| Literature DB >> 26932471 |
Elliot Offman1, Colin Phipps2, Andrea N Edginton3.
Abstract
PURPOSE: Physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models provide a rational mechanistic approach for predicting the time course of macromolecules in plasma. Population PBPK models for large molecules necessitate incorporation of lymphatic circulation to mechanistically account for biodistribution. Moreover, characterization of subcutaneous absorption requires consideration of the microvascular transit from the injection site to the systemic circulation. A PBPK model for a pegylated peptide conjugate, previously developed for primates, was modified to describe the lymphatic uptake in a population of humans by incorporation of interindividual variability in the lymphatic circulation and a unique lymphatic drainage compartment (LDC). The model was then used to simulate the time course of the drug in a population of humans and compared to the same drug administered to a group of human subjects participating in a first-in-human study.Entities:
Keywords: Lymph; Pegylated; Peptide; Physiologically-based pharmacokinetic model; Subcutaneous
Year: 2016 PMID: 26932471 PMCID: PMC4773320 DOI: 10.1186/s40203-016-0018-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: In Silico Pharmacol ISSN: 2193-9616
Fig. 1a Structure of a whole-body PBPK platform (adapted from Shah and Betts 2012). Solid black arrows indicate plasma flow. Dark grey dashed arrows indicate lymphatic transport. S. Int. and L. Int. represent small and large intestines. Each organ compartment includes lymphatic flow emptying from the organ into the lymph nodes. For IV administration, drug is administered into the “Venous Supply”. For SC administration, drug is administered into the “Skin Compartment” interstitium. b Sub-compartment model for all organs other than skin (top) and skin (bottom)
Anatomical and physiologic parameters with distributions used in the population PBPK model
| Meana | CV % | Distribution | CV % Source | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Mean Weight | 71 (kg) | / | / | / |
| Compartment Mass | % Body Weight | / | / | / |
| Adipose | 18.540 | 0.43 | Log-normal | (Heymsfield, et al. |
| Brain | 1.968 | 0.10 | Normal | (Heymsfield, et al. |
| Blood (Arterial/Venous) | 8.005 | 0.22 | Log-normal | (Feldschuh and Enson |
| Bone | 13.952 | 0.14 | Normal | (Heymsfield, et al. |
| Heart | 0.448 | 0.19 | Normal | (de la Grandmaison, et al. |
| Kidney | 0.421 | 0.25 | Normal | (de la Grandmaison, et al. |
| Large Intestines | 1.52 | 0.2 | Normal | (McNally, et al. |
| Liver | 2.707 | 0.23 | Normal | (de la Grandmaison, et al. |
| Lung | 1.569 | 0.36 | Log-normal | (de la Grandmaison, et al. |
| Lymph | 0.359 | 0.22 | Log-normal | Empirically assumed to be similar to circulatory system variability |
| Muscle | 40.702 | 0.16 | Log-normal | (Heymsfield, et al. |
| Other | Remainder not accounted for by other organs | 0.2 | Normal | Empirically selected |
| Pancreas | 0.136 | 0.27 | Normal | (de la Grandmaison, et al. |
| Skin | 4.477 | 0.1 | Log-normal | Empirically selected |
| Small Intestines | 1.068 | 0.12 | Normal | (McNally, et al. |
| Spleen | 0.244 | 0.56 | Log-Normal | (de la Grandmaison, et al. |
| Thymus | 0.008 | 0.05 | Log-Normal | Empirically selected |
| Hematocrit | 0.42 | 0.02 | Normal | (Jacob, et al. |
| Renal Filtration Fraction | 0.20 | 0.0294 | Normal | (Ritz, et al. |
| Vfrac | 0.25 | 0.68 | Fitted Parameter |
aMean organ mass was obtained from the BioDMET database (Graf, et al. 2012)
Fig. 2Model output anthropometric distribution of weight (upper left panel), height (upper right panel), body mass index (lower left panel) and derived glomerular filtration rate (lower right panel) for 1000 simulated individuals
Fig. 3Model simulated and observed plasma concentrations of a linear PEG-40 conjugated peptide versus time in humans on linear scale (left panel) and log scale (right panel). Within each panel, the left set of profiles represents the model without a lymph transit compartment and right side, with a lymph transit compartment incorporated. Closed geometric symbols represent unique individual subjects across 5 dose levels. Solid lines and grey shaded ribbon represents the median and 5th–95th percentile simulated concentrations from respective models
Fig. 4Mean parameter sensitivity perturbations vs. percent change in AUC (top left), Cmax (top right) and Tmax (bottom left) for the 50th percentile following simulation of 100 subjects. Closed geometric symbols represent perturbations as indicated in the legend
Fig. 5Median (dashed line) and 5th–95th percentile (shaded ribbon) following simulation of 1000 virtual individuals on linear scale (left panel) and log scale (right panel). For sub-panels 1–11 in each panel, the following unique scenarios are presented: (1) Final model (2) 0.5-fold final model CV % for Vfrac (3) 2-fold final model CV % for Vfrac (4): Addition of 10 % CV % on LS (5) Addition of 50 % CV % on LS (6) Addition of 10 % CV % on σ (7) Addition of 50 % CV % on σ (8) Removing distribution on blood mass (9) Removing distribution on lymph mass (10) Removing distribution on skin mass (11) Addition of a 20 % CV % on FGFR