AIMS: The purpose of this work was to support the prediction of a potentially effective dose for the CETP-inhibitor, BAY 60-5521, in humans. METHODS: A combination of allometric scaling of the pharmacokinetics of the CETP-inhibitor BAY 60-5521 with pharmacodynamic studies in CETP-transgenic mice and in human plasma with physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modelling was used to support the selection of the first-in-man dose. RESULTS: The PBPK approach predicts a greater extent of distribution for BAY 60-5521 in humans compared with the allometric scaling method as reflected by a larger predicted volume of distribution and longer elimination half-life. The combined approach led to an estimate of a potentially effective dose for BAY 60-5521 of 51 mg in humans. CONCLUSION: The approach described in this paper supported the prediction of a potentially effective dose for the CETP-inhibitor BAY 60-5521 in humans. Confirmation of the dose estimate was obtained in a first-in-man study.
AIMS: The purpose of this work was to support the prediction of a potentially effective dose for the CETP-inhibitor, BAY 60-5521, in humans. METHODS: A combination of allometric scaling of the pharmacokinetics of the CETP-inhibitor BAY 60-5521 with pharmacodynamic studies in CETP-transgenic mice and in human plasma with physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modelling was used to support the selection of the first-in-man dose. RESULTS: The PBPK approach predicts a greater extent of distribution for BAY 60-5521 in humans compared with the allometric scaling method as reflected by a larger predicted volume of distribution and longer elimination half-life. The combined approach led to an estimate of a potentially effective dose for BAY 60-5521 of 51 mg in humans. CONCLUSION: The approach described in this paper supported the prediction of a potentially effective dose for the CETP-inhibitor BAY 60-5521 in humans. Confirmation of the dose estimate was obtained in a first-in-man study.
Authors: Margaret E Brousseau; Ernst J Schaefer; Megan L Wolfe; LeAnne T Bloedon; Andres G Digenio; Ronald W Clark; James P Mancuso; Daniel J Rader Journal: N Engl J Med Date: 2004-04-08 Impact factor: 91.245
Authors: Ronald W Clark; Tamara A Sutfin; Roger B Ruggeri; Ann T Willauer; Eliot D Sugarman; George Magnus-Aryitey; Patricia G Cosgrove; Thomas M Sand; Ronald T Wester; John A Williams; Michael E Perlman; Mark J Bamberger Journal: Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol Date: 2004-01-22 Impact factor: 8.311
Authors: Lionel D Lewis; Andrew Somogyi; Yoon K Loke; Albert Ferro; Adam F Cohen; James M Ritter Journal: Br J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2013-01 Impact factor: 4.335
Authors: Fen Yang; Baolian Wang; Zhihao Liu; Xuejun Xia; Weijun Wang; Dali Yin; Li Sheng; Yan Li Journal: Front Pharmacol Date: 2017-10-10 Impact factor: 5.810