Structure-hepatic disposition relationships for cationic drugs in isolated perfused rat livers: Transmembrane exchange and cytoplasmic binding process

This work studied the structure-hepatic disposition relationships for cationic drugs of varying lipophilicity using a single-pass, in situ rat liver preparation. The lipophilicity among the cationic drugs studied in this work is in the following order: diltiazem. propranolol. labetalol. prazosin. antipyrine. atenolol. Parameters characterizing the hepatic distribution and elimination kinetics of the drugs were estimated using the multiple indicator dilution method. The kinetic model used to describe drug transport (the two-phase stochastic model) integrated cytoplasmic binding kinetics and belongs to the class of barrier-limited and space-distributed liver models. Hepatic extraction ratio (E) (0.30-0.92) increased with lipophilicity. The intracellular binding rate constant (k(on)) and the equilibrium amount ratios characterizing the slowly and rapidly equilibrating binding sites (K-S and K-R) increase with the lipophilicity of drug (k(on) : 0.05-0.35 s(-1); K-S : 0.61-16.67; K-R : 0.36-0.95), whereas the intracellular unbinding rate constant (k(off)) decreases with the lipophilicity of drug (0.081-0.021 s(-1)). The partition ratio of influx (k(in)) and efflux rate constant (k(out)), k(in)/k(out), increases with increasing pK(a) value of the drug [from 1.72 for antipyrine (pK(a) = 1.45) to 9.76 for propranolol (pK(a) = 9.45)], the differences in k(in/kout) for the different drugs mainly arising from ion trapping in the mitochondria and lysosomes. The value of intrinsic elimination clearance (CLint), permeation clearance (CLpT), and permeability-surface area product (PS) all increase with the lipophilicity of drug [CLint (ml . min(-1) . g(-1) of liver): 10.08-67.41; CLpT (ml . min(-1) . g(-1) of liver): 10.80-5.35; PS (ml . min(-1) . g(-1) of liver): 14.59-90.54]. It is concluded that cationic drug kinetics in the liver can be modeled using models that integrate the presence of cytoplasmic binding, a hepatocyte barrier, and a vascular transit density function.

A formal representation of assumptions in process modelling

In this work, we present a systematic approach to the representation of modelling assumptions. Modelling assumptions form the fundamental basis for the mathematical description of a process system. These assumptions can be translated into either additional mathematical relationships or constraints between model variables, equations, balance volumes or parameters. In order to analyse the effect of modelling assumptions in a formal, rigorous way, a syntax of modelling assumptions has been defined. The smallest indivisible syntactical element, the so called assumption atom has been identified as a triplet. With this syntax a modelling assumption can be described as an elementary assumption, i.e. an assumption consisting of only an assumption atom or a composite assumption consisting of a conjunction of elementary assumptions. The above syntax of modelling assumptions enables us to represent modelling assumptions as transformations acting on the set of model equations. The notion of syntactical correctness and semantical consistency of sets of modelling assumptions is defined and necessary conditions for checking them are given. These transformations can be used in several ways and their implications can be analysed by formal methods. The modelling assumptions define model hierarchies. That is, a series of model families each belonging to a particular equivalence class. These model equivalence classes can be related to primal assumptions regarding the definition of mass, energy and momentum balance volumes and to secondary and tiertinary assumptions regarding the presence or absence and the form of mechanisms within the system. Within equivalence classes, there are many model members, these being related to algebraic model transformations for the particular model. We show how these model hierarchies are driven by the underlying assumption structure and indicate some implications on system dynamics and complexity issues. (C) 2001 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved.