Literature DB >> 8133465

Comparison of four basic models of indirect pharmacodynamic responses.

N L Dayneka1, V Garg, W J Jusko.   

Abstract

Four basic models for characterizing indirect pharmacodynamic responses after drug administration have been developed and compared. The models are based on drug effects (inhibition or stimulation) on the factors controlling either the input or the dissipation of drug response. Pharmacokinetic parameters of methylprednisolone were used to generate plasma concentration and response-time profiles using computer simulations. It was found that the responses produced showed a slow onset and a slow return to baseline. The time of maximal response was dependent on the model and dose. In each case, hysteresis plots showed that drug concentrations preceded the response. When the responses were fitted with pharmacodynamic models based on distribution to a hypothetical effect compartment, the resulting parameters were dose-dependent and inferred biological implausibility. Indirect response models must be treated as distinct from conventional pharmacodynamic models which assume direct action of drugs. The assumptions, equations, and data patterns for the four basic indirect response models provide a starting point for evaluation of pharmacologic effects where the site of action precedes or follows the measured response variable.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1993        PMID: 8133465      PMCID: PMC4207304          DOI: 10.1007/BF01061691

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Biopharm        ISSN: 0090-466X


  21 in total

1.  Dynamics of tolbutamide, glucose, and insulin interrelationships following varying doses of intravenous tolbutamide in normal subjects.

Authors:  O P Ganda; C B Kahn; J S Soeldner; R E Gleason
Journal:  Diabetes       Date:  1975-04       Impact factor: 9.461

2.  Pharmacodynamics of methylprednisolone phosphate after single intravenous administration to healthy volunteers.

Authors:  H Derendorf; H Möllmann; M Krieg; S Tunn; C Möllmann; J Barth; H J Röthig
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  1991-02       Impact factor: 4.200

3.  Mathematical model for in vivo pharmacodynamics integrating fluctuation of the response: application to the prolactin suppressant effect of the dopaminomimetic drug DCN 203-922.

Authors:  P Francheteau; J L Steimer; C Dubray; D Lavene
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Biopharm       Date:  1991-06

4.  Semiparametric approach to pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic data.

Authors:  D Verotta; S L Beal; L B Sheiner
Journal:  Am J Physiol       Date:  1989-04

5.  Kinetics of pharmacologic effects in man: the anticoagulant action of warfarin.

Authors:  R Nagashima; R A O'Reilly; G Levy
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  1969 Jan-Feb       Impact factor: 6.875

6.  Remoxipride: pharmacokinetics and effect on plasma prolactin.

Authors:  G Movin-Osswald; M Hammarlund-Udenaes
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  1991-09       Impact factor: 4.335

Review 7.  Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic modeling in vivo.

Authors:  N H Holford; L B Sheiner
Journal:  Crit Rev Bioeng       Date:  1981

8.  Simultaneous modeling of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics: application to d-tubocurarine.

Authors:  L B Sheiner; D R Stanski; S Vozeh; R D Miller; J Ham
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  1979-03       Impact factor: 6.875

9.  Diuretic effect and diuretic efficiency after intravenous dosage of frusemide.

Authors:  G Alván; L Helleday; A Lindholm; E Sanz; T Villén
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  1990-02       Impact factor: 4.335

10.  Receptor-mediated pharmacodynamics of prednisolone in the rat.

Authors:  F D Boudinot; R D'Ambrosio; W J Jusko
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Biopharm       Date:  1986-10
View more
  283 in total

1.  Indirect pharmacodynamic models for responses with multicompartmental distribution or polyexponential disposition.

Authors:  W Krzyzanski; W J Jusko
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2001-02       Impact factor: 2.745

2.  Note: caution in use of empirical equations for pharmacodynamic indirect response models.

Authors:  W Krzyzanski; W J Jusko
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Biopharm       Date:  1998-12

3.  Mathematical modeling of circadian cortisol concentrations using indirect response models: comparison of several methods.

Authors:  A Chakraborty; W Krzyzanski; W J Jusko
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Biopharm       Date:  1999-02

4.  Mathematical formalism and characteristics of four basic models of indirect pharmacodynamic responses for drug infusions.

Authors:  W Krzyzanski; W J Jusko
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Biopharm       Date:  1998-08

5.  Characterization of pharmacodynamic recession slopes for direct and indirect response models.

Authors:  W Krzyzanski; W J Jusko
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Biopharm       Date:  1998-08

6.  Pharmacometrics: modelling and simulation tools to improve decision making in clinical drug development.

Authors:  R Gieschke; J L Steimer
Journal:  Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet       Date:  2000 Jan-Mar       Impact factor: 2.441

7.  Indirect-response modeling of desmopressin at different levels of hydration.

Authors:  T Callréus; J Odeberg; S Lundin; P Höglund
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Biopharm       Date:  1999-10

8.  Basic pharmacodynamic models for agents that alter production of natural cells.

Authors:  W Krzyzanski; R Ramakrishnan; W J Jusko
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Biopharm       Date:  1999-10

9.  Population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling of filgrastim (r-metHuG-CSF) in healthy volunteers.

Authors:  B Wang; T M Ludden; E N Cheung; G G Schwab; L K Roskos
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2001-08       Impact factor: 2.745

Review 10.  Utilisation of pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modelling and simulation in regulatory decision-making.

Authors:  J V Gobburu; P J Marroum
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 6.447

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.