Dual mechanisms suppress meloxicam bioactivation relative to sudoxicam.

Abstract Thiazoles are biologically active aromatic heterocyclic rings occurring frequently in natural products and drugs. These molecules undergo typically harmless elimination; however, a hepatotoxic response can occur due to multistep bioactivation of the thiazole to generate a reactive thioamide. A basis for those differences in outcomes remains unknown. A textbook example is the high hepatotoxicity observed for sudoxicam in contrast to the relative safe use and marketability of meloxicam, which differs in structure from sudoxicam by the addition of a single methyl group. Both drugs undergo bioactivation, but meloxicam exhibits an additional detoxification pathway due to hydroxylation of the methyl group. We hypothesized that thiazole bioactivation efficiency is similar between sudoxicam and meloxicam due to the methyl group being a weak electron donator, and thus, the relevance of bioactivation depends on the competing detoxification pathway. For a rapid analysis, we modeled epoxidation of sudoxicam derivatives to investigate the impact of substituents on thiazole bioactivation. As expected, electron donating groups increased the likelihood for epoxidation with a minimal effect for the methyl group, but model predictions did not extrapolate well among all types of substituents. Through analytical methods, we measured steady-state kinetics for metabolic bioactivation of sudoxicam and meloxicam by human liver microsomes. Sudoxicam bioactivation was 6-fold more efficient than that for meloxicam, yet meloxicam showed a 6-fold higher efficiency of detoxification than bioactivation. Overall, sudoxicam bioactivation was 15-fold more likely than meloxicam considering all metabolic clearance pathways. Kinetic differences likely arise from different enzymes catalyzing respective metabolic pathways based on phenotyping studies. Rather than simply providing an alternative detoxification pathway, the meloxicam methyl group suppressed the bioactivation reaction. These findings indicate the impact of thiazole substituents on bioactivation is more complex than previously thought and likely contributes to the unpredictability of their toxic potential.