Advertisement

Chiral Differences in the Disposition of the Quaternary Anticholinergic Drug Oxyphenonium Bromide

  • Karla G. Feitsma
  • Ben F. H. Drenth
  • Rokus A. de Zeeuw
  • Dirk K. F. Meijer
Part of the Methodological Surveys in Biochemistry and Analysis book series (MSBA, volume 18 A)

Abstract

As for many other anticholinergic drugs, the enantiomers of oxyphenonium bromide exhibit large differences in affinity to muscarinic receptors as well as in therapeutic effect [1]. For detailed study of the fate of the enantiomers in the body an assay is required that determines both enantiomers simultaneously in the biological sample. Although various chiral Chromatographic systems have been developed over the years [2], we were unable to separate the enantiomers of oxyphenonium bromide [3]. Recently we succeeded in resolving racemic oxyphenonium bromide on an α1-acid glycoprotein (EnantioPac®) column; but this system had insufficient efficiency and stability for bioanalytical applications. In order to study differences between oxyphenonium bromide enantiomers in absorption, distribution, metabolism and excretion, another approach was adopted, in which the enantiomers were synthesized separately (Fig. 1).

Keywords

Biliary Excretion Methyl Bromide Sodium Perchlorate Bioanalytical Application Biliary Excretion Rate 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Feitsma, K.G. (1987) Ph.D. Thesis, Univ. of Groningen, Groningen.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Souter, R.W. (1985) Chromatographic Separation of Stereoisomers, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 241 pp.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Feitsma, K.G., Drenth, B.F.H., Kooi, K., Bosman, J. & de Zeeuw, R.A. (1986) Method. Surv. Biochem. Anal. 16, 259–269 [i.e. this series (Reid, E., et al., eds.), Plenum, New York].Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Feitsma, K.G., Drenth, B.F.H. & de Zeeuw, R.A. (1987) J. Chromatog. 387, 447–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Neef, C., Oosting, R. & Meijer, D.K.F. (1984) Nauyn-Sehmiedeberg’s Arch. Pharmacol. 328, 103–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Meijer, D.K.F., Keulemans, K. & Mulder, G.J. (1981) Meths. Enzymol. 77, 81–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 1988

Authors and Affiliations

  • Karla G. Feitsma
    • 1
  • Ben F. H. Drenth
    • 1
  • Rokus A. de Zeeuw
    • 1
  • Dirk K. F. Meijer
    • 2
  1. 1.Departments of Analytical Chemistry & ToxicologyUniversity of GroningenGroningenThe Netherlands
  2. 2.Departments of Pharmacology & TherapeuticsUniversity of GroningenAW GroningenThe Netherlands

Personalised recommendations