Disposition of bumetanide in the isolated perfused rat kidney: effects of probenecid and dose response

Handling of Drugs, Metabolites, and Uremic Toxins by Kidney Proximal Tubule Drug Transporters

The proximal tubule of the kidney plays a crucial role in the renal handling of drugs (e.g., diuretics), uremic toxins (e.g., indoxyl sulfate), environmental toxins (e.g., mercury, aristolochic acid), metabolites (e.g., uric acid), dietary compounds, and signaling molecules. This process is dependent on many multispecific transporters of the solute carrier (SLC) superfamily, including organic anion transporter (OAT) and organic cation transporter (OCT) subfamilies, and the ATP-binding cassette (ABC) superfamily. We review the basic physiology of these SLC and ABC transporters, many of which are often called drug transporters. With an emphasis on OAT1 (SLC22A6), the closely related OAT3 (SLC22A8), and OCT2 (SLC22A2), we explore the implications of recent in vitro, in vivo, and clinical data pertinent to the kidney. The analysis of murine knockouts has revealed a key role for these transporters in the renal handling not only of drugs and toxins but also of gut microbiome products, as well as liver-derived phase 1 and phase 2 metabolites, including putative uremic toxins (among other molecules of metabolic and clinical importance). Functional activity of these transporters (and polymorphisms affecting it) plays a key role in drug handling and nephrotoxicity. These transporters may also play a role in remote sensing and signaling, as part of a versatile small molecule communication network operative throughout the body in normal and diseased states, such as AKI and CKD.

Interactions of human organic anion transporters with diuretics

The tubular secretion of diuretics in the proximal tubule has been shown to be critical for the action of drugs. To elucidate the molecular mechanisms for the tubular excretion of diuretics, we have elucidated the interactions of human organic anion transporters (hOATs) with diuretics using cells stably expressing hOATs. Diuretics tested were thiazides, including chlorothiazide, cyclothiazide, hydrochlorothiazide, and trichlormethiazide; loop diuretics, including bumetanide, ethacrynic acid, and furosemide; and carbonic anhydrase inhibitors, including acetazolamide and methazolamide. These diuretics inhibited organic anion uptake mediated by hOAT1, hOAT2, hOAT3, and hOAT4 in a competitive manner. hOAT1 exhibited the highest affinity interactions for thiazides, whereas hOAT3 did those for loop diuretics. hOAT1, hOAT3, and hOAT4 but not hOAT2, mediated the uptake of bumetanide. hOAT3 and hOAT4, but not hOAT1 mediated the efflux of bumetanide. hOAT1 and hOAT3, but not hOAT2 and hOAT4 mediated the uptake of furosemide. In conclusion, it was suggested that hOAT1 may play an important role in the basolateral uptake of thiazides, and hOAT3 in the uptake of loop diuretics. In addition, it was also suggested that bumetanide taken up by hOAT3 and/or hOAT1 is excreted into the urine by hOAT4.

Comparison of loop diuretics in patients with chronic renal insufficiency

Furosemide and bumetanide share a number of characteristics including reduced natriuretic effects in azotemic patients. It has been presumed that this condition affects each drug equally. Previous studies, however, suggest dissimilar pathways of delivery to their sites of action. Though not rigorously tested, this potential disparity might cause them to differ when used in azotemia. We, therefore, assessed the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic characteristics of intravenously administered furosemide and bumetanide in ten adult patients with stable, chronic renal insufficiency (mean creatinine clearance = 14.1 +/- 2.0 ml/min/1.73 m2) in a randomized, cross-over study during controlled sodium intake. Our goals were to assess differences in diuretic effectiveness and in so doing to determine the dose required to produce a maximal response. The mean diuretic doses of 172 and 4.3 mg for furosemide and bumetanide, respectively (ratio = 40:1) were sufficient to produce a maximum response. Despite similarities in maximal fractional excretion of sodium (18.2 +/- 2.6% with furosemide vs. 19.4 +/- 4.5% with bumetanide, P = 0.687) demonstrating an equal tubular responsiveness to both drugs, overall response as quantified by cumulative natriuresis in the initial eight hour period was 52% greater with furosemide (108 +/- 17 vs. 71 +/- 7 mEq; P = 0.042). The difference in total excreted sodium was accounted for by a preserved nonrenal clearance of bumetanide (113 +/- 12 compared to 53 +/- 5 ml/min for furosemide, P = 0.001) which resulted in relatively less bumetanide in serum available to be delivered into the urine.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)