Integration of preclinical and clinical knowledge to predict intravenous PK in human: Bilastine case study

  • Valvanera Vozmediano
  • Ignacio Ortega
  • John C. Lukas
  • Ana Gonzalo
  • Monica Rodriguez
  • Maria Luisa Lucero
Original Paper

Abstract

Modern pharmacometrics can integrate and leverage all prior proprietary and public knowledge. Such methods can be used to scale across species or comparators, perform clinical trial simulation across alternative designs, confirm hypothesis and potentially reduce development burden, time and costs. Crucial yet typically lacking in integration is the pre-clinical stage. Prediction of PK in man, using in vitro and in vivo studies in different animal species, is increasingly well theorized but could still find wider application in drug development. The aim of the present work was to explore methods for bridging pharmacokinetic knowledge from animal species (i.v. and p.o.) and man (p.o.) into i.v. in man using the antihistamine drug bilastine as example. A model, predictive of i.v. PK in man, was developed on data from two pre-clinical species (rat and dog) and p.o. in man bilastine trials performed earlier. In the knowledge application stage, two different approaches were used to predict human plasma concentration after i.v. of bilastine: allometry (several scaling methods) and a semi-physiological method. Both approaches led to successful predictions of key i.v. PK parameters of bilastine in man. The predictive i.v. PK model was validated using later data from a clinical study of i.v. bilastine. Introduction of such knowledge in development permits proper leveraging of all emergent knowledge as well as quantification-based exploration of PK scenario, e.g. in special populations (pediatrics, renal insufficiency, comedication). In addition, the methods permit reduction or elimination and certainly optimization of learning trials, particularly those concerning alternative off-label administration routes.

Keywords

Bilastine Preclinical pharmacokinetics Quantitative pharmacology Allometric scaling Semiphysiological models Knowledge integration Drug development 

Notes

Acknowledgments

This work was funded in part by the Ministry of Industry, Tourism and Commerce (formerly Ministry of Science and Technology) of Spain (PROFIT) and by the Department of Industry, Commerce and Tourism of the Basque Government (INTEK) and European Regional Development Fund (FEDER). Two of the authors (VV and IO) became involved thanks to support from the Department of Industry, Commerce and Tourism of the Basque Government (Ikertu) and the Torres Quevedo Programme of the Ministry of Science and Innovation, Spanish Government, respectively. This work is also part of the doctoral thesis of the corresponding author (directed by Dr. Rosario Calvo). Finally, the authors of this manuscript would also like to thank Dr. Aurelio Orjales for his contribution to these studies during his management of FAES Farma Research Department.

References

  1. Anderson BJ, Holford NHG (2008) Mechanism-based concepts of size and maturity in pharmacokinetics. Ann Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 48:303–332. doi:10.1146/annurev.pharmtox.48.113006.094708 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Björkman S (2005) Prediction of drug disposition in infants and children by means of physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modelling: theophylline and midazolam as model drugs. Br J Clin Pharmacol 59(6):691–704PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chien JY, Friedrich S, Heathman MA, de Alwis DP, Sinha V (2005) Pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics and the stages of drug development: role of modeling and simulation. AAPS J 7:E544–E559 (review)Google Scholar
  4. Davis B, Morris T (1993) Physiological parameters in laboratory animals and humans. Pharm Res 10:1093–1095CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Jauregizar N, de la Fuente L, Lucero ML, Sologuren A, Leal N, Rodríguez M (2009) Pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic modelling of the antihistaminic (H1) effect of Bilastine. Clin Pharmacokinet 48(8):543–554PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Lin J (1995) Species similarities and differences in pharmacokinetics. Drug Metab Dispos 23(10):1008–1021Google Scholar
  7. Lockwood PA, Cook JA, Ewy WE, Mandema JW (2003) The use of clinical trial simulation to support dose selection: application to development of a new treatment for chronic neuropathic pain. Pharm Res 20:1752–1759PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Mahmood I (2005) Interspecies pharmacokinetic scaling: principles and application of allometric scaling. Pine House Publishers, RockvilleGoogle Scholar
  9. Savage VM (2004) Improved approximations to scaling relationships for species, populations, and ecosystems across latitudinal and elevational gradients. J Theor Biol 227(4):525–534. doi:10.1016/j.jtbi.2003.11.030 PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Tillement JP (2000) The advantages for an H1 antihistamine of a low volume of distribution. Allergy 55(Suppl 60):17–21PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Van Sassenbroeck DK, De Paepe P, Belpaire FM, Boon PA, Buylaert WA (2002) Influence of hypovolemia on the pharmacokinetics and electroencephalographic effect of gamma-hydroxybutyrate in the rat. Anesthesiology 97(5):1218–1226PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag France 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Valvanera Vozmediano
    • 1
  • Ignacio Ortega
    • 2
  • John C. Lukas
    • 1
  • Ana Gonzalo
    • 2
  • Monica Rodriguez
    • 1
  • Maria Luisa Lucero
    • 2
  1. 1.Drug Modeling & ConsultingDynakin SLBilbaoSpain
  2. 2.Research, Development and Innovation DepartmentFAES FARMA SABilbaoSpain

Personalised recommendations