Advertisement

Geometric singular perturbation analysis of a dynamical target mediated drug disposition model

  • Kristian Uldall KristiansenEmail author
Article
  • 30 Downloads

Abstract

In this paper we present a mathematical analysis of a pharmacological ODE model for target mediated drug disposition (TMDD). It is known that solutions of this model undergo four qualitatively different phases. In this paper we provide a mathematical identification of these separate phases by viewing the TMDD model as a singular perturbed system. Our analysis is based on geometric singular perturbation theory and we believe that this approach systemizes—and sheds further light on—the scalings arguments used by previous authors. In particular, we present a novel description of the third phase through a distinguished solution of a nonlinear differential equation. We also describe the solution curve for large values of initial drug doses and recover, en route, a result by Aston et al. (J Math Biol 68(6):1453–1478, 2014) on rebounding using our alternative perturbation approach. Finally, from our main result we derive a new method for estimating the parameters of the system in the event that detailed data is available. Ideally our approach to the TMDD model should stimulate further research into applications of these methods to more complicated models in pharmacology.

Keywords

Geometric singular perturbation theory pharmacology target mediated drug disposition 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The author would like to thank the students Anders Eltved, Sigrun Nordli and Asger Limkilde for their initial work on this problem

Supplementary material

References

  1. Aston PJ, Derks G, Raji A, Agoram BM, van der Graaf PH (2011) Mathematical analysis of the pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (pkpd) behaviour of monoclonal antibodies: Predicting in vivo potency. J Theor Biol 281(1):113–121MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. Aston PJ, Derks G, Agoram BM, van der Graaf PH (2014) A mathematical analysis of rebound in a target-mediated drug disposition model: I. Without feedback. J Math Biol 68(6):1453–1478MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  3. Bossolini E, Brøns M, Kristiansen KU (2017) Singular limit analysis of a model for earthquake faulting. Nonlinearity 30(7):2805–2834MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  4. Dua P, Hawkins E, Van Der Graaf PH (2016) A tutorial on target-mediated drug disposition (tmdd) modelsGoogle Scholar
  5. Fenichel N (1971) Persistence and smoothness of invariant manifolds for flows. Indiana Univ Math J 21:193–226MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  6. Goeke A, Walcher S, Zerz E (2015) Determining “small parameters” for quasi-steady state. J Diff Equ 259(3):1149–1180MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. Jones CKRT (1995) Geometric singular perturbation theory, lecture notes in mathematics, dynamical systems (montecatini terme). Springer, BerlinGoogle Scholar
  8. Kaper T (1999) An introduction to geometric methods and dynamical systems theory for singular perturbation problems. Proc Symp Appl Math 56:85MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Kosiuk I (2012) Relaxation oscillations in slow-fast systems beyond the standard form. PhD thesis, University of LeipzigGoogle Scholar
  10. Kosiuk I, Szmolyan P (2009) Geometric singular perturbation analysis of an autocatalator model. Discrete Contin Dyn Syst Seri S 2(4):783–806MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  11. Kosiuk I, Szmolyan P (2011) Scaling in singular perturbation problems: blowing up a relaxation oscillator. Siam J Appl Dyn Syst 10(4):1307–1343MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  12. Kosiuk I, Szmolyan P (2015) Geometric analysis of the Goldbeter minimal model for the embryonic cell cycle. J Math Biol 72:1337–1368MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. Krupa M, Szmolyan P (2001a) Extending geometric singular perturbation theory to nonhyperbolic points-fold and canard points in two dimensions. SIAM J Math Anal 33(2):286–314MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. Krupa M, Szmolyan P (2001b) Extending slow manifolds near transcritical and pitchfork singularities. Nonlinearity 14(6):1473MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  15. Kuehn C (2015) Multiple time scale dynamics. Springer, BerlinCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  16. Levy G (1994) Pharmacologic target-mediated drug disposition. Clin Pharmacol Ther 56(3):248–252CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Mager DE, Jusko WJ (2001) General pharmacokinetic model for drugs exhibiting target-mediated drug disposition. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 28(6):507–532CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Meiss JD (2007) Differential dynamical systems, vol 14. Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics,Google Scholar
  19. Patsatzis DG, Maris DT, Goussi DA (2016) Asymptotic analysis of a target-mediated drug disposition model: agorithmic and traditional approaches. Bull Math Biol 78(6):1121–1161MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  20. Peletier LA, Gabrielsson J (2009) Dynamics of target-mediated drug disposition. Eur J Pharm Sci 38(5):445–464CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  21. Peletier LA, Gabrielsson J (2012) Dynamics of target-mediated drug disposition: characteristic profiles and parameter identification. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 39(5):429–451CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Peletier LA, Gabrielsson J (2013) Dynamics of target-mediated drug disposition: how a drug reaches its target. Comput Geosci 17(3):599–608MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. Peletier LA, Gabrielsson J (2015) Challenges in pharmacology modelling. J Dyn Diff Equ 27(3–4):941–959MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. Sell GR (1985) Smooth linearization near a fixed point. Am J Math 107(5):1035–1091MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. Sternberg S (1958) On the structure of local homeomorphisms of euclidean n-space, II. Am J Math 80(3):623–631MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  26. van der Graaf PH, Benson N, Peletier LA (2016) Topics in mathematical pharmacology. J Dyn Diff Equ 28(3–4):1337–1356MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  27. van Gils S, Krupa M, Szmolyan P (2005) Asymptotic expansions using blow-up. Zeitschrift Fur Angewandte Mathematik Und Physik 56(3):369–397MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Technical University of DenmarkKongens LyngbyDenmark

Personalised recommendations