Metabolism studies solubility testing

A commercially interesting low calorie fat has been produced from sucrose. Proctor Gamble has patented a mixture of penta- to octafatty acid ester derivatives of sucrose under the brand name Olestra. It was approved by the FDA in January 1996 for use as up to 100% replacement for the oil used in preparing savory snacks and biscuits. Olestra, a viscous, bland-tasting Hquid insoluble in water, has an appearance and color similar to refined edible vegetable oils. It is basically inert from a toxicity point of view as it is not metabolized or absorbed. It absorbs cholesterol (low density Hpoprotein) and removes certain fat-soluble vitamins (A, D, E, and K). Hence, Olestra has to be supplemented with these vitamins. No standard LD q tests have been performed on Olestra however, several chronic and subchronic studies were performed at levels of 15% in the diet, and no evidence of toxicity was found. No threshold limit value (TLV), expressed as a maximum exposure per m of air, has been estabhshed, but it is estimated to be similar to that of an inert hpid material at 5 mg/m. ... 

Studies have shown that Clenbuterol reduces fat, which would help rid lipid tissue of THC metabolities. Clenbuterol also increases metabolism. No studies have directly shown that Clenbuterol will help pass a drug test. However, provided that it reduces fat, 1 would assume that the fat breakdown would result in less fat soluble substances in the system. Caution Clenbuteral is labeled as a performance enhancer, and it s on the banned list for athlete testing. If are being tested as an athlete, avoid Clenbuterol ... 

Sulfotransferase activity is not restricted to minoxidil. The ability of other pyrimidine-, as well as pyridine-, triazine- and imidazole N-oxides to serve as substrates was investigated using soluble liver preparation and PAPS. The variety of structures studied indicated that heteroaromatic N-oxides are generally metabolized by sulfotransferases183. Presumably, all of the heterocycles tested were conjugated via their N-oxide oxygens. 

Future predictions are improved by the inclusion of TIE and CBR analyses. TIEs have been and continue to be used to establish causality based on the toxicity of sediment interstitial pore waters (Ankley and Schubauer-Berigan, 1995 Stronkhorst et al., 2003). However, because interstitial water testing may overestimate toxicity of non-persistent, readily water soluble substances (e.g., ammonia) and underestimate toxicity of persistent, poorly water soluble substances, the focus of TIEs is shifting to studies of whole sediments (Burgess et al., 2000, 2003 Ho et al., 2002). TIEs have been used as part of the SQT to determine causation (Hunt et al., 2001). The information provided regarding specific contaminants responsible for observed toxicity provides additional information for predictions related to changes in loadings of contaminants such as metals, which are not metabolized. 

When inadequate in vivo exposure or PK properties are observed, pharmaceutical profiles can be used to troubleshoot the cause of poor in vivo exposure or PK [26]. Assays for solubility, permeability, and stability (metabolic, plasma, acid) can help to track down the inadequate properties responsible for poor in vivo performance. Property optimization synthesis can then be initiated. Subsequent series analogs can be assayed to rank order compounds by properties for subsequent in vivo tests, in order to give the highest likelihood of success. Often animal studies are expensive and time-consuming, especially if they are performed using the animal activity model. Simple in vitro profiling assays can provide information for improved decisions and efficiency. 

Seventy-five percent of drug candidates do not reach the clinical trial phase mainly due to poor pharmacokinetics in animal studies (1). Since so many compounds fail in late stage testing, the current trend is to study the pharmacokinetics of lead compounds as early as possible. One of the most important elements of pharmacokinetics is lipophilicity, or a compound s affinity for fat. Usually, the more water soluble a compound is, the lower its lipophilicity. Low water solubility (high-lipophilicity) compounds have a limited oral bioavailability but are usually easily metabolized. On the other hand, low-lipophilicity compounds have poor membrane permeability since membranes are partly composed of fat. 

So the different solubilities of different solid forms can make compounds hard to test and results hard to compare, which may not stop those with little appreciation for formulation subtleties from making such comparisons. In addition, the kinds of formulations used in early in vivo studies may be very different from those acceptable for clinical use. Heroic measures like excipients that aren t likely to be used clinically (DMSO, NMP, etc.), or nanoparticles dispersions may have been used just so that an experiment can be run and some kind of data obtained. The inability to produce any formulation capable of delivering reasonable plasma levels of a compound means that underlying problems in metabolism, toxicity, etc. which may be inherent to the scaffold or series will go undetected although the need to improve solubility is highlighted. ... 

---