Literature DB >> 19130188

Drug-drug interaction predictions with PBPK models and optimal multiresponse sampling time designs: application to midazolam and a phase I compound. Part 1: comparison of uniresponse and multiresponse designs using PopDes.

Marylore Chenel1, François Bouzom, Leon Aarons, Kayode Ogungbenro.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: To determine the optimal sampling time design of a drug-drug interaction (DDI) study for the estimation of apparent clearances (CL/F) of two co-administered drugs (SX, a phase I compound, potentially a CYP3A4 inhibitor, and MDZ, a reference CYP3A4 substrate) without any in vivo data using physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) predictions, population PK modelling and multiresponse optimal design.
METHODS: PBPK models were developed with AcslXtreme using only in vitro data to simulate PK profiles of both drugs when they were co-administered. Then, using simulated data, population PK models were developed with NONMEM and optimal sampling times were determined by optimizing the determinant of the population Fisher information matrix with PopDes using either two uniresponse designs (UD) or a multiresponse design (MD) with joint sampling times for both drugs. Finally, the D-optimal sampling time designs were evaluated by simulation and re-estimation with NONMEM by computing the relative root mean squared error (RMSE) and empirical relative standard errors (RSE) of CL/F.
RESULTS: There were four and five optimal sampling times (=nine different sampling times) in the UDs for SX and MDZ, respectively, whereas there were only five sampling times in the MD. Whatever design and compound, CL/F was well estimated (RSE < 20% for MDZ and <25% for SX) and expected RSEs from PopDes were in the same range as empirical RSEs. Moreover, there was no bias in CL/F estimation. Since MD required only five sampling times compared to the two UDs, D-optimal sampling times of the MD were included into a full empirical design for the proposed clinical trial. A joint paper compares the designs with real data.
CONCLUSION: This global approach including PBPK simulations, population PK modelling and multiresponse optimal design allowed, without any in vivo data, the design of a clinical trial, using sparse sampling, capable of estimating CL/F of the CYP3A4 substrate and potential inhibitor when co-administered together.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19130188     DOI: 10.1007/s10928-008-9104-6

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn        ISSN: 1567-567X            Impact factor:   2.745


  25 in total

1.  Development and implementation of the population Fisher information matrix for the evaluation of population pharmacokinetic designs.

Authors:  S Retout; S Duffull; F Mentré
Journal:  Comput Methods Programs Biomed       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 5.428

Review 2.  Utility of physiologically based pharmacokinetic models to drug development and rational drug discovery candidate selection.

Authors:  Frank-Peter Theil; Theodor W Guentert; Sami Haddad; Patrick Poulin
Journal:  Toxicol Lett       Date:  2003-02-18       Impact factor: 4.372

3.  Experimental design and efficient parameter estimation in population pharmacokinetics.

Authors:  M K al-Banna; A W Kelman; B Whiting
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Biopharm       Date:  1990-08

4.  The use of a modified Fedorov exchange algorithm to optimise sampling times for population pharmacokinetic experiments.

Authors:  Kayode Ogungbenro; Gordon Graham; Ivelina Gueorguieva; Leon Aarons
Journal:  Comput Methods Programs Biomed       Date:  2005-08-31       Impact factor: 5.428

5.  A program for individual and population optimal design for univariate and multivariate response pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic models.

Authors:  Ivelina Gueorguieva; Kayode Ogungbenro; Gordon Graham; Sophie Glatt; Leon Aarons
Journal:  Comput Methods Programs Biomed       Date:  2007-02-09       Impact factor: 5.428

Review 6.  Prediction of intestinal first-pass drug metabolism.

Authors:  Jiansong Yang; Masoud Jamei; Karen Rowland Yeo; Geoffrey T Tucker; Amin Rostami-Hodjegan
Journal:  Curr Drug Metab       Date:  2007-10       Impact factor: 3.731

7.  Comparison of some practical sampling strategies for population pharmacokinetic studies.

Authors:  E N Jonsson; J R Wade; M O Karlsson
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Biopharm       Date:  1996-04

8.  Midazolam hydroxylation by human liver microsomes in vitro: inhibition by fluoxetine, norfluoxetine, and by azole antifungal agents.

Authors:  L L von Moltke; D J Greenblatt; J Schmider; S X Duan; C E Wright; J S Harmatz; R I Shader
Journal:  J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  1996-09       Impact factor: 3.126

9.  Interpretation of simulation studies for efficient estimation of population pharmacokinetic parameters.

Authors:  E I Ette; A W Kelman; C A Howie; B Whiting
Journal:  Ann Pharmacother       Date:  1993-09       Impact factor: 3.154

10.  Midazolam should be avoided in patients receiving the systemic antimycotics ketoconazole or itraconazole.

Authors:  K T Olkkola; J T Backman; P J Neuvonen
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  1994-05       Impact factor: 6.875

View more
  11 in total

1.  A limited sampling strategy based on maximum a posteriori Bayesian estimation for a five-probe phenotyping cocktail.

Authors:  Thu Thuy Nguyen; Henri Bénech; Alain Pruvost; Natacha Lenuzza
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2016-01       Impact factor: 2.953

2.  Pharmacokinetic design optimization in children and estimation of maturation parameters: example of cytochrome P450 3A4.

Authors:  Marion Bouillon-Pichault; Vincent Jullien; Caroline Bazzoli; Gérard Pons; Michel Tod
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2010-11-04       Impact factor: 2.745

3.  Predictions of metabolic drug-drug interactions using physiologically based modelling: Two cytochrome P450 3A4 substrates coadministered with ketoconazole or verapamil.

Authors:  Nathalie Perdaems; Helene Blasco; Cedric Vinson; Marylore Chenel; Sarah Whalley; Fanny Cazade; François Bouzom
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2010-04       Impact factor: 6.447

4.  Optimal sampling times for a drug and its metabolite using SIMCYP(®) simulations as prior information.

Authors:  Cyrielle Dumont; France Mentré; Clare Gaynor; Karl Brendel; Charlotte Gesson; Marylore Chenel
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 6.447

Review 5.  Physiologically-based pharmacokinetic models: approaches for enabling personalized medicine.

Authors:  Clara Hartmanshenn; Megerle Scherholz; Ioannis P Androulakis
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2016-09-19       Impact factor: 2.745

6.  Optimizing pharmacokinetic bridging studies in paediatric oncology using physiologically-based pharmacokinetic modelling: application to docetaxel.

Authors:  Hoai-Thu Thai; Florent Mazuir; Sylvaine Cartot-Cotton; Christine Veyrat-Follet
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2015-08-14       Impact factor: 4.335

7.  Drug-drug interaction predictions with PBPK models and optimal multiresponse sampling time designs: application to midazolam and a phase I compound. Part 2: clinical trial results.

Authors:  Marylore Chenel; François Bouzom; Fanny Cazade; Kayode Ogungbenro; Leon Aarons; France Mentré
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2009-01-07       Impact factor: 2.745

8.  Effects of Grapefruit and Pomegranate Juices on the Pharmacokinetic Properties of Dapoxetine and Midazolam in Healthy Subjects.

Authors:  Khaled S Abdlekawy; Ahmed M Donia; Fawzy Elbarbry
Journal:  Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet       Date:  2017-06       Impact factor: 2.441

9.  A novel approach for estimating ingested dose associated with paracetamol overdose.

Authors:  Todd J Zurlinden; Kennon Heard; Brad Reisfeld
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2015-12-09       Impact factor: 4.335

10.  Dose prediction for repurposing nitazoxanide in SARS-CoV-2 treatment or chemoprophylaxis.

Authors:  Rajith K R Rajoli; Henry Pertinez; Usman Arshad; Helen Box; Lee Tatham; Paul Curley; Megan Neary; Joanne Sharp; Neill J Liptrott; Anthony Valentijn; Christopher David; Steven P Rannard; Ghaith Aljayyoussi; Shaun H Pennington; Andrew Hill; Marta Boffito; Steve A Ward; Saye H Khoo; Patrick G Bray; Paul M O'Neill; W David Hong; Giancarlo A Biagini; Andrew Owen
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2020-12-01       Impact factor: 4.335

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.