An introduction to physiologically-based pharmacokinetic models

Paediatric Anaesthesia

Volumn 26, Issue 11, 2016, Pages 1036-1046

  Upton, Richard N ^a   Foster, David J R ^a   Abuhelwa, Ahmad Y ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA   (Australia)

Author keywords

anesthesia; computer simulation; pediatrics; pharmacokinetics; physiology; regional blood flow

Indexed keywords

DRUG; ANESTHETIC AGENT;

BODY COMPOSITION; BODY SIZE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPARTMENT MODEL; DATA ANALYSIS; DATA BASE; DRUG BLOOD LEVEL; DRUG DISTRIBUTION; DRUG ELIMINATION; HUMAN; MATHEMATICAL PARAMETERS; NONHUMAN; PHARMACODYNAMICS; PHARMACOKINETICS; PHARMACOLOGY; PHYSIOLOGICALLY BASED PHARMACOKINETIC MODEL; PHYSIOLOGY; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SOFTWARE; SPECIES DIFFERENCE; TISSUE LEVEL; ANIMAL; BIOLOGICAL MODEL; PEDIATRICS;

ANESTHETICS; ANIMALS; HUMANS; MODELS, BIOLOGICAL; PEDIATRICS;

EID: 84992121177     PISSN: 11555645     EISSN: 14609592     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/pan.12995     Document Type: Review

References (57)

1. Edginton AN. Knowledge-driven approaches for the guidance of first-in-children dosing. Pediatr Anesth 2011; 21: 206–213.
2. Krejcie TC, Avram MJ. Recirculatory pharmacokinetic modeling: what goes around, comes around. Anesth Analg 2012; 115: 223–226.
3. Upton RN, Ludbrook GL. A model of the kinetics and dynamics of induction of anaesthesia in sheep: variable estimation for thiopental and comparison with propofol. Br J Anaesth 1999; 82: 890–899.
4. Gulati A, Isbister GK, Duffull SB. Scale reduction of a systems coagulation model with an application to modeling pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic data. CPT Pharmacomet Syst Pharmacol 2014; 3: e90.
5. Mould DR, Upton RN. Basic concepts in population modeling, simulation, and model-based drug development. CPT Pharmacomet Syst Pharmacol 2012; 1: e6.
6. Eger EII. A mathematical model of uptake and distribution. In: Papper EM, Kitz RJ, eds. Uptake and Distribution of Anesthetic Agents. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963: 72–87.
7. Mapleson WW. Uptake and distribution of anesthetic agents. In: Papper E, Kitz RJ, eds. Uptake and Distribution of Anesthetic Agents. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1963: 104–119.
8. Price HL. A dynamic concept of the distribution of thiopental in the human body. Anesthesiology 1960; 21: 40–45.
9. Benowitz N, Forsyth FP, Melmon KL et al. Lidocaine disposition kinetics in monkey and man. I. Prediction by a perfusion model. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1974; 16: 87–98.
10. Benowitz N, Forsyth RP, Melmon KL et al. Lidocaine disposition kinetics in monkey and man. II. Effects of hemorrhage and sympathomimetic drug administration. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1974; 16: 99–109.
11. Davis NR, Mapleson WW. Structure and quantification of a physiological model of the distribution of injected agents and inhaled anaesthetics. Br J Anaesth 1981; 53: 399–405.
12. Masui K, Upton RN, Doufas AG et al. The performance of compartmental and physiologically based recirculatory pharmacokinetic models for propofol: a comparison using bolus, continuous, and target-controlled infusion data. Anesth Analg 2010; 111: 368–379.
13. Upton RN, Foster DJR, Christrup LL et al. A physiologically-based recirculatory meta-model for nasal fentanyl in man. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 2012; 39: 561–576.
14. Parrott N, Lukacova V, Fraczkiewicz G et al. Predicting pharmacokinetics of drugs using physiologically based modeling–application to food effects. AAPS J 2009; 11: 45–53.
15. Lukacova V, Woltosz WS, Bolger MB. Prediction of modified release pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics from in vitro, immediate release, and intravenous data. AAPS J 2009; 11: 323–334.
16. Agoram B, Woltosz WS, Bolger MB. Predicting the impact of physiological and biochemical processes on oral drug bioavailability. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 2001; 1(50 Suppl 1): S41–S67.
17. Edginton AN, Willmann S. Physiology-based simulations of a pathological condition: prediction of pharmacokinetics in patients with liver cirrhosis. Clin Pharmacokinet 2008; 47: 743–752.
18. Yeo KR, Jamei M, Rostami-Hodjegan A. Predicting drug-drug interactions: application of physiologically based pharmacokinetic models under a systems biology approach. Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol 2013; 6: 143–157.
19. Yu LX, Lipka E, Crison JR et al. Transport approaches to the biopharmaceutical design of oral drug delivery systems: prediction of intestinal absorption. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 1996; 19: 359–376.
20. 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 of covariates. Drug Metab Pharmacokinet 2009; 24: 53–75.
21. Kostewicz ES, Aarons L, Bergstrand M et al. PBPK models for the prediction of in vivo performance of oral dosage forms. Eur J Pharm Sci Off J Eur Fed Pharm Sci 2014; 16: 300–321.
22. Ni PF, Ho NFH, Fox JL et al. Theoretical model studies of intestinal drug absorption V. Non-steady-state fluid flow and absorption. Int J Pharm 1980; 5: 33–47.
23. Björkman S, Stanski DR, Verotta D et al. Comparative tissue concentration profiles of fentanyl and alfentanil in humans predicted from tissue/blood partition data obtained in rats. Anesthesiology 1990; 72: 865–873.
24. Bouw R, Ederoth P, Lundberg J et al. Increased blood-brain barrier permeability of morphine in a patient with severe brain lesions as determined by microdialysis. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand 2001; 45: 390–392.
25. Ederoth P, Tunblad K, Bouw R et al. Blood-brain barrier transport of morphine in patients with severe brain trauma. Br J Clin Pharmacol 2004; 57: 427–435.
26. Ludbrook GL, Visco E, Lam AM. Propofol: relation between brain concentrations, electroencephalogram, middle cerebral artery blood flow velocity, and cerebral oxygen extraction during induction of anesthesia. Anesthesiology 2002; 97: 1363–1370.
27. Upton RN, Ludbrook GL. A physiological model of induction of anaesthesia with propofol in sheep. 1. Structure and estimation of variables. Br J Anaesth 1997; 79: 497–504.
28. Mather LE, Runciman WB, Ilsley AH et al. Direct measurement of chlormethiazole extraction by liver, lung and kidney in man. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1981; 12: 319–325.
29. Small H, Gardner I, Jones HM et al. Measurement of binding of basic drugs to acidic phospholipids using surface plasmon resonance and incorporation of the data into mechanistic tissue composition equations to predict steady-state volume of distribution. Drug Metab Dispos Biol Fate Chem 2011; 39: 1789–1793.
30. Rodgers T, Rowland M. Mechanistic approaches to volume of distribution predictions: understanding the processes. Pharm Res 2007; 24: 918–933.
31. Price PS, Conolly RB, Chaisson CF et al. Modeling interindividual variation in physiological factors used in PBPK models of humans. Crit Rev Toxicol 2003; 33: 469–503.
32. Brown RP, Delp MD, Lindstedt SL et al. Physiological parameter values for physiologically based pharmacokinetic models. Toxicol Ind Health 1997; 13: 407–484.
33. Clewell RA, Clewell HJ. Development and specification of physiologically based pharmacokinetic models for use in risk assessment. Regul Toxicol Pharmacol RTP 2008; 50: 129–143.
34. Upton RN. Organ weights and blood flows of sheep and pig for physiological pharmacokinetic modelling. J Pharmacol Toxicol Methods 2008; 58: 198–205.
35. Robertson HT, Hlastala MP. Microsphere maps of regional blood flow and regional ventilation. J Appl Physiol Bethesda Md 1985 2007; 102: 1265–1272.
36. Upton R, Grant C, Ludbrook G. An ultrasonic Doppler venous outflow method for the continuous measurement of cerebral blood flow in conscious sheep. J Cereb Blood Flow Metab Off J Int Soc Cereb Blood Flow Metab 1994; 14: 680–688.
37. Doolette DJ, Upton RN, Grant C. Agreement between ultrasonic Doppler venous outflow and Kety and Schmidt estimates of cerebral blood flow. Clin Exp Pharmacol Physiol 1999; 26: 736–740.
38. Cosgrove D, Eckersley R, Blomley M et al. Quantification of blood flow. Eur Radiol 2001; 11: 1338–1344.
39. Upton RN, Foster DJR. Representing eliminating organs in physiological pharmacokinetic models. World Congress of Pharmacometrics. In Seoul, Korea; 2012.
40. Baker M, Parton T. Kinetic determinants of hepatic clearance: plasma protein binding and hepatic uptake. Xenobiotica Fate Foreign Compd Biol Syst 2007; 37: 1110–1134.
41. Hopkins AM, Wiese MD, Proudman SM et al. Semiphysiologically based pharmacokinetic model of leflunomide disposition in rheumatoid arthritis patients. CPT Pharmacomet Syst Pharmacol 2015; 4: 362–371.
42. Zhang D, Zhu M, Humphreys WG. Drug Metabolism in Drug Design and Development. Hoboken, NJ, USA: John Wiley & Sons; 2007. 634 p.
43. Björkman S, Stanski DR, Harashima H et al. Tissue distribution of fentanyl and alfentanil in the rat cannot be described by a blood flow limited model. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 1993; 21: 255–279.
44. Björkman S, Wada DR, Stanski DR. Application of physiologic models to predict the influence of changes in body composition and blood flows on the pharmacokinetics of fentanyl and alfentanil in patients. Anesthesiology 1998; 88: 657–667.
45. Anderson BJ, Holford NHG. Tips and traps analyzing pediatric PK data. Pediatr Anesth 2011; 21: 222–237.
46. West GB, Brown JH. The origin of allometric scaling laws in biology from genomes to ecosystems: towards a quantitative unifying theory of biological structure and organization. J Exp Biol 2005; 208: 1575–1592.
47. Anderson BJ, Holford NHG. Mechanism-based concepts of size and maturity in pharmacokinetics. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 2008; 48: 303–332.
48. Rhodin MM, Anderson BJ, Peters AM et al. Human renal function maturation: a quantitative description using weight and postmenstrual age. Pediatr Nephrol Berl Ger 2009; 24: 67–76.
49. Rowland M, Lesko LJ, Rostami-Hodjegan A. Physiologically based pharmacokinetics is impacting drug development and regulatory decision making. CPT Pharmacomet Syst Pharmacol 2015; 4: 313–315.
50. Langdon G, Gueorguieva I, Aarons L et al. Linking preclinical and clinical whole-body physiologically based pharmacokinetic models with prior distributions in NONMEM. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 2007; 63: 485–498.
51. Gueorguieva I, Aarons L, Rowland M. Diazepam pharamacokinetics from preclinical to phase I using a Bayesian population physiologically based pharmacokinetic model with informative prior distributions in WinBUGS. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 2006; 33: 571–594.
52. Wendling T, Dumitras S, Ogungbenro K et al. Application of a Bayesian approach to physiological modelling of mavoglurant population pharmacokinetics. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 2015; 42: 639–657.
53. Wendling T, Tsamandouras N, Dumitras S et al. Reduction of a whole-body physiologically based pharmacokinetic model to stabilise the Bayesian analysis of clinical data. AAPS J 2016; 18: 196–209.
54. Upton RN, Mould DR. Basic concepts in population modeling, simulation, and model-based drug development: part 3-introduction to pharmacodynamic modeling methods. CPT Pharmacomet Syst Pharmacol 2014; 3: e88.
55. Kratz J, Strasser C. Data publication consensus and controversies. F1000Research 2014; 3: 94.
56. Ludbrook GL, Upton RN. A physiological model of induction of anaesthesia with propofol in sheep. 2. Model analysis and implications for dose requirements. Br J Anaesth 1997; 79: 505–513.
57. Upton RN, Ludbrook G. A physiologically based, recirculatory model of the kinetics and dynamics of propofol in man. Anesthesiology 2005; 103: 344–352.