Different Pharmacokinetics of Aucubin in Rats of Carbon tetrachloride and D-Galactosamine-induced Hepatic Failure

사염화탄소와 갈락토사민 간장해 시의 오큐빈의 체내동태 차이

  • 김미형 (서울대학교 약학대학) ;
  • 심창구 (서울대학교 약학대학) ;
  • 장일무 (서울대학교 천연물과학 연구소)
  • Published : 1993.08.01

Abstract

Pharmacokinetics of aucubin, an irdoid glucoside, was compared in rats of experimental hepatic failure(EHF). EHF was induced by CCI$_{4}$ or D-galactosamine pretreatment. This work was designed to find out any differences in the pharmacokinetics of aucubin that may explain the different protective effect of aucubin on CCI$_{4}$- and galactosamine-induced EHF : aucubin reportedly protected CCI$_{4}$-inducing hepatotoxicity effectively, but did not for galactosamine-hepatotoxicity. EHF was induced by intraperitoneal injection Of CCI$_{4}$(0.9ml/kg) or galactosamine(250 mg/kg) to Wistar rats 24 hr before the pharmacokinetic study. The rats were fasted during the 24 hr. Aucubin was iv injected at a dose of 15 mg/kg and the plasma aucubin was assayed by HPLC. There were no significant differences in the pathophysiologies(body weight, liver weight, GTP, hematocrit, blood cell distrbution and plasma protein binding of aucubin) between the two EHF models except GOP which was significantly (p<0.05) higher in CCI$_{4}$-than in galactosamine-EHF. On the other hand, pharmacokinetics of aucubin such as total cleatance(CL$_{t}$), distribution volume at steady-state(Vd$_{ss}$), and mean residence time(MRT) differed significantly(p<0.05) between the models : for example, CL$_{t}$ was increased two fold by CCI$_{4}$, but not by galaclosamine ; Vd$_{ss}$, in galactosamine-EHF was higher than that in CCI$_{4}$-EHF ; MRT was decreased by CCI$_{4}$, but increased conversely by galactosamine. The increase of CL$_{t}$(and decrease of MRT) in rats of CCI$_{4}$-EHF was contrary to the general expectation for the hepatic failure : most of the hepatic failures have been known to decrease CL$_{t}$ of the administered drugs. Whether the difference in the pharmacokinetics is responsible for the different protective effect of aucubin against the two EHF models is of interest. However, much more studies on biliary excretion, urinary excretion, and hepatic uptake in cellular level should be preceded before any conclusions are made on the role of different pharmacokinetics on the different pharmacology of aucubin.

Keywords