation (2 mg/mL). Also, the concentration was increased 1.6-fold at the low concentration of the diazepam injection-based formulation compared to the high concentration. There was no statistical significance in the AUCinf of the compound between DMSO-based formulation (2 mg/mL) and diazepam injection-based formulation (1 mg/mL). These results suggest that Ewha-18278 can be delivered to humans by both IV and oral routes. In addition, the diazepam injection-based formulation of Ewha-18278 appears to be a suitable candidate for dosage development for future toxicity test and clinical trial.Entities:
Keywords: NOX1/2/4 inhibitor; human applicable formulation; osteoporosis; pharmacokinetics; pyrazole derivative
Year: 2019 PMID: 31533299 PMCID: PMC6781499 DOI: 10.3390/pharmaceutics11090482
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Pharmaceutics ISSN: 1999-4923 Impact factor: 6.321
Figure 1The chemical structures of (A) Ewha-18278 (NOX inhibitor) and (B) Ewha-18212 (Internal standard (IS)).
Mean pharmacokinetics (PK) parameters of Ewha-18278 following IV (2 mg/kg) and oral (20 mg/kg) administrations to rats.
| PK Parameters | DMSO Formulation | Diazepam Injection-Based Formulation | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| IV (1 mg/mL) | PO (2 mg/mL) | IV (1 mg/mL) | PO (2 mg/mL) | PO (1 mg/mL) | |
| C0 (µg/mL) | 7.24 ± 2.45 | 7.48 ± 3.42 | |||
| Cmax (µg/mL) | 4.68 ± 2.11 | 6.24 ± 2.02 | 5.01 ± 2.51 | ||
| Tmax (h) | 0.249 ± 0.166 | 0.083 ± 0.00 | 0.233 ± 0.171 | ||
| AUCinf (µg·h/mL) | 2.86 ± 1.09 | 19.4 ± 8.69 | 2.15 ± 0.693 | 9.25 ± 4.42 | 14.4 ± 8.17 |
| t1/2 (h) | 3.07 ± 2.01 | 14.2 ± 4.76 | 4.07 ± 2.28 | 8.96 ± 2.92 | 14.4 ± 3.73 |
| Vd (L) | 0.785 ± 0.154 | 1.52 ± 1.17 | |||
| Clt (L/h) | 0.216 ± 0.084 | 0.250 ± 0.072 | |||
| Vd/F (L) | 6.06 ± 2.32 | 7.90 ± 3.01 | 9.72 ± 5.17 | ||
| Clt/F (L/h) | 0.327 ± 0.164 | 0.726 ± 0.553 | 0.531 ± 0.370 | ||
|
| 62.4 | 43.0 | 67.2 | ||
No significant difference in IV and PO results between DMSO formulation and diazepam injection-based formulation. A part of the PK parameters obtained from diazepam-injection based formulation has been reported previously as supplementary data [5]. Data are presented as mean ± S.D. (n = 5–6 rats per group).
Figure 2Mean plasma concentration-time profiles of Ewha-18278 in DMSO-based formulation after IV and oral administrations to rats. ●, IV administration (2 mg/kg); ○, oral administration (20 mg/kg). Error bars represent S.D. (n = 6).
Figure 3Mean plasma concentration-time profiles of Ewha-18278 in diazepam injection-based formulation after IV (2 mg/kg) and oral (20 mg/kg) administrations to rats. ●, IV administration; ○, oral administration (2 mg/mL); ∆, oral administration (1 mg/mL). Bars represent S.D. (n = 5–6).