Serlopitant (VPD-737)
(Synonyms: 司洛匹坦,VPD-737; MK-0594) 目录号 : GC33691
Serlopitant (VPD-737) 是一种选择性 Neurokinin-1 (NK-1) 受体拮抗剂。
Cas No.:860642-69-9
Sample solution is provided at 25 µL, 10mM.
;)
,-1-7$$$37316672.jpg');)
;)
;)
$$$36806353.jpg');)
;33(7)%EF%BC%9A546-561$$$37156877.jpg');)
;)
;)
;)
%201124-1138.$$$35908550.jpg');)
%20766-780.$$$37100057.jpg');)
%20418-432.$$$36893736.jpg');)
%EF%BC%9A-240-255.$$$35108512.jpg');)
533-545$$$36543525.jpg');)
%201-13.$$$36600053.jpg');)
;)
Quality Control & SDS
- View current batch:
- Purity: >98.00%
- COA (Certificate Of Analysis)
- SDS (Safety Data Sheet)
- Datasheet
Serlopitant is a selective Neurokinin-1 (NK-1) receptor antagonist.
[1]. Yosipovitch G, et al. Serlopitant for the treatment of chronic pruritus: Results of a randomized, multicenter, placebo-controlled phase 2 clinical trial. J Am Acad Dermatol. 2018 May;78(5):882-891.
| Cas No. | 860642-69-9 | SDF | |
| 别名 | 司洛匹坦,VPD-737; MK-0594 | ||
| Canonical SMILES | O=C1C=C(N2C[C@@]3([H])CC[C@H](O[C@@H](C4=CC(C(F)(F)F)=CC(C(F)(F)F)=C4)C)[C@@H](C5=CC=C(F)C=C5)[C@]3([H])C2)CC1 | ||
| 分子式 | C29H28F7NO2 | 分子量 | 555.53 |
| 溶解度 | Soluble in DMSO | 储存条件 | Store at -20°C |
| General tips | 请根据产品在不同溶剂中的溶解度选择合适的溶剂配制储备液；一旦配成溶液，请分装保存，避免反复冻融造成的产品失效。 储备液的保存方式和期限：-80°C 储存时，请在 6 个月内使用，-20°C 储存时，请在 1 个月内使用。 为了提高溶解度，请将管子加热至37℃，然后在超声波浴中震荡一段时间。 |
||
| Shipping Condition | 评估样品解决方案：配备蓝冰进行发货。所有其他可用尺寸：配备RT，或根据请求配备蓝冰。 | ||
| 制备储备液 | |||
 |
1 mg | 5 mg | 10 mg |
| 1 mM | 1.8001 mL | 9.0004 mL | 18.0008 mL |
| 5 mM | 0.36 mL | 1.8001 mL | 3.6002 mL |
| 10 mM | 0.18 mL | 0.9 mL | 1.8001 mL |
| 第一步：请输入基本实验信息（考虑到实验过程中的损耗，建议多配一只动物的药量） | ||||||||||
| 给药剂量 | mg/kg |  |
动物平均体重 | g | |
每只动物给药体积 | ul | |
动物数量 | 只 |
| 第二步：请输入动物体内配方组成（配方适用于不溶于水的药物；不同批次药物配方比例不同，请联系GLPBIO为您提供正确的澄清溶液配方） | ||||||||||
| % DMSO % % Tween 80 % saline | ||||||||||
| 计算重置 | ||||||||||
计算结果:
工作液浓度： mg/ml；
DMSO母液配制方法： mg 药物溶于 μL DMSO溶液（母液浓度 mg/mL，
体内配方配制方法：取 μL DMSO母液，加入 μL PEG300，混匀澄清后加入μL Tween 80，混匀澄清后加入 μL saline，混匀澄清。
1. 首先保证母液是澄清的；
2.
一定要按照顺序依次将溶剂加入，进行下一步操作之前必须保证上一步操作得到的是澄清的溶液，可采用涡旋、超声或水浴加热等物理方法助溶。
3. 以上所有助溶剂都可在 GlpBio 网站选购。
Interventions for chronic pruritus of unknown origin
Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2020 Jan 25;1(1):CD013128.PMID:31981369DOI:10.1002/14651858.CD013128.pub2.
Background: Pruritus is a sensation that leads to the desire to scratch; its origin is unknown in 8% to 15% of affected patients. The prevalence of chronic pruritus of unknown origin (CPUO) in individuals with generalised pruritus ranges from 3.6% to 44.5%, with highest prevalence among the elderly. When the origin of pruritus is known, its management may be straightforward if an effective treatment for the causal disease is available. Treatment of CPUO is particularly difficult due to its unknown pathophysiology. Objectives: To assess the effects of interventions for CPUO in adults and children. Search methods: We searched the following up to July 2019: Cochrane Skin Group Specialised Register, CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, and trials registries. We checked the reference lists of included studies for additional references to relevant trials. Selection criteria: We sought to include randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised controlled trials that assessed interventions for CPUO, as defined in category VI ('Other pruritus of undetermined origin, or chronic pruritus of unknown origin') of the International Forum for the Study of Itch (IFSI) classification, in children and adults. Eligible interventions were non-pharmacological or topical or systemic pharmacological interventions, and eligible comparators were another active treatment, placebo, sham procedures, or no treatment or equivalent (e.g. waiting list). Data collection and analysis: We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Our primary outcomes were 'Patient- or parent-reported pruritus intensity' and 'Adverse events'. Our secondary outcomes were 'Health-related quality of life', 'Sleep disturbances', 'Depression', and 'Patient satisfaction'. We used GRADE to assess the certainty of evidence. Main results: We found there was an absence of evidence for the main interventions of interest: emollient creams, cooling lotions, topical corticosteroids, topical antidepressants, systemic antihistamines, systemic antidepressants, systemic anticonvulsants, and phototherapy. We included one study with 257 randomised (253 analysed) participants, aged 18 to 65 years; 60.6% were female. This study investigated the safety and efficacy of three different doses of oral Serlopitant (5 mg, 1 mg, and 0.25 mg, once daily for six weeks) compared to placebo for severe chronic pruritus; 25 US centres participated (clinical research centres and universities). All outcomes were measured at the end of treatment (six weeks from baseline), except adverse events, which were monitored throughout. A pharmaceutical company funded this study. Fifty-five per cent of participants suffered from CPUO, and approximately 45% presented a dermatological diagnosis (atopic dermatitis/eczema 37.3%, psoriasis 6.7%, acne 3.6%, among other diagnoses). We unsuccessfully attempted to retrieve outcome data from study authors for the subgroup of participants with CPUO. Participants had pruritus for six weeks or longer. Total study duration was 10 weeks. Participants who received Serlopitant 5 mg may have a greater rate of relief of patient-reported pruritus intensity as measured by the visual analogue scale (VAS; a reduction in VAS score indicates improvement) compared to placebo (126 participants, risk ratio (RR) 2.06, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.27 to 3.35; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effects of Serlopitant 5 mg compared to placebo on the following outcomes due to very low-certainty evidence: adverse events (127 participants; RR 1.48, 95% CI 0.87 to 2.50); health-related quality of life (as measured by the Dermatology Life Quality Index (DLQI); a higher score indicates greater impairment; 127 participants; mean difference (MD) -4.20, 95% CI -11.68 to 3.28); and sleep disturbances (people with insomnia measured by the Pittsburgh Sleep Symptom Questionnaire-Insomnia (PSSQ-I), a dichotomous measure; 128 participants; RR 0.49, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.01). Participants who received Serlopitant 1 mg may have a greater rate of relief of patient-reported pruritus intensity as measured by VAS compared to placebo; however, the 95% CI indicates that there may also be little to no difference between groups (126 participants; RR 1.50, 95% CI 0.89 to 2.54; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effects of Serlopitant 1 mg compared to placebo on the following outcomes due to very low-certainty evidence: adverse events (128 participants; RR 1.45, 95% CI 0.86 to 2.47); health-related quality of life (DLQI; 128 participants; MD -6.90, 95% CI -14.38 to 0.58); and sleep disturbances (PSSQ-I; 128 participants; RR 0.38, 95% CI 0.17 to 0.84). Participants who received Serlopitant 0.25 mg may have a greater rate of relief of patient-reported pruritus intensity as measured by VAS compared to placebo; however, the 95% CI indicates that there may also be little to no difference between groups (127 participants; RR 1.66, 95% CI 1.00 to 2.77; low-certainty evidence). We are uncertain of the effects of Serlopitant 0.25 mg compared to placebo on the following outcomes due to very low-certainty evidence: adverse events (127 participants; RR 1.29, 95% CI 0.75 to 2.24); health-related quality of life (DLQI; 127 participants; MD -5.70, 95% CI -13.18 to 1.78); and sleep disturbances (PSSQ-I; 127 participants; RR 0.60, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.17). The most commonly reported adverse events were somnolence, diarrhoea, headache, and nasopharyngitis, among others. Our included study did not measure depression or patient satisfaction. We downgraded the certainty of evidence for all outcomes due to indirectness (only 55% of study participants had CPUO) and imprecision. We downgraded outcomes other than patient-reported pruritus intensity a further level due to concerns regarding risk of bias in selection of the reported result and some concerns with risk of bias due to missing outcome data (sleep disturbances only). We deemed risk of bias to be generally low. Authors' conclusions: We found lack of evidence to address our review question: for most of our interventions of interest, we found no eligible studies. The neurokinin 1 receptor (NK1R) antagonist Serlopitant was the only intervention that we could assess. One study provided low-certainty evidence suggesting that Serlopitant may reduce pruritus intensity when compared with placebo. We are uncertain of the effects of Serlopitant on other outcomes, as certainty of the evidence is very low. More studies with larger sample sizes, focused on patients with CPUO, are needed. Healthcare professionals, patients, and other stakeholders may have to rely on indirect evidence related to other forms of chronic pruritus when deciding between the main interventions currently used for this condition.
The NK1 receptor antagonist Serlopitant for treatment of chronic pruritus
Expert Opin Investig Drugs 2019 Aug;28(8):659-666.PMID:31272246DOI:10.1080/13543784.2019.1638910.
Introduction: Pruritus is a common symptom associated with several potential underlying causes, including both dermatologic and systemic diseases; it can also occur without an identifiable cause. Current treatment options are limited and most patients experience impaired quality of life. Serlopitant is a neurokinin 1 (NK1) receptor antagonist under development for the treatment of pruritus associated with various dermatologic conditions and chronic pruritus of unknown origin. Areas covered: This review describes the epidemiology and unmet needs of patients with chronic pruritus, focusing specifically on patients with prurigo nodularis, psoriatic itch, and chronic pruritus of unknown origin; the rationale for targeting the NK1 receptor for treatment of chronic pruritus; and the clinical development of Serlopitant, including efficacy and safety data from completed phase II studies. Expert opinion: There is an unmet need for novel, safe, and effective therapies to treat chronic pruritus. Serlopitant has shown promising efficacy, safety, and tolerability across different patient populations, including adolescents and elderly patients. In contrast to less convenient administration options, Serlopitant is a once-daily oral tablet, which is expected to facilitate compliance.
Benefits and harms of NK1 R antagonists in pruritus: A systematic review and meta-analysis
Dermatol Ther 2021 Jan;34(1):e14698.PMID:33368902DOI:10.1111/dth.14698.
Accumulating evidence has showed the possibility of using NK1R antagonists for the treatment of chronic pruritus. However, the benefit and risk profile of NK1R antagonists-serlopitant and aprepitant for the treatment of pruritus remains unclear. To assess the efficacy and safety of NK1R antagonists-serlopitant and aprepitant in patients with pruritus based on analysis of clinical trials. The current systematic review and meta-analysis was performed according to PRISMA guidelines. A total of 10 randomized clinical trials including 631 patients were enrolled. Four randomized controlled trials investigated the comparative treatment effect of Serlopitant on pruritus. Our results showed that Serlopitant had reasonable anti-pruritic effectiveness in patients, with mild toxicities. The overall proportion of 4-point improvement of NRS and VAS in serlopitant-treatment group were both significantly higher relative to placebo group (OR 2.345, 95%CI 1.557 to 3.531, P < .001; OR 3.308, 95% CI 1.949 to 5.616, P < .001). Serlopitant treatment was also found to be associated with a significant reduction in NRS score as compared with placebo (SMD -0.381, 95%CI -0.599 to -0.164, P = .001). Six clinical trials reported the treatment effect of aprepitant on pruritus. The meta-analysis result of fixed-effect model showed that there was no significant difference between aprepitant and controlled treatment in terms of improved pruritus VAS score (SMD -0.088, 95%CI -0.384 to 0.207, P = .558). There is promising high-quality evidence regarding the efficacy of Serlopitant on pruritus. More large-sample randomized controlled trials with appropriate treatment regimen are urgently needed to further evaluate the effectiveness of aprepitant in pruritus.
A multicenter, double-blind, randomized, placebo controlled trial of a neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist for overactive bladder
J Urol 2010 Aug;184(2):616-22.PMID:20639026DOI:10.1016/j.juro.2010.03.147.
Purpose: Neurokinin-1 receptor dependent mechanisms may regulate urinary frequency and urgency. We conducted this study to assess the efficacy and tolerability of the neurokinin-1 receptor antagonist Serlopitant vs placebo or tolterodine in patients with overactive bladder. Materials and methods: This randomized, double-blind, 69-center trial enrolled adults with overactive bladder (8 or more average daily micturitions and 1 or more daily urge incontinence episodes). After a 1-week placebo run-in the patients were randomized to 8 weeks of daily 0.25, 1 or 4 mg Serlopitant, 4 mg tolterodine extended release or placebo. Patients kept 7-day voiding diaries. The primary end point was change from baseline in micturitions per day. Secondary end points included urgency, total incontinence, urge incontinence episodes and incidence of dry mouth. Results: Of 557 patients randomized 476 completed the trial and had valid efficacy data for analysis. Mean change from baseline in daily micturitions was significantly greater for 0.25 (-1.1) and 4 mg (-1.1) Serlopitant, and for tolterodine (-1.5) than for placebo (-0.5), but not for 1 mg Serlopitant (-0.8). No Serlopitant dose response was demonstrated. Tolterodine was numerically superior to all doses of Serlopitant in mean micturitions per day and secondary end points. The incidence of dry mouth on Serlopitant (3.3%) was comparable to placebo (4.6%) and lower than tolterodine (8.8%). Serlopitant was generally well tolerated. Conclusions: Serlopitant (0.25 and 4 mg) significantly decreased the primary end point of daily micturitions but not the secondary end points compared with placebo. Serlopitant was generally well tolerated. Thus, NK-1 receptor antagonists may have a role in the treatment of overactive bladder but this compound does not offer advantages in efficacy compared to tolterodine.
Gateways to clinical trials
Methods Find Exp Clin Pharmacol 2009 Jun;31(5):341-56.PMID:19649342doi
(+)-Dapoxetine hydrochloride; Abatacept, Adalimumab, Agalsidase beta, Alemtuzumab, Alglucosidase alfa, Aliskiren fumarate, Ambrisentan, Amlodipine, Aripiprazole, Atrasentan, Azacitidine, Azelnidipine; Belotecan hydrochloride, Bevacizumab, Bilastine, Biphasic insulin aspart, Bortezomib, Bosentan; Caspofungin acetate, CG-100649, Cinacalcet hydrochloride, Clindamycin phosphate/ benzoyl peroxide; Dasatinib, Denosumab, Duloxetine hydrochloride, Dutasteride, Dutasteride/tamsulosin; Ecogramostim, Eculizumab, Eltrombopag olamine, EndoTAG-1, Erlotinib hydrochloride, Everolimus, Exenatide, Ezetimibe; FAHF-2, Fondaparinux sodium; Gefitinib, Golimumab; HEV-239, HSV-TK; Imatinib mesylate, Indium 111 ((111)In) ibritumomab tiuxetan, Influenza vaccine(surface antigen, inactivated, prepared in cell culture), Insulin glargine; Kisspeptin-54; Lidocaine/prilocaine, Lomitapide; Maraviroc, Mirodenafil hydrochloride, MK-8141, MVA-Ag85A; Nilotinib hydrochloride monohydrate; Olmesartan medoxomil; Paclitaxel-eluting stent, Pegfilgrastim, Peginterferon alfa-2a, Peginterferon alfa-2b, Pemetrexed disodium, Pitavastatin calcium, Prasugrel; Recombinant human relaxin H2, RHAMM R3 peptide, Rivaroxaban, Rosuvastatin calcium, RRz2; Sagopilone, Salinosporamide A, SB-509, Serlopitant, Sirolimus-eluting stent, Sorafenib, Sunitinib malate; Tadalafil, Temsirolimus, Teriparatide, TG-4010, Tositumomab/iodine (I131) tositumomab; Velusetrag Hydrochloride; Ximelagatran; Yttrium 90 (90Y) ibritumomab tiuxetan.