Drug metabolism for the perplexed medicinal chemist.

Two related and significant issues may elicit perplexity in medicinal chemists and are discussed here. First, a broad presentation of the pharmacological and toxicological consequences of drug metabolism should justify the significance of drug metabolism and serve as an incentive to further study. When comparing the pharmacological activities of a drug and its metabolite(s), a continuum is found which ranges from soft drugs (no active metabolites) to prodrugs (inactive per se, as illustrated here with clopidogrel and prasugrel). Innumerable intermediate cases document drugs whose activity is shared by one or more metabolites, as exemplified with tamoxifen. The toxicological consequences of metabolism at the molecular, macromolecular, and macroscopic levels are manyfold. A brief overview is offered together with a summary of the reactions of toxification and detoxification of the antiepileptic valproic acid. The second issue discussed in the review is a comparison of the relative significance of cytochromes P450 and other oxidoreductases (EC 1), hydrolases (EC 3), and transferases (EC 2) in drug metabolism, based on a 'guesstimate' of the number of drug metabolites that are known to be produced by them. The conclusion is that oxidoreductases are the main enzymes responsible for the formation of toxic or active metabolites, whereas transferases play the major role in producing inactive and nontoxic metabolites.

Sunitinib-eluting beads for chemoembolization: methods for in vitro evaluation of drug release.

Drug-eluting microspheres are used for embolization of hypervascular tumors and allow for local controlled drug release. Although the drug release from the microspheres relies on fast ion-exchange, so far only slow-releasing in vitro dissolution methods have been correlated to in vivo data. Three in vitro release methods are assessed in this study for their potential to predict slow in vivo release of sunitinib from chemoembolization spheres to the plasma, and fast local in vivo release obtained in an earlier study in rabbits. Release in an orbital shaker was slow (t50%=4.5h, 84% release) compared to fast release in USP 4 flow-through implant cells (t50%=1h, 100% release). Sunitinib release in saline from microspheres enclosed in dialysis inserts was prolonged and incomplete (t50%=9 days, 68% release) due to low drug diffusion through the dialysis membrane. The slow-release profile fitted best to low sunitinib plasma AUC following injection of sunitinib-eluting spheres. Although limited by lack of standardization, release in the orbital shaker fitted best to local in vivo sunitinib concentrations. Drug release in USP flow-through implant cells was too fast to correlate with local concentrations, although this method is preferred to discriminate between different sphere types.

Agency Fact Sheet, Office of Drug Control Policy, FY2006

This document produced by the Iowa Department of Administrative Services has been developed to provide a multitude of information about executive branch agencies/department on a single sheet of paper. The facts provides general information, contact information, workforce data, leave and benefits information and affirmative action data.

Céphalées pharmacorésistantes: nouvelles approches du casse-tête [Drug-resistant headache: is it the end?].

Chronic primary headache often cause significant interference with function and quality of life despite acute and preventive medicines. New treatments are emerging for pharmacologically intractable cluster headache and migraine. Occipital nerve stimulation in chronic cluster headache and botulinum toxin in chronic migraine represent the most promising therapies.

Iowa’s Drug Control Strategy, 2008

The 2011 Iowa Drug Control Strategy is submitted in satisfaction of Chapter 80E.1 of the Code of Iowa which directs the Drug Policy Coordinator to monitor and coordinate all drug prevention, enforcement and treatment activities in the state. Further, it requires the Coordinator to submit an annual report to the Governor and Legislature concerning the activities and programs of the Coordinator, the Governor’s Office of Drug Control Policy and all other state departments with drug enforcement, substance abuse treatment, and prevention programs. Chapter 80E.2 establishes the Drug Policy Advisory Council (DPAC), chaired by the Coordinator, and consisting of a prosecuting attorney, substance abuse treatment specialist, law enforcement officer, prevention specialist, judge and representatives from the departments of corrections, education, public health, human services, public safety and human rights. This report and strategy was developed in consultation with the DPAC.

Iowa’s Drug Control Strategy, 2010

The 2011 Iowa Drug Control Strategy is submitted in satisfaction of Chapter 80E.1 of the Code of Iowa which directs the Drug Policy Coordinator to monitor and coordinate all drug prevention, enforcement and treatment activities in the state. Further, it requires the Coordinator to submit an annual report to the Governor and Legislature concerning the activities and programs of the Coordinator, the Governor’s Office of Drug Control Policy and all other state departments with drug enforcement, substance abuse treatment, and prevention programs. Chapter 80E.2 establishes the Drug Policy Advisory Council (DPAC), chaired by the Coordinator, and consisting of a prosecuting attorney, substance abuse treatment specialist, law enforcement officer, prevention specialist, judge and representatives from the departments of corrections, education, public health, human services, public safety and human rights. This report and strategy was developed in consultation with the DPAC.

Iowa’s Drug Control Strategy, 2012

The 2011 Iowa Drug Control Strategy is submitted in satisfaction of Chapter 80E.1 of the Code of Iowa which directs the Drug Policy Coordinator to monitor and coordinate all drug prevention, enforcement and treatment activities in the state. Further, it requires the Coordinator to submit an annual report to the Governor and Legislature concerning the activities and programs of the Coordinator, the Governor’s Office of Drug Control Policy and all other state departments with drug enforcement, substance abuse treatment, and prevention programs. Chapter 80E.2 establishes the Drug Policy Advisory Council (DPAC), chaired by the Coordinator, and consisting of a prosecuting attorney, substance abuse treatment specialist, law enforcement officer, prevention specialist, judge and representatives from the departments of corrections, education, public health, human services, public safety and human rights. This report and strategy was developed in consultation with the DPAC.

Iowa’s Drug Control Strategy, 2009

The 2011 Iowa Drug Control Strategy is submitted in satisfaction of Chapter 80E.1 of the Code of Iowa which directs the Drug Policy Coordinator to monitor and coordinate all drug prevention, enforcement and treatment activities in the state. Further, it requires the Coordinator to submit an annual report to the Governor and Legislature concerning the activities and programs of the Coordinator, the Governor’s Office of Drug Control Policy and all other state departments with drug enforcement, substance abuse treatment, and prevention programs. Chapter 80E.2 establishes the Drug Policy Advisory Council (DPAC), chaired by the Coordinator, and consisting of a prosecuting attorney, substance abuse treatment specialist, law enforcement officer, prevention specialist, judge and representatives from the departments of corrections, education, public health, human services, public safety and human rights. This report and strategy was developed in consultation with the DPAC.

Effects of the PPAR-beta agonist GW501516 in an in vitro model of brain inflammation and antibody-induced demyelination.

BACKGROUND: Brain inflammation plays a central role in numerous brain pathologies, including multiple sclerosis (MS). Microglial cells and astrocytes are the effector cells of neuroinflammation. They can be activated also by agents such as interferon-gamma (IFN-gamma) and lipopolysaccharide (LPS). Peroxisome proliferator-associated receptor (PPAR) pathways are involved in the control of the inflammatory processes, and PPAR-beta seems to play an important role in the regulation of central inflammation. In addition, PPAR-beta agonists were shown to have trophic effects on oligodendrocytes in vitro, and to confer partial protection in experimental autoimmune encephalomyelitis (EAE), an animal model of MS. In the present work, a three-dimensional brain cell culture system was used as in vitro model to study antibody-induced demyelination and inflammatory responses. GW 501516, a specific PPAR-beta agonist, was examined for its capacity to protect from antibody-mediated demyelination and to prevent inflammatory responses induced by IFN-gamma and LPS. METHODS: Aggregating brain cells cultures were prepared from embryonal rat brain, and used to study the inflammatory responses triggered by IFN-gamma and LPS and by antibody-mediated demyelination induced by antibodies directed against myelin-oligodendrocyte glycoprotein (MOG). The effects of GW 501516 on cellular responses were characterized by the quantification of the mRNA expression of tumor necrosis factor-alpha (TNF-alpha), interleukin-6 (IL-6), inducible NO synthase (i-NOS), PPAR-beta, PPAR-gamma, glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), myelin basic protein (MBP), and high molecular weight neurofilament protein (NF-H). GFAP expression was also examined by immunocytochemistry, and microglial cells were visualized by isolectin B4 (IB4) and ED1 labeling. RESULTS: GW 501516 decreased the IFN-gamma-induced up-regulation of TNF-alpha and iNOS in accord with the proposed anti-inflammatory effects of this PPAR-beta agonist. However, it increased IL-6 m-RNA expression. In demyelinating cultures, reactivity of both microglial cells and astrocytes was observed, while the expression of the inflammatory cytokines and iNOS remained unaffected. Furthermore, GW 501516 did not protect against the demyelination-induced changes in gene expression. CONCLUSION: Although GW 501516 showed anti-inflammatory activity, it did not protect against antibody-mediated demyelination. This suggests that the protective effects of PPAR-beta agonists observed in vivo can be attributed to their anti-inflammatory properties rather than to a direct protective or trophic effect on oligodendrocytes.

Governor’s Office of Drug Control Policy Performance Plan, FY 2011

Agency Performance Plan, Governor’s Office of Drug Control Policy

Governor’s Office of Drug Control Policy Performance Plan, FY 2012

Agency Performance Plan, Governor’s Office of Drug Control Policy

Drug Use Profile, 2011

Historically, alcohol is the most prevalent substance of use and abuse by adults in Iowa. Research from the Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance System compiled by the federal Centers for Disease Control and Prevention indicates that almost six of every ten adult Iowans are classified as current drinkers of alcoholic beverages. Further, one in five adult Iowans is classified as a binge drinker of alcoholic beverages, a classification indicative of abuse of, or addiction to, the substance.

A Guide to Workforce Drug Testing in Iowa, October 13, 2010

The purpose of the State of Iowa’s drug testing law—Iowa Code Section 730.5 (& Administrative Code Section 641)—is to enhance worker safety, by creating workplaces that are free of drugs and substance abuse. One tool available to private sector employers is drug testing (inclusive of alcohol testing), that often is coupled with educational efforts as part of a comprehensive drug-free workplace program. Each employer must first decide if drug and/or alcohol testing is appropriate for them. Under Iowa law, workplace drug or alcohol testing is optional for private sector employers. Federal laws or regulations governing drug or alcohol testing supersede state law in Iowa.