2020
DOI: 10.1016/j.biopha.2019.109660
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Prediction of the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of topiroxostat in humans by integrating the physiologically based pharmacokinetic model with the drug-target residence time model

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
12
0

Year Published

2020
2020
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
7
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 19 publications
(12 citation statements)
references
References 29 publications
0
12
0
Order By: Relevance
“…This difference is generated due to preferential adsorption of relatively smaller particles by the grid surface of the TEM sample holder as compared to larger particles (as an instrumental error). where the value of “ n ” indicated the number experimental points repeated. The values of “FE” less than 2 can be considered as acceptable …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…This difference is generated due to preferential adsorption of relatively smaller particles by the grid surface of the TEM sample holder as compared to larger particles (as an instrumental error). where the value of “ n ” indicated the number experimental points repeated. The values of “FE” less than 2 can be considered as acceptable …”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The values of "FE" less than 2 can be considered as acceptable. 13 2.2.4. In Vitro Drug Release Studies at Varied pH.…”
Section: Formulation Compositionsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This difference is generated due to instrumental error and reported as "fold error" which should be less than 2 for acceptability. The fold error is estimated using the equation 2 (Hussain et al 2016;Luo et al 2020):…”
Section: Globular Size and Size Distribution (Pdi)mentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Various conventional methods (physical, chemical, and microbial) have been exploited to remove macrolide contaminants from wastewater obtained from different water resources. , These conventional methods are the least efficient (unable to remove contaminants completely from water), hectic, and costly; have a high probability of microbial growth; and are difficult to scale up for bulk cleaning . Moreover, photocatalytic degradation, Fenton reaction, UV light application, ultrasound (low frequency ultrasound ∼40 kHz), and adsorption (activated carbon) based methods are commonly used techniques for remove trace amounts of macrolides present in aquatic systems despite several limitations. Recently, we reported green nanoemulsions as nanocarriers for removing few macrolides and anti-tubercular pharmaceuticals (clarithromycin, azithromycin, and rifampicin) contaminating aqueous solutions. These nanoemulsions are isotropic, and thermodynamically stable, composed of water, lipid, surfactant and co-surfactant. ERN is a poorly water-soluble (0.15 mg/mL) drug as evidenced by its log P value (2.6–3.06).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The drug is a potential contaminant in aquatic systems that needs to be removed using the established economic and efficient method . There are several factors affecting the removal efficiency of the drug from contaminated water such as (a) the components (water and oil phases) of the nanoemulsion, (b) the physicochemical properties (viscosity, globular size, ferrous ions, hydrogen peroxide, and refractive index) of the nanoemulsion, (c) the degree of polluted water, (d) method efficiency, and (e) other factors (pH, UV frequency, reducing agent, microbial inhibition by antibiotics). From the literature, it was concluded that the percent removal efficiency (%RE) of macrolides was comparatively lower than that of fluoroquinolones and the %RE values of ERN were 74 and 79% in wastewater treatment plants in Beijing and the United Kingdom (and Australia), respectively. , The drug can be estimated using previously reported methods based on the physicochemical nature of the drug. , The selection of excipients was based on various factors such as (a) the solubility of the drug, (b) the hydrophilic–lipophilic balance (HLB) value of the excipient, (c) medium-chain triglycerides capable of self-emulsification after dispersion into water, (d) capability of forming an emulsion through self-emulsification into water and subsequent adsorption of the lipophilic drug, (e) safety and biocompatibility, and (f) cost-effectiveness and ease of access. Labrafil M 1944 CS (LabM) consists chemically of mono-, di-, and triglycerides and PEG-6 (MW 300) mono- and diesters of oleic acid (C18:1) (source: Gattefossé leaflet).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%