Literature DB >> 26926043

In Silico Modeling of Gastrointestinal Drug Absorption: Predictive Performance of Three Physiologically Based Absorption Models.

Erik Sjögren1, Helena Thörn2, Christer Tannergren2.   

Abstract

Gastrointestinal (GI) drug absorption is a complex process determined by formulation, physicochemical and biopharmaceutical factors, and GI physiology. Physiologically based in silico absorption models have emerged as a widely used and promising supplement to traditional in vitro assays and preclinical in vivo studies. However, there remains a lack of comparative studies between different models. The aim of this study was to explore the strengths and limitations of the in silico absorption models Simcyp 13.1, GastroPlus 8.0, and GI-Sim 4.1, with respect to their performance in predicting human intestinal drug absorption. This was achieved by adopting an a priori modeling approach and using well-defined input data for 12 drugs associated with incomplete GI absorption and related challenges in predicting the extent of absorption. This approach better mimics the real situation during formulation development where predictive in silico models would be beneficial. Plasma concentration-time profiles for 44 oral drug administrations were calculated by convolution of model-predicted absorption-time profiles and reported pharmacokinetic parameters. Model performance was evaluated by comparing the predicted plasma concentration-time profiles, Cmax, tmax, and exposure (AUC) with observations from clinical studies. The overall prediction accuracies for AUC, given as the absolute average fold error (AAFE) values, were 2.2, 1.6, and 1.3 for Simcyp, GastroPlus, and GI-Sim, respectively. The corresponding AAFE values for Cmax were 2.2, 1.6, and 1.3, respectively, and those for tmax were 1.7, 1.5, and 1.4, respectively. Simcyp was associated with underprediction of AUC and Cmax; the accuracy decreased with decreasing predicted fabs. A tendency for underprediction was also observed for GastroPlus, but there was no correlation with predicted fabs. There were no obvious trends for over- or underprediction for GI-Sim. The models performed similarly in capturing dependencies on dose and particle size. In conclusion, it was shown that all three software packages are useful to guide formulation development. However, as a consequence of the high fraction of inaccurate predictions (prediction error >2-fold) and the clear trend toward decreased accuracy with decreased predicted fabs observed with Simcyp, the results indicate that GI-Sim and GastroPlus perform better than Simcyp in predicting the intestinal absorption of the incompletely absorbed drugs when a higher degree of accuracy is needed. In addition, this study suggests that modeling and simulation research groups should perform systematic model evaluations using their own input data to maximize confidence in model performance and output.

Entities:  

Keywords:  drug absorption; drug development; fraction absorbed; in silico model; prediction

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 26926043     DOI: 10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.5b00861

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Mol Pharm        ISSN: 1543-8384            Impact factor:   4.939


  16 in total

1.  Continuous Intestinal Absorption Model Based on the Convection-Diffusion Equation.

Authors:  Swati Nagar; Richard C Korzekwa; Ken Korzekwa
Journal:  Mol Pharm       Date:  2017-07-31       Impact factor: 4.939

2.  Mechanistic Fluid Transport Model to Estimate Gastrointestinal Fluid Volume and Its Dynamic Change Over Time.

Authors:  Alex Yu; Trachette Jackson; Yasuhiro Tsume; Mark Koenigsknecht; Jeffrey Wysocki; Luca Marciani; Gordon L Amidon; Ann Frances; Jason R Baker; William Hasler; Bo Wen; Amit Pai; Duxin Sun
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2017-10-04       Impact factor: 4.009

3.  Intestinal Absorption of FITC-Dextrans and Macromolecular Model Drugs in the Rat Intestinal Instillation Model.

Authors:  Staffan Berg; Denny Suljovic; Lillevi Kärrberg; Maria Englund; Heiko Bönisch; Ida Karlberg; Natalie Van Zuydam; Bertil Abrahamsson; Andreas Martin Hugerth; Nigel Davies; Christel A S Bergström
Journal:  Mol Pharm       Date:  2022-06-01       Impact factor: 5.364

4.  Development of a Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Model for Prediction of Ethanol Concentration-Time Profile in Different Organs.

Authors:  Armin Sadighi; Lorenzo Leggio; Fatemeh Akhlaghi
Journal:  Alcohol Alcohol       Date:  2021-06-29       Impact factor: 2.826

5.  Ribociclib Bioavailability Is Not Affected by Gastric pH Changes or Food Intake: In Silico and Clinical Evaluations.

Authors:  Tanay S Samant; Shyeilla Dhuria; Yasong Lu; Marc Laisney; Shu Yang; Arnaud Grandeury; Martin Mueller-Zsigmondy; Kenichi Umehara; Felix Huth; Michelle Miller; Caroline Germa; Mohamed Elmeliegy
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2017-12-08       Impact factor: 6.875

Review 6.  Intestinal Permeability and Drug Absorption: Predictive Experimental, Computational and In Vivo Approaches.

Authors:  David Dahlgren; Hans Lennernäs
Journal:  Pharmaceutics       Date:  2019-08-13       Impact factor: 6.321

7.  In silico (computed) modelling of doses and dosing regimens associated with morphine levels above international legal driving limits.

Authors:  Jason W Boland; Miriam Johnson; Diana Ferreira; David J Berry
Journal:  Palliat Med       Date:  2018-05-04       Impact factor: 4.762

Review 8.  In Vitro Dissolution and in Silico Modeling Shortcuts in Bioequivalence Testing.

Authors:  Moawia M Al-Tabakha; Muaed J Alomar
Journal:  Pharmaceutics       Date:  2020-01-04       Impact factor: 6.321

9.  On the Usefulness of Two Small-Scale In Vitro Setups in the Evaluation of Luminal Precipitation of Lipophilic Weak Bases in Early Formulation Development.

Authors:  Patrick J O'Dwyer; Georgios Imanidis; Karl J Box; Christos Reppas
Journal:  Pharmaceutics       Date:  2020-03-16       Impact factor: 6.321

Review 10.  The Segregated Intestinal Flow Model (SFM) for Drug Absorption and Drug Metabolism: Implications on Intestinal and Liver Metabolism and Drug-Drug Interactions.

Authors:  K Sandy Pang; H Benson Peng; Keumhan Noh
Journal:  Pharmaceutics       Date:  2020-04-01       Impact factor: 6.321

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.