In Vitro ADME, Preclinical Pharmacokinetics and Prediction of Human Pharmacokinetics of RBx14255, a Novel Ketolide with Pharmacodynamics Against Multidrug-Resistant Bacterial Pathogens
Bibliographic record
Abstract
PURPOSE: The preclinical pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of a potent fluoroketolide RBx14255 against Streptococcus pneumoniae and Haemophilus influenzae was compared with telithromycin and human clinical dose was predicted for preclinical development. METHODS: The in vitro pharmacokinetic characterization was performed for solubility, Caco-2 permeability, microsomal stability, CYP inhibition and plasma protein binding. In vivo pharmacokinetic studies were performed in Swiss albino mice, Sprague Dawley rats and Beagle dogs. The pharmacodynamic studies were carried out in mouse against S. pneumoniae in systemic infection and against S. pneumoniae and H. influenzae in rat lung infection models. RESULTS: RBx14255 showed superior potency and efficacy in mouse and rat infection models. RBx14255 showed pH dependent solubility (0.41 mg/mL at pH 6.8 and >1 mg/mL at pH 1.2), moderate Caco-2 permeability (A to B: 12 nm/s) with high efflux ratio. It showed high plasma protein binding (>97%) in mouse and low binding (45- 70%) in rat, dog and human. The compound is mainly metabolized through CYP3A4. Pharmacokinetic parameters and absolute bioavailability of both, RBx14255 and telithromycin are similar in mouse. Both the ketolides showed low plasma clearance (18% of the normal hepatic blood flow rate) in mouse, moderate to high clearance in rat and dog. Mean oral bioavailability was high in mouse (≥85%), moderate in rat (RBx14255: 15% and telithromycin: 51%) and high to moderate in dog (RBx14255: 98% and telithromycin: 56%). The predicted efficacious dose for a 70 kg man ranges from 124 mg BID to 226 mg BID. CONCLUSION: RBx14255 displayed significantly better pharmacodynamics which correlates with the pharmacokinetic properties against S. pneumoniae and H. influenzae as compared to telithromycin. The predicted human efficacious doses are in the range of 124-226 mg, making it amenable to oral dosage form drug in human. This could be a promising clinical candidate for future studies.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 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".