3.8 Article

Oral etoposide and zosuquidar bioavailability in rats: Effect of co-administration and in vitro-in vivo correlation of P-glycoprotein inhibition

期刊

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.ijpx.2021.100089

关键词

P-glycoprotein; Etoposide; Zosuquidar; Efflux transport; Oral absorption; Caco-2; in vitro-in vivo correlation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the impact of zosuquidar on the permeability and bioavailability of etoposide, revealing a significant discrepancy in effectiveness between in vitro and in vivo settings. The findings offer crucial insights for future formulation development to enhance the absorption of poorly permeable P-glycoprotein substrate drugs.
P-glycoprotein inhibitors, like zosuquidar, have widely been used to study the role of P-glycoprotein in oral absorption. Still, systematic studies on the inhibitor dose-response relationship on intestinal drug permeation are lacking. In the present study, we investigated the effect of 0.79 nM-2.5 mu M zosuquidar on etoposide permeability across Caco-2 cell monolayers. We also investigated etoposide pharmacokinetics after oral or IV administration to Sprague Dawley rats with co-administration of 0.063-63 mg/kg zosuquidar, as well as the pharmacokinetics of zosuquidar itself. Oral zosuquidar bioavailability was 2.6-4.2%, while oral etoposide bioavailability was 5.5 +/- 0.9%, which increased with increasing zosuquidar doses to 35 +/- 5%. The intestinal zosuquidar concentration required to induce a half-maximal increase in bioavailability was estimated to 180 mu M. In contrast, the IC50 of zosuquidar on etoposide permeability in vitro was only 5-10 nM, and a substantial in vitro-in vivo discrepancy of at least four orders of magnitude was thereby identified. Overall, the present study provides valuable insights for future formulation development that applies fixed dose combinations of P-glycopmtein inhibitors to increase the absorption of poorly permeable P-glycoprotein substrate drugs.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

3.8
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据