Springer Nature is making SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19 research free. View research | View latest news | Sign up for updates

Integration of animal pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data in drug safety assessment

  • 18 Accesses

  • 13 Citations


The role of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in safety evaluation is the subject of considerable debate. In considering species variation in dose response relationships pharmacokinetic differences are considered by some as the likely major factor. As such measurement of the parent drug concentration in plasma is viewed as a convenient method to correct for these differences. However, even when the variation in dose response is due to species differences in the compound’s metabolism or disposition, concentrations at the target organ, active metabolites or protein binding may complicate any relationship with parent drug plasma concentration. Moreover, the variation in dose response may actually reflect differences in the pharmacodynamic responseper se, due to the various forms of receptor types expressed in individual species. It is concluded that safety evaluation has to be performed, not just by inter-species plasma concentration comparisons, but by assessment of the ratios between doses and concentrations producing desired effects, and those producing effects not tolerated by animals.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.


  1. 1.

    Smith D.A., Humphrey M.J., Charuel C. (1990): Design of toxicokinetic studies. Xenobiotics, 20, 1187–1199.

  2. 2.

    Collins J.M., Grieshabor C.K., Chabnor B.A. (1990): Pharmacologically guided Phase 1 clinical trials based upon preclinical drug development. J. Natl Cancer Inst., 82, 1321–1326.

  3. 3.

    Voisin E., Ruthsatz M., Collins J.M., Hoyle P.C. (1990): Extrapolation of animal toxicity to humans: interspecies comparisons in drug development. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol., 12, 107–116.

  4. 4.

    Workman P., Newell D.R., Collins J.R. (1989): Pharmacokinetically guided dose escalation (PGDE) in Phase 1 clinical trials: a review of recent experience. Invest. New Drugs, 7, 422.

  5. 5.

    Ghys A., Denef J., De Suray J.M., et al. (1985): Pharmacological properties of the new potent diuretic torasemide in rats and dogs. Arnzeimittelforschung, 35, 1520–1526.

  6. 6.

    Neugebauer G., Besenfelder E., Mollendorff E.V. (1988): Pharmacokinetics and metabolism of torasemide in man. Arzneimittelforschung, 38, 164–166.

  7. 7.

    Scheen A.J. (1988): Dose-response curve for torasemide in healthy volunteers. Arzneimittelforschung, 38, 156–159.

  8. 8.

    Halladay S.C., Carter D.E., Sipes I.G. (1978): A relationship between the metabolism of bumetanide and its diuretic activity. Drug Metab. Dispos., 6, 45–49.

  9. 9.

    Prugh J.D., Smith R.L., Anson B.H., Smith G.M. (1985): Oxygenated chimpanzee metabolites of (2-cyclopentyl-6,7-dichloro-2-methyl-1-oxo-5 indanyloxy) acetic acid (MK-473). Their structural elucidation and synthesis. J. Organic Chem., 50, 3490–3498.

  10. 10.

    Zacchei A.G., Wishousky T.I., Anson B.H., Hitzenberger G. (1978): The metabolism of (2-cyclopentyl-6,7-dichloro-2-methyl-1-oxo-5-indanyloxy)acetic acid in chimpanzee and man. Drug Metab. Dispos. 6, 303–312.

  11. 11.

    Zacchei A.G., Wishousky T.I., Watson L.S. (1978): The physiological disposition of (2-cyclopentyl-6,7-dichloro-2-methyl-1-oxo-5-indanyloxy)acetic acid in the rat, dog, rhesus monkey and baboon. Drug Metab. Dispos., 6, 313–320.

  12. 12.

    Nakata K., Iwatani T., Horiuchi M., Kito H., Yamauchi H., Iso T. (1986): Species differences of (2R,4R)-2-(o-hydroxy-phenyl)-3-(3-mercaptopropionyl)-4-thiazolidecarboxylicacid (SA446) in inhibition of angiotensin converting enzyme. Jpn J. Pharmacol., 40, 367–372.

  13. 13.

    Fleming R.A., Stewart C.F., Arbuck S.G. (1990): Species differences in etoposide plasma protein binding. Proc. Am. Assoc. Cancer Res., 31, 382.

  14. 14.

    Stewart C.F., Arbuck S.G., Fleming R.A., Evans W.E. (1991): Relation of systemic exposure to unbound etoposide and haematologic toxicity. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther., 50, 385–393.

  15. 15.

    Lin J.H. (1989): Species differences in protein binding of diflunisal. Drug Metab. Dispos., 17, 221–223.

  16. 16.

    Clark B., Smith D.A. (1984): Pharmacokinetics and toxicity testing. Crit. Rev. Toxicol., 12, 343–385.

  17. 17.

    De Souza J.J.V., Grever M., Neidhart J.A., Staubus A.E., Malspeis L. (1984): Comparative pharmacokinetics and metabolism of fludarabine phosphate in man and dog. Proc. Am. Assoc. Cancer Res., 25, 361.

  18. 18.

    Monro A.M. (1990): Interspecies comparisons in toxicology: the utility and futility of plasma concentrations of the test substance. Regul. Toxicol. Pharmacol., 12, 137–160.

  19. 19.

    Smith D.A. (1991): Species differences in metabolism and pharmacokinetics: are we close to an understanding? Drug Metab. Rev., 23, 355–373.

  20. 20.

    Barchan D., Kachalsky S., Neumann D. et al. (1992): How the mongoose can fight the snake: the binding site of the mongoose acetylcholine receptor. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA, 89, 7717–7721.

  21. 21.

    Harrison J.K., Pearson W.R., Lynch K.R. (1991): Molecular characterisation of α1-α2 adrenoceptors. Trends Pharmacol. Sci., 12, 62–67.

  22. 22.

    Kilpatrick G.J., Tyers M.B. (1992): Interspecies variants of the 5-HT3 receptor. Biochem. Soc. Trans., 20, 188–121.

  23. 23.

    Kao H.T., Adham N., Olsen M.A., Weinshank R.L., Branchek T.A., Hartig P.R. (1992): Site-directed mutagenesis of a single residue changes the binding properties of the in 5-HT2 receptor from a human to a rat pharmacology. FEBS Lett., 307, 324–328.

  24. 24.

    Appell K.C., Fragale B.J., Loscig J., Singh S., Tomezuk B.E. (1992): Antagonists that demonstrate species differences in neurokinin-1 receptors. Mol. Pharmacol., 41, 772–778.

  25. 25.

    Tachado S.D., Akhtar R.A., Yousutzai S.Y., Abdel-Latif A.A. (1991): Species differences in the effects of substance P on inositol biphosphate accumulation and cyclic AMP formation, and on contraction in isolated iris spincter of the mammalian eye: differences in receptor density. Exp. Eye Res., 53, 729–839.

  26. 26.

    Palacios J.M., Hoyer D., Cortes R. (1987): Alpha 1-adrenoceptors in the mammalian brain: similar pharmacology but different distribution in rodents and primates. Brain Res., 419, 65–75.

  27. 27.

    Shen Y.T., Vatner D.E., Gagron H.E., Vatner S.F. (1989): Species differences in regulation of alpha-adrenergic receptor function. Am. J. Physiol., 257, 1110–1116.

  28. 28.

    Bhargava H.I.V., Villar V.M. (1992): Pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetics of intravenously administered morphine in spontaneously hypertensive and normotensive Wistar-Kyoto rats. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther., 261, 290–296.

  29. 29.

    Tobin T., Brody T.M. (1972): Rates of dissociation of enzyme—ouabain complexes and K0.5 values in (Na+ +KK+) adenosine triphosphate from different species. Biochem. Pharmacol., 21, 1553–1560.

  30. 30.

    Eberhart D., Gernzik B., Halrorson M.R., Parkinson A. (1991): Species differences in the toxicity and cytochrome P-4503a dependent metabolism of digitoxin. Mol. Pharmacol., 40, 859–867.

  31. 31.

    Smith D.A., Jones B.C. (1992): Speculations on the substrate structure-activity relationship (SSAR) of cytochrome P450 enzymes. Biochem. Pharmacol., 44, 2089–2098.

Download references

Author information

Correspondence to D. A. Smith.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Smith, D.A. Integration of animal pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data in drug safety assessment. Eur. J. Drug Metab. Pharmacokinet. 18, 31–39 (1993). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF03220006

Download citation


  • Toxicokinetics
  • pharmacodynamics
  • species differences
  • receptors