Comparing translational population-PBPK modelling of brain microdialysis with bottom-up prediction of brain-to-plasma distribution in rat and human

Biopharmaceutics and Drug Disposition

Volumn 35, Issue 8, 2014, Pages 485-499

  Ball, Kathryn ^a   Bouzom, Francois ^a   Scherrmann, Jean Michel ^b,c   Walther, Bernard ^a   Decleves, Xavier ^b,c  

^a INSTITUT DE RECHERCHES INTERNATIONALES SERVIER   (France)

^b CNRS   (France)

^c INSERM   (France)

Author keywords

CNS; Microdialysis; Modelling; PBPK; Translational

Indexed keywords

CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM AGENTS; NEW DRUG;

ANIMAL EXPERIMENT; ANIMAL TISSUE; AREA UNDER THE CURVE; ARTICLE; BLOOD BRAIN BARRIER; BRAIN; BRAIN TISSUE; COMPUTER PROGRAM; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DRUG BLOOD LEVEL; DRUG DISTRIBUTION; DRUG ELIMINATION; EXTRACELLULAR FLUID; HUMAN; MEMBRANE PERMEABILITY; MICRODIALYSIS; NONHUMAN; PHYSICOCHEMICAL MODEL; PHYSIOLOGICALLY BASED PHARMACOKINETIC MODEL; PLASMA; RAT; VOLUME OF DISTRIBUTION; ANIMAL; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; CELL MEMBRANE PERMEABILITY; CHEMISTRY; COMPARATIVE STUDY; DOSE RESPONSE; DRUG EFFECTS; DRUG SCREENING; EVALUATION STUDY; METABOLISM; NERVE CELL; PHASE 1 CLINICAL TRIAL (TOPIC); PROCEDURES; SPECIES DIFFERENCE; TISSUE DISTRIBUTION; TRANSLATIONAL RESEARCH;

ANIMALS; BLOOD-BRAIN BARRIER; BRAIN; CELL MEMBRANE PERMEABILITY; CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM AGENTS; CLINICAL TRIALS, PHASE I AS TOPIC; COMPUTER SIMULATION; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; DRUG EVALUATION, PRECLINICAL; DRUGS, INVESTIGATIONAL; EXTRACELLULAR FLUID; HUMANS; MICRODIALYSIS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; NEURONS; RATS; SOFTWARE; SPECIES SPECIFICITY; TISSUE DISTRIBUTION; TRANSLATIONAL MEDICAL RESEARCH;

EID: 84915770566     PISSN: 01422782     EISSN: 1099081X     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/bdd.1908     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Morgan P, Van Der Graaf PH, Arrowsmith J, et al. Can the flow of medicines be improved? Fundamental pharmacokinetic and pharmacological principles toward improving Phase II survival. Drug Discov Today 2012; 17: 419-424. doi:10.1016/j.drudis.2011.12.020
2. Retzios AD. Why do so many Phase 3 clinical trials fail? Issues in Clinical Research: Bay Clinical R&D Services 2009; 1-46
3. de Lange ECM. Utility of CSF in translational neuroscience. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 2013; 40: 315-326. doi:10.1007/s10928-013-9301-9
4. Tunblad K, Hammarlund-Udenaes M, Jonsson EN. An integrated model for the analysis of pharmacokinetic data from microdialysis experiments. Pharm Res 2004; 21: 1698-1707. doi:10.1023/B: PHAM.0000041468.00587.c6
5. Bourasset F, Bernard K, Munoz C, Genissel P, Scherrmann J. Neuropharmacokinetics of a new alpha-amino-3-hydroxy-5-methyl-4-isoxazole propionic acid (AMPA) modulator, S18986 [(S)-2, 3-dihydro-[3,4]cyclopentano-1,2,4-benzothiadiazine-1,1-dioxide], in the rat. Drug Metab Dispos 2005; 33: 1137-1143. doi:10.1124/dmd.105.004424
6. de Lange ECM, Ravenstijn PGM, Groenendaal D, van Steeg TJ. Toward the prediction of CNS drugeffect profiles in physiological and pathological conditions using microdialysis and mechanismbased pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling. AAPS J 2005; 7: E532-E543. doi:10.1208/aapsj070354
7. Cremers TIFH, Flik G, Hofland C, Stratford RE. Microdialysis evaluation of clozapine and Ndesmethylclozapine pharmacokinetics in rat brain. Drug Metab Dispos 2012; 40: 1909-1916. doi:10.1124/dmd.112.045682
8. KielbasaW, Stratford RE. Exploratory translational modeling approach in drug development to predict human brain pharmacokinetics and pharmacologically relevant clinical doses. Drug Metab Dispos 2012; 40: 877-883. doi:10.1124/dmd.111.043554
9. Westerhout J, Ploeger B, Smeets J, Danhof M, de Lange ECM. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling to investigate regional brain distribution kinetics in rats. AAPS J 2012; 14: 543-553. doi:10.1208/s12248-012-9366-1
10. Ito K, Uchida Y, Ohtsuki S, et al. Quantitative membrane protein expression at the blood-brain barrier of adult and younger cynomolgus monkeys. J Pharm Sci 2011; 100: 3939-3950. doi:10.1002/jps.22487
11. Uchida Y, Ohtsuki S, Katsukura Y, et al. Quantitative targeted absolute proteomics of human blood-brain barrier transporters and receptors. J Neurochem 2011; 117: 333-345. doi:10.1111/j.1471-4159.2011.07208.x
12. Hoshi Y, Uchida Y, Tachikawa M, Inoue T, Ohtsuki S, Terasaki T. Quantitative atlas of blood-brain barrier transporters, receptors, and tight junction proteins in rats and common marmoset. J Pharm Sci 2013: 1-13. doi:10.1002/jps.23575
13. Wang Y,Welty DF. The simultaneous estimation of the influx and efflux blood-brain barrier permeabilities of gabapentin using a microdialysispharmacokinetic approach. Pharm Res 1996; 13: 398-403. doi:10.1023/A:1016092525901
14. Friden M, Bergström F, Wan H, et al. Measurement of unbound drug exposure in brain: modeling of pH partitioning explains diverging results between the brain slice and brain homogenate methods. Drug Metab Dispos 2011; 39: 353-362. doi:10.1124/dmd.110.035998
15. Ball K, Bouzom F, Scherrmann J-M, Walther B, Decleves X. A physiologically based modeling strategy during preclinical CNS drug development. Mol Pharm 2014 Jan 29 (Epub ahead of print). DOI: 10.1021/mp400533q
16. Rodgers T, Leahy D, Rowland M. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling 1: predicting the tissue distribution of moderate-to-strong bases. J Pharm Sci 2005; 94: 1259-1276. doi:10.1002/jps.20322
17. Rodgers T, Rowland M. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic modelling 2: predicting the tissue distribution of acids, very weak bases, neutrals and zwitterions. J Pharm Sci 2006; 95: 1238-1257. doi:10.1002/jps.20502
18. Poulin P, Theil F-P. Prediction of pharmacokinetics prior to in vivo studies 1. Mechanism-based prediction of volume of distribution. J Pharm Sci 2002; 91: 129-156. doi:10.1002/jps.10005
19. Deguchi Y. Application of in vivo brain microdialysis to the study of blood-brain barrier transport of drugs. Drug Metab Pharmacokinet 2002; 17: 395-407. doi:10.2133/dmpk.17.395
20. Boström E, Hammarlund-Udenaes M, Simonsson USH. Blood-brain barrier transport helps to explain discrepancies in in vivo potency between oxycodone and morphine. Anesthesiology 2008; 108: 495-505. doi:10.1097/ALN.0b013e318164cf9e
21. Hammarlund-Udenaes M, Friden M, Syvanen S, Gupta A. On the rate and extent of drug delivery to the brain. Pharm Res 2008; 25: 1737-1750. doi:10.1007/s11095-007-9502-2
22. Hansen DK, Scott DO, Otis KW, Lunte SM. Comparison of in vitro BBMEC permeability and in vivo CNS uptake by microdialysis sampling. J Pharm Biomed Anal 2002; 27: 945-958. doi:10.1016/S0731-7085(01)00542-8
23. Kielbasa W, Kalvass JC, Stratford R. Microdialysis evaluation of atomoxetine brain penetration and central nervous system pharmacokinetics in rats. Drug Metab Dispos 2009; 37: 137-142. doi:10.1124/dmd.108.023119
24. Jamei M, Marciniak S, Feng K, Barnett A, Tucker G, Rostami-Hodjegan A. The Simcyp population-based ADME simulator. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 2009; 5: 211-223. doi:10.1517/17425250802691074
25. Jamei M, Dickinson GL, Rostami-Hodjegan A. A framework for assessing inter-individual variability in pharmacokinetics using virtual human populations and integrating general knowledge of physical chemistry, biology, anatomy, physiology and genetics: A tale of 'bottom-up' vs 'top-down' recognition. Drug Metab Pharmacokinet 2009; 24: 53-75. doi:10.2133/dmpk.24.53
26. Summerfield SG, Lucas AJ, Porter RA, et al. Toward an improved prediction of human in vivo brain penetration. Xenobiotica 2008; 38: 1518-1535. doi:10.1080/00498250802499459
27. Di L, Umland JP, Chang G, et al. Species independence in brain tissue binding using brain homogenates. Drug Metab Dispos 2011; 39: 1270-1277. doi:10.1124/dmd.111.038778
28. Jeffrey P, Summerfield SG. Challenges for blood-brain barrier (BBB) screening. Xenobiotica 2007; 37: 1135-1151. doi:10.1080/0049825070 1570285
29. Shen DD, Artru AA, Adkison KK. Principles and applicability of CSF sampling for the assessment of CNS drug delivery and pharmacodynamics. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2004; 56: 1825-1857. doi:10.1016/j.addr.2004.07.011