Related Experiment Video
Updated: Jun 4, 2026

An Intestine/Liver Microphysiological System for Drug Pharmacokinetic and Toxicological Assessment
Published on: December 3, 2020
Mechanisms underlying differences in systemic exposure of structurally similar active metabolites: comparison of two
Grace Zhixia Yan1, Kim L R Brouwer, Gary M Pollack
1Division of Pharmacotherapy and Experimental Therapeutics, UNC Eshelman School of Pharmacy, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC 27599-7569, USA.
Abstract:
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 (k(A_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 (f(u,L)) of CPD-0801 was 5-fold higher than that of furamidine (1.6 versus 0.3%). Incorporation of f(u,L) into the pharmacokinetic model resulted in comparable k(A_net efflux,u) between furamidine and CPD-0801. In conclusion, intrahepatic binding markedly influenced the disposition of these active metabolites. A higher f(u,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.
Related Concept Videos
Pharmacokinetic Models: Comparison and Selection Criterion
Physiological models take a detailed approach by considering specific molecular processes. They can predict drug distribution, metabolism, and elimination changes, providing a comprehensive understanding of how drugs interact with the body.
Physiological Pharmacokinetic Models: Incorporating Hepatic Transporter-Mediated Clearance
A recent model describes pravastatin's hepatobiliary excretion, mediated...
Effect of Hepatic Disease on Pharmacokinetics: Active Drug, Metabolite and Fraction of Metabolized Drug
Pharmacokinetic Models: Overview
There are three primary types of models: empirical, compartment, and physiological. Empirical models, with minimal assumptions,...
Pharmacodynamic Models: Link Model and Systems Pharmacodynamic Model
Mechanistic Models: Overview of Compartment Models

