From the small number of current examples of the development of novel XO inhibitor compounds that have entered a clinical phase (
Becker et al., 2004,
2005;
Fukunari et al., 2004;
Komoriya et al., 2004;
Yamada et al., 2004;
Hashimoto et al., 2005;
Mayer et al., 2005;
Takano et al., 2005), it appears that hyperuricemia and gout remain the main indications for the development of novel XO inhibitors, with additional growing interest in cardiac indications, such as chronic heart failure. Novel XO inhibitors must preferably be more potent, more effective, and possess better pharmacodynamic profile than allopurinol/oxypurinol, which is expected to translate in the clinical practice to lower daily doses and/or less frequent daily administration of the drug. Considering current tools for small molecule design and development, achievement of such goals does not appear to be too ambitious, although one must note that oxypurinol, as an irreversible inhibitor of XO, may have advantages over novel, ultrapotent competitive inhibitors of XO. The irreversible inhibition of XO by oxypurinol, in fact, can result in situations, in which new XO inhibitors, that appear to be several orders of magnitude more potent that allopurinol in vitro lose much of their potency advantage over allopurinol in vivo (
Horiuchi et al., 1999b,
c;
Naito et al., 2000;
Ishibuchi et al., 2001).
It is important to note that XO inhibitors, including allopurinol, although inhibiting the activity of the enzyme, can actually reduce the enzyme by transfer of an electron to oxygen, thus generating superoxide (
Miyamoto et al., 1996). Other XO inhibitors, such as AHPP, do not share this oxidant-generating ability of allopurinol. Although it is unclear whether this finding is relevant for in vivo situations, it is probably preferable to develop future XO inhibitors that do not exert pro-oxidant effects.
A more important area in which XO inhibitors clearly need improvement is the reduction of their side effects. As reviewed above, allopurinol does have a number of serious side effects, and the cellular and molecular mechanisms of these side effects are incompletely understood. Some recent data indicate that the renal toxicity of allopurinol is related to impairment of pyrimidine metabolism (
Horiuchi et al., 2000). There are no reliable or rapid screening tools that would predict the safety profile of novel XO inhibitors in terms of hypersensitivity reactions or organ toxicity; contact hypersensitivity mouse ear models and toxicity studies in rodents are being used to predict such side effects (
Horiuchi et al., 1999a). Intuitively, one would predict that novel XO inhibitors that would move away from the purine-based inhibitor structure may have fewer of the allopurinol-like side effects (of course, they may introduce new types of side effects or toxicities). One must also be cautious with widely used long-term safety trials, especially in rodents, as rodents and primates have different biochemical pathways for handling purines: urate oxidase is an essential enzyme in rodents that converts uric acid into allantoin, which subsequently metabolizes to allantoate and then glioxylate and urea (
Wu et al., 1994).
With respect to the utility of novel XO inhibitors for the experimental therapy of pathophysiological conditions other than gout (reperfusion, inflammation, and toxic organ injury), the first three interrelated questions to be addressed are the following: 1) Is there up-regulation of XO in human disease? 2) Does oxidant generation from XO substantially contribute to the pathogenesis of the disease? and 3) How much of the previously reported effects of allopurinol are actually related to XO inhibition, as opposed to non-XO related additional pharmacological effects of the compound? These issues have been reviewed, in some detail, in the preceding section. For questions 1 and 2, it appears that in many pathophysiological conditions, there is an up-regulation of XO in humans sometimes coupled with a deposition of circulating XO to the vasculature (as reviewed above). Under these conditions, it does make sense to counteract with the XO-derived oxidant generation. Whether or not XO represents the major source of oxidants in various pathophysiological conditions, as opposed to one of many sources, would determine the right approach to be taken (i.e., XO inhibition versus a more broadly based antioxidant strategy). With respect to question 3, the answer is unknown. In some studies, in which a dose-response relationship with allopurinol has been carefully investigated (as in uveitis and in some forms of toxic liver injury), low doses of allopurinol, which would be expected to inhibit XO, failed to affect the pathogenesis of the disease, whereas high doses become effective (
Augustin et al., 1994,
Knight et al., 2001). In some other models of disease (stroke and colitis), depletion of XO with tungsten was compared with allopurinol, and, frequently, allopurinol but not tungsten was found to be effective (
Patt et al., 1988;
Keshavarzan et al., 1990). Based on these studies, one can conclude that non-XO-related actions of allopurinol can be responsible for at least some of (or possibly much of?) the protective effects in disease models. If, indeed, this latter possibility proves to be the case, it would not invalidate the clinical efficacy of allopurinol or oxypurinol in various pathophysiological conditions. Indeed, there are some indications that allopurinol is effective in some forms of human disease (such as CHF, myocardial infarction, and also possibly in inflammatory bowel disease); after all, what ultimately and clinically matters is that the outcome of the disease improves in the patients, regardless of the precise mode of action. Nevertheless, pilot (phase II type) studies need to be confirmed with large phase III type trials. Because allopurinol and oxypurinol are not protected by particularly strong intellectual property positions (although use patents exist, for example, the use of oxypurinol to treat patients with heart failure) and these compounds are not protected by structure-of-the-matter patents and can be made relatively cheaply and simply, it is unlikely that large pharmaceutical firms would be interested in sponsoring such phase III trials. Nevertheless, qualified investigators, in collaboration with granting agencies, nonprofit foundations, or government bodies may be able to organize such testing. At any rate, it is unclear whether the development of allopurinol for its antioxidant properties would be competitive compared with the development of so-called catalytic antioxidant molecules (e.g., low-molecule superoxide dismutase mimics or peroxynitrite decomposition catalysts), which are likely to be substantially more effective than allopurinol in neutralizing oxidants in the same disease conditions, as they would interfere with oxidants derived not only from XO, but also from a variety of other sources (mitochondria, NADPH oxidase, nitric-oxide synthase, etc.).
As with most preclinical studies, it also remains to be determined whether preclinical data observed in somewhat artificial animal models of disease are actually applicable to the human condition, especially in light of the differences between the XDH/XO systems in primates versus lower species. It is noteworthy that, so far, practically all published efficacy data associated with the novel XO inhibitor compounds relate to the area of gout, and researchers have not tested or reported efficacy of these compounds in preclinical models of inflammation or reperfusion or toxic organ injury (
Okamoto et al., 2003;
Yamamoto, 2003;
Becker et al., 2004;
Fukunari et al., 2004;
Hoshide et al., 2004;
Komoriya et al., 2004;
Yamada et al., 2004;
Hashimoto et al., 2005;
Mayer et al., 2005;
Takano et al., 2005). The XO inhibitor pterin-6-aldehyde is a known superoxide scavenger (
Mori et al., 1998) and probably so are the 2-alkyloxyalkylthiohypoxanthines as well (
Biagi et al., 2001). BOF-4272 and AHPP appear to reduce oxidative stress in the liver and lung in vivo (
Matsumura et al., 1998;
Miyakawa et al., 2002). There are only a few reports to investigate whether or not the other classes of novel XO inhibitor compounds share some of the antioxidant or non-XO-related activities of allopurinol. Even if they do have such effects, one would expect that the therapeutic dose of the novel, more potent XO inhibitors would be much lower than that of allopurinol. Thus, antioxidant effects would be expected to contribute less to the in vivo actions of the new XO inhibitors.
Taken together, allopurinol remains the cornerstone of current clinical management of hyperuricemia and gout, despite its problematic side effect profile. There is room for the development of novel XO inhibitors for the experimental therapy of hyperuricemia and gout, which are major medical indications and major drug markets worldwide. It is currently unclear whether novel XO inhibitors will be effective (and/or competitive with other antioxidant approaches) for the experimental therapy of ischemic conditions, inflammatory diseases, CHF, and various forms of organ injury. Several series of novel XO inhibitors have entered clinical testing, and, undoubtedly, there is interest for the development of additional, novel series of XO inhibitors. It will be interesting to see how the efficacy and safety profiles of these novel agents compare to those of allopurinol.