Current and future directions of pharmacokinetic and pharmacokinetic- pharmacodynamic modelling and simulation: Population Approach Group in Europe 19th annual meeting

Expert Opinion on Drug Metabolism and Toxicology

Volumn 6, Issue 12, 2010, Pages 1599-1604

  Kloft, Charlotte ^a   Poggesi, Italo ^b,c  

^a MARTIN LUTHER UNIVERSITY HALLE WITTENBERG   (Germany)

^b Aptuit Inc   (United States)

^c C/o Janssen Cilag SpA ^*  (Italy)

Author keywords

Modelling; NONMEM; Pharmacokineticpharmacodynamic; Pharmacokinetics; Pharmacometrics; Population approaches; SYMCYP ; WinBUGS

Indexed keywords

CONFERENCE PAPER; DRUG SCREENING; HUMAN; MODEL; MODELLING OF DICHOTOMOUS; NONHUMAN; PARAMEDICAL EDUCATION; PHARMACODYNAMICS; PHARMACOKINETICS; PHYSIOLOGY BASED MODELLING; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; SIMULATION;

ANIMALS; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DRUG DESIGN; DRUG EVALUATION, PRECLINICAL; HUMANS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; PHARMACOKINETICS; PHARMACOLOGY;

EID: 78649309430     PISSN: 17425255     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1517/17425255.2010.529899     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (27)

1. Williams PJ, Ette EI. The role of population pharmacokinetics in drug development in light of the Food and Drug Administration's 'Guidance for industry: population pharmacokinetics'. Clin Pharmacokinet 2000;39:385-95
2. Available from: http://www.page-meeting.org [Accessed 30 Septemeber 2010]
3. Nestorov I. Whole-body physiologically based pharmacokinetic models. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 2007;3:235-49
4. Kapitulnik J, Pelkonen O, Gundert-Remy U, et al. Effects of pharmaceuticals and other active chemicals at biological targets: mechanisms, interactions, and integration into PB-PK/PD models. Expert Opin Ther Targets 2009;13:867-87
5. Lave' T, Parrott N, Grimm HP, et al. Challenges and opportunities with modelling and simulation in drug discovery and drug development. Xenobiotica 2007;37:1295-310
6. Huisinga W. Physiologically-based pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modelling, mathematical model reduction and a mechanistic interpretation of simple empirical models [abstract 1940]; 2010. p. 19. Available from: www.page-meeting.org/?abstract=1940
7. Pilari S, Huisinga W. Lumping of physiologically based pharmacokinetic models and a mechanistic derivation of classical compartmental models [abstract 1929]; 2010. p. 19. Available from: www.page-meeting.org/?abstract=1929
8. Pilari S, Huisinga W. Lumping of physiologically based pharmacokinetic models and a mechanistic derivation of classical compartmental models. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 2010;37:365-405
9. Eissing T, Lippert J, Willmann S. Investigation of the influence of CYP3A4 inhibition and renal impairment on morphine and M6G formation after codein administration using coupoled whole-body PBPK modelling [abstract 1861]; 2010. p. 19. Available from: www.page-meeting.org/?abstract=1861
10. Bazzoli C, Retout S, Mentre F. Design evaluation and optimisation in multi-response nonlinear mixed effect models with cost functions: application to the pharmacokinetics of zidovudine and its active metabolite [abstract 1710]; 2010. p. 19. Available from: www.page-meeting.org/?abstract=1710
11. Dua P, Pons N, Bertolotti L, et al. SB-773812: correlation between in-silico and in-vivo metabolism [abstract 1723]; 2010. p. 19. Available from: www.page-meeting.org/?abstract=1723
12. Kallenbach M, Hovener J, Kersting G, et al. Evaluation of a physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model for the application of low dose etoposide in children [abstract 1881]; 2010. p. 19. Available from: www.page-meeting.org/?abstract=1881
13. Gerard C, Bleyzac N, Girard P, et al. Influence of cyclosporin dosing schedule on receptor occupancy in bone marrow transplantation: analysis with a PBPK-PD model [abstract 1924]; 2010. p. 19. Available from: www.page-meeting. org/?abstract=1924
14. Krzyzanski W. An interpretation of transit compartment pharmacodynamic models as lifespan-based indirect response models [abstract 1766]; 2010. p. 19. Available from: www.page-meeting.org/?abstract=1766
15. Friberg LE, Henningsson A, Maas H, et al. Model of chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression with parameter consistency across drugs. J Clin Oncol 2002;20:4713-21
16. Gibiansky L, Gibiansky E. Target-mediated drug disposition: new derivation of the Michaelis-Menten model, and why it is often sufficient for description of drugs with TMDD [abstract 1728]; 2010. p. 19. Available from: www.page-meeting.org/?abstract=1728
17. Keizer RJ, Funahashi Y, Semba T, et al. Evaluation of clinical dosing of E7820 from preclinical and clinical data using a biomarker [abstract 1690]; 2010. p. 19. Available from: www.page-meeting.org/?abstract=1690
18. Ribba B, Watkin E, Tod M, et al. Combined analysis of tumor size data and histological biomarkers drives the development of a semi-mechanistic model of the effect of the antiangiogenic drug Sunitinib in mice [abstract 1801]; 2010. p. 19. Available from: www.page-meeting.org/?abstract=1801
19. Johnson M, Kozielska M, Pilla Reddy V, et al. Evaluation of a mechanism-based pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model for D2 receptor occupancy of olanzapine in rats [abstract 1808]; 2010. p. 19. Available from: www.page-meeting.org/?abstract=1808
20. Nielsen EI, Cars O, Friberg LE. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modelling for antibiotics: static and dynamic in vitro time-kill curve experiments [abstract 1806]; 2010. p. 19. Available from: www.page-meeting.org/?abstract= 1806
21. Dubois VFS, Shearer M, Chain A, et al. Translation of drug-induced QTc prolongation in early drug development [abstract 1812]; 2010. p. 19. Available from: www.page-meeting.org/?abstract=1812
22. Zamuner S, Paronetto M, Moscardo E, et al. The assessment of convulsion risk: a translational PK/PD modelling approach [abstract 1867]; 2010. 19. Available from: www.page-meeting.org/?abstract=1867
23. Delattre M, Savic R, Miller R, et al. Estimation of mixed hidden Markov models with SAEM. Application to daily seizures data [abstract 1694]; 2010. p. 19. Available from: www.page-meeting.org/?abstract=1694
24. Plan EL, Karlsson KE, Karlsson MO. Analysis approaches handling both symptomatic severity and frequency [abstract 1711]; 2010. p. 19. Available from: www.page-meeting.org/?abstract=1711
25. Plan EL, Karlsson KE, Karlsson MO. Approaches to simultaneous analysis of frequency and severity of symptoms. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2010;88(2):255-9
26. Lim LA, Miller R, Park K. Dose-response-dropout analysis for pregabalin-treated patients with generalized anxiety disorders [abstract 1703]; 2010. p. 19. Available from: www.page-meeting.org/?abstract=1703
27. Available from: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/ScienceResearch/ SpecialTopics/CriticalPathInitiative/CriticalPathOpportunitiesReports/UCM077258. pdf [Accessed 28 July 2010]