Literature DB >> 7893578

Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) modelling in non-steady-state studies and arterio-venous drug concentration differences.

M Gumbleton1, S Oie, D Verotta.   

Abstract

In conducting a non-steady-state pharmacokinetic (PK)-pharmacodynamic (PD) study there is potential for the observed effect (E) vs time, and venous plasma drug concentration (C) vs time, profiles to display temporal displacement with respect to each other. This is most frequently observed when there exists a distributional nonequilibrium across the effect organ giving rise to hysteresis, i.e. observed C preceding E in the time domain, with the resulting potential for a counterclockwise loop to be generated in the observed E vs C plot (when data are connected in time-order). Such temporal displacement does not afford direct prediction of the steady-state E vs C PD relationship. When an arterio-venous (A-V) difference exists across the tissues of the blood sampling compartment (i.e. the arm), and this arises solely from an elimination process then drug concentration in the respective peripheral arterial plasma and venous plasma compartments will be in equilibrium at all times during a non-steady-state PK experiment. If there are no other sources of temporal displacement in the relationship between E and C then the observed E vs C plot will be a direct predictor of the steady-state E vs C PD relationship. In contrast when the A-V difference is of a distributional nature then proteresis, i.e. observed E preceding C in the time domain, will arise with the potential for the generation of a clockwise loop in the observed E vs C relationship. Simulated error-incorporated E vs time, and C vs time, data was analysed by semi-parametric implementation of an effect-compartment link-model that affords accurate steady-state E vs C PD predictions (without the requirement of sampling arterial blood) from data that incorporates the concurrent presence of: (i) distributional nonequilibrium across the effect organ, and (ii) distributional A-V non-equilibrium. Accurate steady-state E vs C PD predictions were achieved irrespective of the comparative magnitudes of the two nonequilibria, i.e. whether the rate of equilibration across the effect organ was faster than, or slower than, the rate of equilibration across the arm (resulting in a clockwise or counterclockwise loop in the observed E vs C plot, respectively), or indeed if one or other of the nonequilibria is essentially absent. When the rate of equilibration across the effect organ is slower than the rate of A-V equilibration (i.e. counterclockwise loop generated in the observed E vs C plot) then the need to model for the underlying A-V nonequilibrium is redundant, i.e. accurate steady-state E vs C PD predictions can be achieved with implementation (strictly incorrectly) of a more simple link parameterised solely to model for distributional nonequilibrium across the effect organ.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1994        PMID: 7893578      PMCID: PMC1364870          DOI: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.1994.tb04372.x

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol        ISSN: 0306-5251            Impact factor:   4.335


  14 in total

1.  Stereochemical considerations in pharmacodynamic modeling of chiral drugs.

Authors:  R Mehvar
Journal:  J Pharm Sci       Date:  1992-02       Impact factor: 3.534

2.  A system approach to pharmacodynamics. III: An algorithm and computer program, COLAPS, for pharmacodynamic modeling.

Authors:  P Veng-Pedersen; J W Mandema; M Danhof
Journal:  J Pharm Sci       Date:  1991-05       Impact factor: 3.534

Review 3.  The use of kinetic-dynamic interactions in the evaluation of drugs.

Authors:  D B Campbell
Journal:  Psychopharmacology (Berl)       Date:  1990       Impact factor: 4.530

4.  Simultaneous modeling of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics: an improved algorithm.

Authors:  D Verotta; L B Sheiner
Journal:  Comput Appl Biosci       Date:  1987-11

5.  Interpretation and utilization of effect and concentration data collected in an in vivo pharmacokinetic and in vitro pharmacodynamic study.

Authors:  S K Gupta; S S Hwang; L Z Benet; M Gumbleton
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  1993-06       Impact factor: 4.200

6.  Estimation and model selection in constrained deconvolution.

Authors:  D Verotta
Journal:  Ann Biomed Eng       Date:  1993 Nov-Dec       Impact factor: 3.934

7.  Comparison of four basic models of indirect pharmacodynamic responses.

Authors:  N L Dayneka; V Garg; W J Jusko
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Biopharm       Date:  1993-08

8.  Simultaneous modeling of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics with a nonparametric pharmacodynamic model.

Authors:  E Fuseau; L B Sheiner
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  1984-06       Impact factor: 6.875

Review 9.  The phenomenon and rationale of marked dependence of drug concentration on blood sampling site. Implications in pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, toxicology and therapeutics (Part I).

Authors:  W L Chiou
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  1989-09       Impact factor: 6.447

10.  Semiparametric analysis of non-steady-state pharmacodynamic data.

Authors:  D Verotta; L B Sheiner
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Biopharm       Date:  1991-12
View more
  7 in total

1.  Influence of arterial vs. venous sampling site on nicotine tolerance model selection and parameter estimation.

Authors:  Franziska Schaedeli; Maria Pitsiu; Neal L Benowitz; Steven G Gourlay; Davide Verotta
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2002-02       Impact factor: 2.745

2.  The impact of arteriovenous concentration differences on pharmacodynamic parameter estimates.

Authors:  B Tuk; M Danhof; J W Mandema
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Biopharm       Date:  1997-02

3.  Understanding the hysteresis loop conundrum in pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationships.

Authors:  Christopher Louizos; Jaime A Yáñez; M Laird Forrest; Neal M Davies
Journal:  J Pharm Pharm Sci       Date:  2014       Impact factor: 2.327

4.  Sampling Site Has a Critical Impact on Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Modeling.

Authors:  Weize Huang; Nina Isoherranen
Journal:  J Pharmacol Exp Ther       Date:  2019-10-11       Impact factor: 4.030

5.  Necessity and risks of arterial blood sampling in healthy volunteer studies.

Authors:  Bruno Georg Oertel; Johannes Vermehren; Michael Zimmermann; Thomas Tao Huynh; Alexandra Doehring; Nerea Ferreiros; Stephan Senzel; Thomas Schmitz-Rixen; Matthias Erbe; Gerd Geisslinger; Sebastian Harder; Martin S Angst; Jörn Lötsch
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2012-10-01       Impact factor: 6.447

6.  Magnitude and time-course of arterio-venous differences in blood-alcohol concentration in healthy men.

Authors:  Alan Wayne Jones; Lars Lindberg; Sven-Gunnar Olsson
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2004       Impact factor: 6.447

7.  Are Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Models Reporting the Right C(max)? Central Venous Versus Peripheral Sampling Site.

Authors:  Helen Musther; Katherine L Gill; Manoranjenni Chetty; Amin Rostami-Hodjegan; Malcolm Rowland; Masoud Jamei
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2015-06-23       Impact factor: 4.009

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.