Requirements to Establishing Confidence in Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic (PBPK) Models and Overcoming Some of the Challenges to Meeting Them
- 1.1k Downloads
When scientifically well-founded, the mechanistic basis of physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models can help reduce the uncertainty and increase confidence in extrapolations outside the studied scenarios or studied populations. However, it is not always possible to establish mechanistically credible PBPK models. Requirements to establishing confidence in PBPK models, and challenges to meeting these requirements, are presented in this article. Parameter non-identifiability is the most challenging among the barriers to establishing confidence in PBPK models. Using case examples of small molecule drugs, this article examines the use of hypothesis testing to overcome parameter non-identifiability issues, with the objective of enhancing confidence in the mechanistic basis of PBPK models and thereby improving the quality of predictions that are meant for internal decisions and regulatory submissions. When the mechanistic basis of a PBPK model cannot be established, we propose the use of simpler models or evidence-based approaches.
To leverage the mechanistic strengths of PBPK models, it is essential to establish confidence in the mechanisms that are relevant to an application.
Establishing confidence in PBPK models is challenged by poor in vitro-in vivo correlations, knowledge gaps in system parameters and in mechanisms impacting an application, as well as parameter non-identifiability.
Uncertainty analysis and hypothesis testing can be used to overcome some of these challenges.
If the mechanistic basis of a PBPK model cannot be established, then simpler models and/or evidence-based approaches should be considered.
Physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models provide a mechanistic framework in which to integrate compound and system data for prospective predictions of drug exposure in humans [1, 2]. When scientifically well-founded, the mechanistic basis of PBPK models can help reduce the uncertainty and increase confidence in extrapolations outside the studied scenarios or studied populations. PBPK models are therefore increasingly applied during preclinical and clinical development [1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7]. During preclinical drug development, PBPK can support candidate drug selection and decision making by aiding an understanding of the mechanisms driving drug exposure . During clinical drug development, PBPK modelling can drive internal decisions and support regulatory submissions [9, 10, 11]. An increasing number of regulatory submissions over the last decade culminated in the recent draft guidelines by both the European Medicines Agency (EMA)  and the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) , highlighting the growing relevance of PBPK in the pharmaceutical industry today. A recent publication from the Simcyp Consortium members  provided a perspective on the qualification and verification of PBPK platforms/models intended for regulatory submission. Despite the strengths of PBPK modelling approaches, most of the high-impact regulatory applications that resulted in labelling recommendations or study waivers have tended to be drug–drug interaction (DDI)-related . Establishing confidence in PBPK models for non-DDI applications such as pediatric starting dose selection, organ impairment and absorption-related applications is challenged by the difficulty in developing mechanistically credible PBPK models or to verify and validate their prediction performance, either because drug elimination pathways cannot be well-characterized, or, when characterized, there is poor in vitro–in vivo correlation (IVIVC). This is especially true for transporter-dependent or non-cytochrome P450 (CYP)-mediated elimination pathways. The lack of a sufficient number of clinical datasets to resolve parameter non-identifiability has further limited model verification and validation. This work presents a systematic assessment of the current challenges to establishing confidence in PBPK models with respect to parameter estimation and model verification in each of the three major areas of PBPK application—absorption prediction, exposure prediction in a target population, and DDI risk assessment during drug development. These three areas cover most of the regulatory submissions. This paper also focuses on overcoming parameter non-identifiability issues through hypothesis testing, using case examples related to absorption.
2 Impact Levels of Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic (PBPK) Applications for Regulatory Submissions
In a workshop on modelling and simulation hosted by the EMA and the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA), representatives from industry, academia, and regulatory agencies proposed a framework where the degree of regulatory scrutiny, level of documentation, and the need for early dialogue is proportional to the impact of the modelling activity on regulatory decision making [15, 16]. Thus, regulatory submissions may be classified as high, medium or low impact depending on the ability of the work to replace, justify or describe an evidence base. For example, PBPK models that support regulatory filing for labelling negotiations or study waivers are considered ‘high impact’ applications. In general, these tend to be DDI-related. Pediatric starting dose selection or the study design may be considered an example of an application with moderate impact.
3 Qualification of PBPK Platforms
PBPK models are generally built in commercial platforms such as GastroPlus (http://www.simulations-plus.com), PK-Sim® (http://www.open-systems-pharmacology.org/) or Simcyp (http://www.simcyp.com) that come with their own compound and population libraries. The EMA guidelines require qualification of these platforms . PBPK platform qualification is defined as a version-specific evaluation to demonstrate its reliability for one or several intended purposes. It involves ensuring proper implementation of computational functionalities, accurate mathematical representation of the physiological processes, reliable system parameters for the library of populations, model verification for the library compounds, transparency regarding the source of system and compound data as well as assumptions in the system, version controlling, quality-controlled software installation, and evaluation of the predictive performance for high-impact applications for the intended purpose using a large, independent, diverse dataset.
4 Key Questions and Strategies for Different PBPK Applications
Key questions (Q), modelling strategies and possible outcomes for high-impact regulatory submissions: NCE as a perpetrator of DDI. DDI drug–drug interaction, NCE new chemical entity, CLint intrinsic clearance, CYP cytochrome P450, EM extensive metabolizers, IM intermediate metabolizers, fg fraction escaping intestinal loss, fm,CYP fraction metabolized by an isoform, FiM first in man, SAD single ascending dose, MAD multiple ascending dose, PK pharmacokinetics, PG pharmacogenomic, PM poor metabolizer, CL clearance, CL/F apparent clearance
Key questions, modelling strategies and possible outcomes for high-impact regulatory submissions: fg fraction escaping intestinal loss, Ki reversible inhibition constant, KI inhibitor concentration at half maximal inactivation, NCE as a victim of DDI. DDI drug–drug interaction, Qx Quarter x, NCE new chemical entity, SAD single ascending dose, MAD multiple ascending dose, PK pharmacokinetics, P-gp P-glycoprotein, OATP organic anion transporting polypeptide, OCT organic cation transporter, BCRP breast cancer resistance protein, EC50 half maximal effective concentration, Emax maximum effective concentration
Key questions for moderate impact non-DDI regulatory submissions. DDI drug–drug interaction, PK pharmacokinetics, PPI proton pump inhibitor, P-gp P-glycoprotein, Cmax maximum concentration
Model development Building a PBPK model for a new chemical entity (NCE) by integrating its physicochemical properties, measured in vitro data that are relevant to the key question to be addressed, and estimated sensitive or critical parameters from clinical pharmacokinetic (PK) data when they become available.
Model verification An iterative process of comparing model-simulated exposure with independent clinical data (datasets that were not used in model development steps) to establish confidence in the model-simulated exposure. If model simulations do not match the clinically observed exposure within a predefined acceptance criterion, the model parameters are refined to fit the observations and then verified again. An acceptance criterion that is flexible, clinically relevant and based on sample size, parameter variance, therapeutic index and exposure–response relationship has been proposed .
Model validation Following model verification, the prediction performance of a model needs to be validated against relevant clinical data (eg, predicted within 2-fold of the observed) to demonstrate that the proposed model is ‘fit for purpose’, before applying the model for predicting an untested scenario. For example, a PBPK model of a CYP inhibitor, verified against observed PK profiles in a first-in-human (FiH) trial may be validated for the purpose of predicting drug interaction with one sensitive substrate before it is applied to prospectively predict interactions with other untested CYP substrates. Validation with one tested scenario would be enough to provide the confidence needed for the prospective predictions of multiple untested scenarios. If the model is developed in a PBPK platform that is already qualified for an intended purpose using an independent, large, diverse dataset, this validation step may be skipped.
Sensitivity analysis identifies sensitive model parameters among the in vitro-generated input parameters for which an uncertainty analysis needs to be performed.
Model prediction A validated model can be applied to make prospective predictions for an unstudied population, or used to simulate an unstudied scenario (see example under ‘Model validation’).
A description of PBPK model qualification and verification is presented elsewhere . However, in this current work, we distinguish between model verification and validation. While verification is a necessary step in a modelling exercise, in which model-simulated exposure is compared with independent clinical data (datasets that were not used in the model development steps), validation refers to the evaluation of the predictive performance of the model and may be part of either platform qualification or a regulatory submission.
5 Requirements for Establishing Confidence in the Utility of PBPK Models for the Three Broad Categories of Applications
Absorption and formulation-related applications of PBPK modelling include (1) prediction of oral drug absorption by integrating drug permeability, dissolution, particle size and controlled/modified-release rates and formulation selection based on the model-predicted absorption; (2) prediction of the effects of food and/or proton pump inhibitors (PPI) on drug absorption; and (3) demonstration of bioequivalence of formulations through numerical or mechanistic IVIVC to support biowaivers. In this article, gut bioavailability (Fg) is defined as the product of fraction absorbed (fabs) and fraction escaping intestinal loss (fg), and is further illustrated in electronic Supplementary Figure 1. Intestinal loss (1 − fg) is the loss of a drug due to gut metabolism or transporter-mediated intestinal efflux. These definitions are intended to appreciate the distinction between gut bioavailability and fraction escaping gut metabolism, often used interchangeably in the literature. At doses where intestinal efflux can be considered saturated, gut metabolism is assumed to be the sole contributor to intestinal loss. Confidence in absorption-related predictions is expected to be high when quantitative assessment of fabs is reliable. For small molecule drugs that are sufficiently lipophilic (neutral or basic with log P > 1.8) to allow assumption of good permeability, the in vivo relevance of in vitro solubility and dissolution play a key role in the quantitative prediction of fabs. In addition, knowledge of mechanisms contributing to gut bioavailability other than absorption, e.g. efflux and gut metabolism should either be known to be irrelevant (e.g. NCE is not a substrate of efflux transporters or enzymes expressed in the gut) or, when relevant, should be quantitatively assessed. For example, if gut metabolism is known to be relevant for the NCE, then quantifying the metabolic contribution of the gut requires metabolite measured in intravenous and oral routes. For CYP3A substrates, reasonable quantification is possible even with in vitro data . For non-CYP drivers of gut metabolism, the availability of PK data following intravenous administration is indispensable in the quantitative mechanistic understanding of gut bioavailability. In the absence of intravenous data, for poorly soluble compounds, it is difficult to characterize the mechanisms relevant for absorption-related applications.
Application of PBPK to extrapolate drug exposure from a base population (usually healthy, adult, Caucasian) to other populations (pregnant, obese, smokers, hepatically/renally impaired, pediatric, elderly and different ethnicities) requires a mechanistic understanding of the drug PK in the base population, as well as a knowledge of how these mechanisms are altered in the target population (population in which the prediction is desired). This requires that the metabolic and elimination pathways, as well as the site contributing to each of the metabolic pathways (Electronic Supplementary Figure 2) are well-characterized. A combination of clinical DDI and PK data can also provide fraction metabolized (fm). If an NCE is a transporter substrate, the in vivo contribution of the transporter to its elimination should be additionally well-understood. A good recovery of the in vivo clearance in the base population from in vitro intrinsic clearance (CLint) is then necessary to adjust for differences in protein levels in the target population and will ensure that unique mechanisms relevant to the target population can be accounted for. When multiple CYP enzymes are responsible for the metabolism, pathway contributions should be verified through drug interaction studies and human absorption, distribution, metabolism and elimination (ADME)/mass balance studies when they become available. If only a single major CYP is involved in the metabolism in the base and target populations, CLint may be derived from observed clearance in an intravenous PK study in the base population. A low variability in clinical PK (approximately 30% coefficient of variation) in the base population will allow for a robust estimation of parameters. In addition, for an oral drug whose gut bioavailability is < 1, the contribution of absorption, efflux or gut metabolism to gut bioavailability should be well-understood, as described for absorption-related applications. This will allow for appropriate corrections in parameters by accounting for differences between the base population and target populations.
Most of the applications of PBPK modelling and simulations in regulatory submissions are related to DDI, in which an NCE is either assessed as a victim/perpetrator of enzyme (CYP and non-CYPs)/transporter inhibition or CYP induction when coadministered with other drugs. To establish confidence in the utility of PBPK modelling for assessing an NCE as a victim drug, the metabolic and elimination pathways, as well as the site contributing to each of the metabolic pathways, should be well-characterized, as described for extrapolation to the target population. If the NCE is a transporter substrate, the contribution of transporter to elimination of the NCE should be additionally well-understood. For NCE as a perpetrator, it is enough to have the model-simulated profiles of drug exposure at interaction sites (gut, liver or kidney) derived from clinical data at steady-state and reliable in vitro data for inhibition and/or induction parameters. If the perpetrator drug also relies on the affected pathway for its own metabolism, then the fraction metabolized by an affected enzyme in the organ of interest (fm,isoform,organ) is additionally required for the affected enzyme to account for potential auto-inhibition/induction. Thus, the requirements shown in Fig. 1 may be adapted to fit the purpose of the PBPK model, depending on the mechanisms relevant for a given drug and the availability of clinical data for model building.
In general, for all three major applications of PBPK, the fewer the mechanisms impacting the drug exposure (drug dissolution, and metabolic and elimination pathways), the fewer the associated parameters, and therefore overall uncertainty, and the greater the confidence in model predictions. Thus, Biopharmaceutics Classification System (BCS) I compounds for which elimination is driven by single (or major) CYP-mediated metabolism are likely to be associated with the least parameters, least overall parameter uncertainty, and therefore the highest confidence in prospective predictions (Electronic Supplementary Figure 3), as exposure of these compounds is not likely to be limited by absorption or impacted by transporters. Therefore, the only drug parameters needed for a BCS I perpetrator drug, for example, are parameters related to drug clearance, enzyme inhibition or induction potency of the drug. However, biowaivers are granted for BCS Class I drugs even without modelling. BCS Class II–IV drugs with their solubility- and/or permeability-limited, transporter-dependent exposure are subject to absorption and DDI challenges that can be addressed with PBPK. Applications include absorption [20, 21], PPI effect , food effect prediction [23, 24], bioequivalence assessment through IVIVC for getting a biowaiver for formulation bridging, and DDI assessment [25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30], to name a few. A comprehensive list of applications is covered by Shebley et al. .
6 Challenges to Establishing Confidence in a PBPK Model
6.1 Model Building
6.1.1 Identifying Key Mechanisms Impacting an Application
The possibility that mechanisms relevant for the in vivo disposition of a drug can go unidentified in in vitro systems cannot be dismissed. This is reflected in the large in vitro to in vivo (IVIV) disconnect in CLint for such drugs. If the unidentified mechanisms do not impact the outcome for the intended use of the PBPK model, the IVIV disconnect should cause no concern. For example, a PBPK model built for a CYP3A inhibitor can be used for its intended purpose of assessing the DDI risk when combined with a potential CYP3A substrate, if human PK are available, even though the contributing enzymes are not well-characterized. However, if the intended purpose of the model is to assess the risk for an NCE to be a victim of CYP inhibition, a quantitative knowledge of all elimination and metabolic pathways is needed. Top-down approaches can be helpful, if it is the major metabolic pathway.
6.1.2 Model Parameterization with In Vitro Data in a Bottom-Up Approach
Application-specific model parameters needed for PBPK model development using a middle-out approach
Broad category of PBPK application
Specific purpose of PBPK model
Typical parameters needed for PBPK model development in a middle-out approach
Sourced from in vitro experiments
Sourced from clinical data
Effects of food and proton pump inhibitors on absorption, bioequivalence or relative bioavailability
Fraction metabolized in gut
CL (IV) for a high CL compound that is expected to have gut extraction
Exposure prediction in a target population: extrapolation from a base population (usually a healthy adult Caucasian) to other populations
Other populations: pediatric, geriatric, obese, smoker, organ-impaired, pregnant, PGX, ethnicity
Knowledge of differences in contributing pathways from the base population (fm,CYP in the base and target populations)
In vitro data related to the metabolic pathways that are unique to the target population
Plasma protein binding (fu) in both the base and target population
Blood plasma partitioning (R)
CL, Vss (IV)
DDI involving enzymes
Drug as a victim
Drug as a perpetrator
Parameters related to pathway characterization
Plasma protein binding (fu)
Blood plasma partitioning (R)
Reversible inhibition (Ki)
TDI (KI, kinact), and
Induction (EC50, Emax)
Plasma protein binding (fu)
If the affected isoform of the enzyme also metabolizes the inhibitor fm,isoform,organ to account for auto-inhibition/induction
CL, Vss (IV)
Fraction absorbed, fabs and gut bioavailability (Fg), if the affected isoform of the enzyme metabolizes the inhibitor and is expressed in the gut
DDI involving transporters
Drug as a victim
Drug as a perpetrator
In vivo relevance of transporter in addition to those needed for DDI involving enzymes
In vitro data for reversible transporter inhibition (Ki) in addition to those needed for DDI involving enzymes
CL, Vss (IV)
The implication of IVIV disconnect is that model parameters may be associated with uncertainty and may not be quantitative enough for a prospective prediction via a bottom-up approach. For example, to support the assessment of an NCE as a victim of DDI, several parameters, such as fm, fm,CYP, CLint, etc., would need to be generated from in vitro assays to characterize the metabolic and elimination pathways. This requirement is further complicated when multiple interaction sites (liver, intestine, kidney, etc.) are involved as it is challenging to assess the in vivo contribution of each organ. For a drug with multiple elimination pathways in multiple sites, mass balance studies in humans using radiolabelled compounds can identify and provide quantitative information on the routes of excretion , and, with additional analyses, metabolic pathways . These studies aid a complete understanding of clearance and potential contributors to intersubject variability and DDIs, all of which are crucial for evaluating an NCE as a victim of drug interaction. However, it should be noted that mass balance cannot distinguish between enzyme isoforms that lead to the same metabolite.
6.1.3 Parameter Estimation from Clinical Data in Top-Down or Middle-Out Approaches
To overcome the uncertainty associated with clearance derived from in vitro systems, a middle-out approach to model building is adopted [18, 38] in which clearance is obtained through parameter estimation from clinical data. This works best for a drug that is not a transporter substrate when its elimination is dominated by a single pathway. When clinical data are associated with high interindividual variability, it is reflected in the wide range of the estimated parameter. Cubitt et al. have shown that CLint can be back-calculated from clinical data using the Simcyp simulator, even for compounds that show high interindividual variability in clearance . These authors calculated a confidence interval from geometric mean and geometric standard deviation, making it possible to limit the range, by eliminating any bias from extreme individuals. In cancer patients, high variability in PK profiles usually from a small cohort renders estimated parameters less reliable as the true mean cannot be captured.
6.1.4 Parameter Non-Identifiability as a Barrier to Deconvolute Mechanisms Contributing to Gut Bioavailability
Gut bioavailability of an orally administered drug is determined by solubility, permeability, gut metabolism and efflux. Gut bioavailability of a BCS Class I, low clearance NCE that is not a substrate of P-glycoprotein (P-gp), breast cancer resistance protein (BCRP), CYP3A, or other drug-metabolizing enzymes, expressed in the gut is expected to be 1. For other drugs, gut bioavailability can be < 1 due to solubility-limited absorption or gut metabolism/efflux. The parameters related to these mechanisms cannot be distinguished using the observed plasma exposure data following oral administration of the drug as it allows only the estimation of a composite parameter comprising all parameters related to the contributing mechanisms. Thus, the mechanisms contributing to gut bioavailability (absorption, gut metabolism and efflux) are said to be non-identifiable since several sets of parameter values can result in equally good fit to the observed plasma exposure data. An intravenous 14C microtracer dose of the NCE administered concurrently with an oral therapeutic non-labelled dose can be used to generate clearance and absolute bioavailability data without having to develop a conventional intravenous formulation and an intravenous toxicity and safety package . In the absence of any gut metabolism and efflux, such a study, if available, can help identify solubility-limited absorption. If gut metabolism and efflux cannot be excluded (e.g. the NCE is a CYP3A and/or P-gp substrate), microtracer studies are inconclusive because plasma exposure limited by these mechanisms is indistinguishable from solubility limitation.
6.2 Model Verification and Validation
Clinical data sources for PBPK model development, verification and validation
Clinical data used for model development, parameter estimation, verification
Data for model validation
Absorption: modified release formulation development
Model built with IR human PK in the fed and fasted states
Model simulations of CR validated in monkey
Exposure prediction in a target population
PK of the base population from a SAD and a MAD
ADME mass balance, fm, fm,CYP
fu in both the base and target population
Target population is qualified
Pathway validation from DDI studies in the base population
PK prediction of an untested dose/regimen
Single dose PK from a SAD
Repeated dose PK from a MAD
DDI: NCE is a victim drug coadministered with a weak/moderate inhibitor
PK of the victim drug from a SAD and a MAD
ADME mass balance
PK of the victim drug coadministered with and without a strong inhibitor
DDI: NCE is a perpetrator of an enzyme isoform that is not involved in its metabolism
PK of a perpetrator drug from a SAD and MAD
In vitro Ki
Model able to recover an observed interaction of NCE with a sensitive substrate
DDI: NCE is a perpetrator of an enzyme isoform that is involved in its own metabolism
PK of a perpetrator drug from SAD
In vitro Ki
fm,CYP of inhibited isoform
Model able to recover an observed interaction of NCE with a sensitive substrate
7 Resolving the Challenges to Establishing Confidence in Key Mechanisms Impacting an Application
To cover for uncertainty in measured parameters, a sensitivity analysis on model parameters is first performed to identify the most sensitive parameters on which to conduct an uncertainty analysis. The impact of uncertainty in sensitive model parameters that cannot be precisely measured on endpoints of interest is assessed by varying the sensitive parameters over a range of plausible values for compound-related parameters, and over the 5th to 95th percentile of distributions for system parameters , based on what is known about the mechanism, rather than being arbitrary.
Parameter non-identifiability presents the greatest challenge for a proper characterization of underlying mechanisms. One way to overcome non-identifiability is to measure one or more of the non-identifiable parameters that can be reliably measured and combine with the composite parameter estimated from clinical data, to obtain the other non-identifiable parameter. Depending on the number of non-identifiable parameters in the composite parameter, the number that can be reliably measured, and the availability of relevant clinical data, complete deconvolution of the composite parameters may not be possible.
Signature discrepancies of predicted oral PK profiles from observed, using the PK parameters (clearance, volume of distribution and enterohepatic recirculation rate) that best fit the intravenous profile. Best fit to oral profiles were obtained by altering parameters that uniquely identify a mechanism (reference 2). PK pharmacokinetics, AUC area under the curve, BCS Biopharmaceutics Classification System, DDI drug–drug interaction, IV intravenous
Resolving parameter non-identifiability through hypothesis testing with PBPK simulations: identifying solubility-limited absorption (reference 2). PBPK physiologically based pharmacokinetics, NCE new chemical entity, SAD single ascenting dose, MAD multiple ascending dose, FASSIF fasted simulated small intestinal fluid, IV intravenous, PK pharmacokinetics, AUC area under the curve, CLint intrinsic clearance, CYP cytochrome P450, Kp tissue partition coefficient
Resolving parameter non-identifiability through hypothesis testing with PBPK simulations: identifying gut metabolism (reference 43). PBPK physiologically based pharmacokinetics, NCE new chemical entity, CYP cytochrome P450, IV intravenous, PK pharmacokinetics, SAD single ascending dose, MAD multiple ascending dose, DDI drug–drug inhibition, Fg gut bioavailability, CLint intrinsic clearance, P-gp P-glycoprotein, Kp tissue partition coefficient
In summary, regulatory submissions demand a rigorous application of the build-verify/refine-validate-predict/simulate modelling strategy and use of qualified platforms to address the key questions in the three broad categories of PBPK applications. In addition to building confidence in prospective predictions of PBPK models through the predict-learn-confirm process , understanding the mechanisms relevant to the question being addressed is highly desirable to leverage the unique strengths and mechanistic basis of PBPK models. However, there are barriers to establishing confidence in the mechanisms relevant to an application for the building and validation of models. Hypothesis generation/testing with PBPK models can provide useful insights into mechanisms underlying observed concentration-time profiles and pave the way for improved confidence in PBPK model predictions.
8 PBPK or Simpler Models?
“Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler” is a quote attributed to Einstein, which succinctly expresses the principle of Occam’s razor. The rationale behind this generic principle is that the number of assumptions generally tends to increase with the increasing complexity of models/hypotheses, and, at some point, a complex model could become too distant to whatever is being modelled. PBPK models or simpler? The choice should depend on the value addition brought on by PBPK over simpler methods for a particular drug in a particular application, given the challenges.
If the verification criterion is not satisfied, further model refinement may be necessary through parameter changes that uniquely improve the fit to the clinical data. If multiple parameter changes lead to the same outcome, the non-identifiability should be resolved through hypothesis generation and testing. If an hypothesis cannot be verified, then the mechanistic strengths of PBPK cannot be leveraged, and simpler methods supported by a totality of evidence approach should be preferred.
PBPK models are unique in their ability to integrate all available compound and system knowledge for a meaningful prediction of absorption, DDI and drug exposure in an untested scenario or in an unstudied population. Yet, its full potential cannot be unleashed unless confidence in the mechanisms that are relevant to an application are well-established. This paper highlights the importance of leveraging all preclinical knowledge to generate hypotheses that can be verified when clinical data become available. If a hypothesis can be verified, then the learning can be incorporated into building a mechanistically credible PBPK model, which is likely to have better predictive performance. In the absence of sufficient clinical datasets to resolve parameter non-identifiability, hypothesis testing offers a great opportunity to maximize the confidence in PBPK model predictions. Continued efforts in improving in vitro assays, gaining a better understanding of the factors driving drug exposure and its variability in different individuals and populations, and improving confidence in system parameters are all imperative to broaden the scope of PBPK applications. As PBPK models continue to evolve, building on the collective experience of the scientific community, wider acceptance from regulatory agencies is anticipated in the future.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest
Sheila Annie Peters and Hugues Dolgos have no conflicts of interest to declare.
The work reported in this article was not funded/sponsored.
- 2.Peters SA. Physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modelling and simulations: principles, methods and applications in the pharmaceutical industry. Hoboken: Wiley; 2012.Google Scholar
- 6.Sato M, et al. Quantitative modeling and simulation in PMDA: a Japanese regulatory perspective. CPT Pharmacomet Syst Pharmacol. 2017;6:413–5.Google Scholar
- 12.European Medicines Agency. Guideline on the reporting of physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modelling and simulation; 2018. https://www.ema.europa.eu/documents/scientific-guideline/guideline-reporting-physiologically-based-pharmacokinetic-pbpk-modelling-simulation_en.pdf.
- 13.Physiologically based pharmacokinetic analyses—format and content guidance for industry; 2018. https://www.fda.gov/regulatory-information/search-fda-guidance-documents/physiologically-basedpharmacokinetic-analyses-format-and-content-guidance-industry.
- 15.European Medicines Agency. European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations modelling and simulation workshop report. https://www.ema.europa.eu/en/documents/report/european-federation-pharmaceutical-inudustries-associationseuropean-medicines-agency-modelling_en.pdf.
- 16.Manolis E, Rohou S, Hemmings R, Salmonson T, Karlsson M, Milligan PA. The role of modeling and simulation in development and registration of medicinal products: output from the EFPIA/EMA modeling and simulation workshop. CPT Pharmacomet Syst Pharmacol. 2013;2:e31.Google Scholar
- 31.Rose RH, Neuhoff S, Abduljalil K, Chetty M, Rostami-Hodjegan A, Jamei M. Application of a physiologically based pharmacokinetic model to predict OATP1B1-related variability in pharmacodynamics of rosuvastatin. CPT Pharmacomet Syst Pharmacol. 2014;3:e124.Google Scholar
- 34.Mao J, Doshi U, Wright M, Hop CECA, Li AP, Chen Y. Prediction of the pharmacokinetics of pravastatin as an OATP substrate using plateable human hepatocytes with human plasma data and PBPK modeling. CPT Pharmacomet Syst Pharmacol. 2018;7(4):251–8.Google Scholar
- 36.Graham L, Lloyd S. Biomedical accelerator mass spectrometry: recent applications in metabolism and pharmacokinetics. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2008;4(8):1021–33.Google Scholar
- 39.Cubitt HE, Yeo KR, Howgate EM, Rostami-Hodjegan A, Barter ZE. Sources of interindividual variability in IVIVE of clearance: an investigation into the prediction of benzodiazepine clearance using a mechanistic population-based pharmacokinetic model. Xenobiotica. 2011;41(8):623–38.PubMedGoogle Scholar
- 40.McNally K, Cotton R, Loizou GD. Front Pharmacol. A Workflow for Global Sensitivity Analysis of PBPK Models. 2011;23:2–31.Google Scholar
- 43.EFPIA MID3 Workgroup, Marshall SF, Burghaus R, Cosson V, Cheung SYA, Chenel M, et al. Good practices in model-informed drug discovery and development: practice, application, and documentation. CPT Pharmacomet Syst Pharmacol. 2016;5(3):93–122.Google Scholar
Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits any noncommercial use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made.