Abstract

The properties of the segregated flow model (SFM), which considers split intestinal flow patterns perfusing an active enterocyte region that houses enzymes and transporters (<20% of the total intestinal blood flow) and an inactive serosal region (>80%), were compared to those of the traditional model (TM), wherein 100% of the flow perfuses the non-segregated intestine tissue. The appropriateness of the SFM model is important in terms of drug absorption and intestinal and liver drug metabolism. Model behaviors were examined with respect to intestinally (M1) versus hepatically (M2) formed metabolites and the availabilities in the intestine (FI) and liver (FH) and the route of drug administration. The %contribution of the intestine to total first-pass metabolism bears a reciprocal relation to that for the liver, since the intestine, a gateway tissue, regulates the flow of substrate to the liver. The SFM predicts the highest and lowest M1 formed with oral (po) and intravenous (iv) dosing, respectively, whereas the extent of M1 formation is similar for the drug administered po or iv according to the TM, and these values sit intermediate those of the SFM. The SFM is significant, as this drug metabolism model explains route-dependent intestinal metabolism, describing a higher extent of intestinal metabolism with po versus the much reduced or absence of intestinal metabolism with iv dosing. A similar pattern exists for drug–drug interactions (DDIs). The inhibitor or inducer exerts its greatest effect on victim drugs when both inhibitor/inducer and drug are given po. With po dosing, more drug or inhibitor/inducer is brought into the intestine for DDIs. The bypass of flow and drug to the enterocyte region of the intestine after intravenous administration adds complications to in vitro–in vivo extrapolations (IVIVE).

Highlights

  • The extent of the absorption of orally administered drugs is controlled by the intestine and liver, which are anatomically linked as a serial unit that is sequentially perfused by the circulation (Figure 1)

  • This review has highlighted that metabolite formation and drug–drug interactions (DDIs) of the intestine are not well predicted by the traditional intestinal flow model (TM) with respect to the routes of administration of drug and inhibitor

  • We recognize the importance of the segregated flow model (SFM) as the premier model to examine intestinal drug metabolism

Read more

Summary

The Intestine–Liver Unit

The extent of the absorption of orally administered drugs is controlled by the intestine and liver, which are anatomically linked as a serial unit that is sequentially perfused by the circulation (Figure 1). TSoeiglemuemnt[-2d7e]paennddpenHt dcheacnlignees in meamlobnrgantehpe eirnmteesatbinileity[8, ,r2e8d]uacreed nsuortefadc.eTahreeasefrvoamriathbeledsuwodilel nmuomdutolaitleeutmhe[2e7x]teanntdopfHpcahssainvgeesdraulogng theaibnstoersptitnioen[.8,28] are noted These variables will modulate the extent of passive drug absorption. BBeeccaauusseeooffinintetestsitninalarlermemovoavla[le[xetxratrcaticotniornatriaot,io, EI oErI o(r1 (−1 F−IF)]I),]t,htheeddruruggeennteterriinnggtthhee lliivveerr iiss rreedduucceedd,, aannddtthheelliviveerrmmaayyfufurtrhthererrermemovoevtehtehderdurguwg iwthith a liavelirveerxetrxatcraticotinonrartaiotio(E(EHH))ttoo eeffffeecctt ffiirrsstt--ppaassssmmeetatabboolilsimsm. Following oral (po) drug dosing, the fraction of the dose absorbed (Fa) is attributed to dosage forms and/or solubility properties, intestinal removal via metabolism or secretion (defined by the intestinal extraction ratio, EI), and liver removal (defined as the hepatic extraction ratio, EH), respectively. The product of the availabilities, FaFIFH, constitute the net fraction, the systemic availability, Fsys For this reason, the intestine and liver are both capable of removing a significant proportion of the orally administered dose, a phenomenon known as the first-pass effect [46]. The extent of intestinal versus liver removal of drugs is intimately related [47,48,49,50]

Reason or Need for Intestinal Flow Models
Route-Dependent Intestinal Metabolism
Intestinal Flow Models
Equations for Prediction of Route-Dependent Intestinal Removal
Is the SFM the Better Intestinal Flow Model Compared to the TM?
Implications on Formation of Intestinal and Liver Metabolites
Implications of the SFM on IVIVE
Findings
Conclusions

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.