Salt Selection Matters: Differential Renal Toxicity With MDV1634.Maleate Versus MDV1634.2HCl
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Salt forms of pharmaceutical compounds can have unique pharmacokinetic and toxicity properties. MDV1634 was evaluated for neurology indication and also demonstrated blood pressure (BP)-lowering effects in nonclinical studies. During the chemistry manufacturing campaign, 2 salt forms, dihydrochloride (2HCl) and maleate (MAL), which improved chemical stability and water solubility of the free base were identified. MDV1634.MAL showed better chemical attributes and was evaluated in toxicology studies for further development. A 28-day oral toxicity study in dogs with MDV1634.MAL demonstrated partially reversible renal toxicity. Although MAL salt is generally regarded as safe, renal toxicity is sometimes observed in rats and dogs. To evaluate contribution of each salt form to renal toxicity and BP lowering, an additional 28-day study was conducted with MDV1634.2HCL and MDV1634.MAL, which included toxicokinetics, continuous BP measurement in a subset of dogs, and sensitive urinary biomarker evaluation for temporal monitorability and reversibility of potential renal findings. In the repeat study, both salt forms showed similar exposures during the dosing period, but renal tubular toxicity was observed only with MDV1634.MAL and not with MDV1634.2HCl. The renal findings with MDV1634.MAL included early urinary biomarker changes (increase in albumin, clusterin, β2 microglobulin, and neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin); elevations in serum blood urea nitrogen and creatinine; and microscopic findings of partially reversible tubular basophilia, single cell necrosis, pigmentation, and mineralization. The renal findings in contrast to the BP findings were MAL-specific and considered not related to MDV1634, thereby under scoring the importance of salt forms in pharmaceutical development.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".