Literature DB >> 21452299

PhRMA CPCDC initiative on predictive models of human pharmacokinetics, part 2: comparative assessment of prediction methods of human volume of distribution.

Rhys Do Jones1, Hannah M Jones, Malcolm Rowland, Christopher R Gibson, James W T Yates, Jenny Y Chien, Barbara J Ring, Kimberly K Adkison, M Sherry Ku, Handan He, Ragini Vuppugalla, Punit Marathe, Volker Fischer, Sandeep Dutta, Vikash K Sinha, Thorir Björnsson, Thierry Lavé, Patrick Poulin.   

Abstract

The objective of this study was to evaluate the performance of various empirical, semimechanistic and mechanistic methodologies with and without protein binding corrections for the prediction of human volume of distribution at steady state (Vss ). PhRMA member companies contributed a set of blinded data from preclinical and clinical studies, and 18 drugs with intravenous clinical pharmacokinetics (PK) data were available for the analysis. In vivo and in vitro preclinical data were used to predict Vss by 24 different methods. Various statistical and outlier techniques were employed to assess the predictability of each method. There was not simply one method that predicts Vss accurately for all compounds. Across methods, the maximum success rate in predicting human Vss was 100%, 94%, and 78% of the compounds with predictions falling within tenfold, threefold, and twofold error, respectively, of the observed Vss . Generally, the methods that made use of in vivo preclinical data were more predictive than those methods that relied solely on in vitro data. However, for many compounds, in vivo data from only two species (generally rat and dog) were available and/or the required in vitro data were missing, which meant some methods could not be properly evaluated. It is recommended to initially use the in vitro tissue composition-based equations to predict Vss in preclinical species and humans, putting the assumptions and compound properties into context. As in vivo data become available, these predictions should be reassessed and rationalized to indicate the level of confidence (uncertainty) in the human Vss prediction. The top three methods that perform strongly at integrating in vivo data in this way were the Øie-Tozer, the rat -dog-human proportionality equation, and the lumped-PBPK approach. Overall, the scientific benefit of this study was to obtain greater characterization of predictions of human Vss from several methods available in the literature.
Copyright © 2011 Wiley-Liss, Inc.

Entities:  

Keywords:  allometry; computational ADME; distribution; first-time-in-human; in vitro models; pharmacokinetics; protein binding; volume of distribution at steady state

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 21452299     DOI: 10.1002/jps.22553

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Pharm Sci        ISSN: 0022-3549            Impact factor:   3.534


  34 in total

1.  Development of a decision tree to classify the most accurate tissue-specific tissue to plasma partition coefficient algorithm for a given compound.

Authors:  Yejin Esther Yun; Cecilia A Cotton; Andrea N Edginton
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2013-11-21       Impact factor: 2.745

2.  Prediction of Tissue-to-Plasma Ratios of Basic Compounds in Mice.

Authors:  Prashant B Nigade; Jayasagar Gundu; K Sreedhara Pai; Kumar V S Nemmani
Journal:  Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet       Date:  2017-10       Impact factor: 2.441

Review 3.  In vitro platforms for evaluating liver toxicity.

Authors:  Shyam Sundhar Bale; Lawrence Vernetti; Nina Senutovitch; Rohit Jindal; Manjunath Hegde; Albert Gough; William J McCarty; Ahmet Bakan; Abhinav Bhushan; Tong Ying Shun; Inna Golberg; Richard DeBiasio; Berk Osman Usta; D Lansing Taylor; Martin L Yarmush
Journal:  Exp Biol Med (Maywood)       Date:  2014-04-24

4.  Preclinical pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling and simulation in the pharmaceutical industry: an IQ consortium survey examining the current landscape.

Authors:  Edgar Schuck; Tonika Bohnert; Arijit Chakravarty; Valeriu Damian-Iordache; Christopher Gibson; Cheng-Pang Hsu; Tycho Heimbach; Anu Shilpa Krishnatry; Bianca M Liederer; Jing Lin; Tristan Maurer; Jerome T Mettetal; Daniel R Mudra; Marjoleen Jma Nijsen; Joseph Raybon; Patricia Schroeder; Virna Schuck; Satyendra Suryawanshi; Yaming Su; Patrick Trapa; Alice Tsai; Majid Vakilynejad; Shining Wang; Harvey Wong
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2015-01-29       Impact factor: 4.009

5.  Accounting for inter-correlation between enzyme abundance: a simulation study to assess implications on global sensitivity analysis within physiologically-based pharmacokinetics.

Authors:  Nicola Melillo; Adam S Darwich; Paolo Magni; Amin Rostami-Hodjegan
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2019-03-23       Impact factor: 2.745

Review 6.  Pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and physiologically-based pharmacokinetic modelling of monoclonal antibodies.

Authors:  Miroslav Dostalek; Iain Gardner; Brian M Gurbaxani; Rachel H Rose; Manoranjenni Chetty
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2013-02       Impact factor: 6.447

Review 7.  Dose selection based on physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) approaches.

Authors:  Hannah M Jones; Kapil Mayawala; Patrick Poulin
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2012-12-27       Impact factor: 4.009

8.  Case studies for practical food effect assessments across BCS/BDDCS class compounds using in silico, in vitro, and preclinical in vivo data.

Authors:  Tycho Heimbach; Binfeng Xia; Tsu-han Lin; Handan He
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2012-11-10       Impact factor: 4.009

9.  Prediction of drug disposition in diabetic patients by means of a physiologically based pharmacokinetic model.

Authors:  Jia Li; Hai-Fang Guo; Can Liu; Zeyu Zhong; Li Liu; Xiao-Dong Liu
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2015-02       Impact factor: 6.447

10.  Prediction of drug distribution in rat and humans using an artificial neural networks ensemble and a PBPK model.

Authors:  Paulo Paixão; Natália Aniceto; Luís F Gouveia; José A G Morais
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2014-05-28       Impact factor: 4.200

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.