MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Dimethyl Fumarate and Monoethyl Fumarate Exhibit Differential Pharmacodynamic Effects and Pharmacokinetics In Vivo (P1.207)

2014· article· en· W1505442537 on OpenAlexaboutno aff
Robert H. Scannevin, Suzanne Szak, Kristopher King, Melanie S. Brennan, Norm Allaire, Patrick Cullen, Alice Thai, Ankur Thomas, Davide Gianni, Alexander J. Chou, Theresa Hillery, Brian T. Wipke, Liyu Yang, John P. Carulli, Huang Chaoran, Kenneth J. Rhodes

Bibliographic record

VenueNeurology · 2014
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldChemistry
TopicClick Chemistry and Applications
Canadian institutionsnot available
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPharmacokineticsPharmacodynamicsIn vivoPharmacologyMedicineBiology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the pharmacodynamic effects and pharmacokinetics of dimethyl fumarate (DMF) and monoethyl fumarate (MEF) in vivo. BACKGROUND: Delayed-release DMF is approved in the U.S., Canada, and Australia for the treatment of multiple sclerosis. DMF is also one component of a combination product with 3 different salts of MEF, and this combination treatment is approved in Germany for psoriasis. Previous studies have characterized the in vivo properties of DMF; however MEF has been largely under explored. Characterizing potential common or distinct pharmacodynamic properties of DMF and MEF would provide important insights into the mechanisms of action for delayed-release DMF versus fixed combination products containing DMF and MEF salts. DESIGN/METHODS: Naïve mice were dosed with DMF, MEF or a combination of the two. Pharmacodynamic responses and pharmacokinetics were evaluated after a single dose and after 10 days of repeated daily dosing in multiple peripheral and CNS tissues. RESULTS: Both DMF and MEF exhibited similar pharmacokinetic profiles, however differences were noted in biodistribution; monomethyl fumarate (MMF, the primary metabolite of DMF) exhibited a higher degree of brain penetration, whereas MEF was preferentially partitioned into kidney. Common pharmacodynamic responses were observed for DMF, MEF salts and combination treatment; however, unique responses for each treatment were also observed in all assessed tissues. Distinct pharmacodynamic responses were also observed with combination treatment, and these were not found with either individual component. CONCLUSIONS: DMF/MMF and MEF were absorbed to a similar degree after oral dosing, however there were biodistribution differences, most notably in brain and kidney. Both compounds alone or in combination were active in vivo, with some common responses and others distinct to each treatment. The data indicate that all fumaric acid esters cannot be each considered equivalent, and combinations of compounds may exert effects not observed when agents are used individually. Study Supported by: Biogen Idec Inc.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesMeta-epidemiology (narrow)
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.044
Threshold uncertainty score1.000

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.006
GPT teacher head0.245
Teacher spread0.239 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2014
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueNeurologySame topicClick Chemistry and ApplicationsFrench-language works237,207