TY - JOUR T1 - Mechanisms Underlying Differences in Systemic Exposure of Structurally Similar Active Metabolites: Comparison of Two Preclinical Hepatic Models JF - Journal of Pharmacology and Experimental Therapeutics JO - J Pharmacol Exp Ther SP - 503 LP - 512 DO - 10.1124/jpet.110.177220 VL - 337 IS - 2 AU - Grace Zhixia Yan AU - Kim L. R. Brouwer AU - Gary M. Pollack AU - Michael Zhuo Wang AU - Richard R. Tidwell AU - James E. Hall AU - Mary F. Paine Y1 - 2011/05/01 UR - http://jpet.aspetjournals.org/content/337/2/503.abstract N2 - Selection of in vitro models that accurately characterize metabolite systemic and hepatobiliary exposure remains a challenge in drug development. In the present study, mechanisms underlying differences in systemic exposure of two active metabolites, furamidine and 2,5-bis (5-amidino)-2-pyridyl furan (CPD-0801), were examined using two hepatic models from rats: isolated perfused livers (IPLs) and sandwich-cultured hepatocytes (SCH). Pafuramidine, a prodrug of furamidine, and 2,5-bis [5-(N-methoxyamidino)-2-pyridyl] furan (CPD-0868), a prodrug of CPD-0801, were selected for investigation because CPD-0801 exhibits greater systemic exposure than furamidine, despite remarkable structural similarity between these two active metabolites. In both IPLs and SCH, the extent of conversion of CPD-0868 to CPD-0801 was consistently higher than that of pafuramidine to furamidine over time (at most 2.5-fold); area under the curve (AUC) of CPD-0801 in IPL perfusate and SCH medium was at least 7-fold higher than that of furamidine. Pharmacokinetic modeling revealed that the rate constant for basolateral (liver to blood) net efflux (kA_net efflux) of total formed CPD-0801 (bound + unbound) was 6-fold higher than that of furamidine. Hepatic accumulation of both active metabolites was extensive (>95% of total formed); the hepatic unbound fraction (fu,L) of CPD-0801 was 5-fold higher than that of furamidine (1.6 versus 0.3%). Incorporation of fu,L into the pharmacokinetic model resulted in comparable kA_net efflux,u between furamidine and CPD-0801. In conclusion, intrahepatic binding markedly influenced the disposition of these active metabolites. A higher fu,L explained, in part, the enhanced perfusate AUC of CPD-0801 compared with furamidine in IPLs. SCH predicted the disposition of prodrug/metabolite in IPLs. ER -