Accounting for inter-correlation between enzyme abundance: a simulation study to assess implications on global sensitivity analysis within physiologically-based pharmacokinetics
Physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models often include several sets of correlated parameters, such as organ volumes and blood flows. Because of recent advances in proteomics, it has been demonstrated that correlations are also present between abundances of drug-metabolising enzymes in the liver. As the focus of population PBPK has shifted the emphasis from the average individual to theoretically conceivable extremes, reliable estimation of the extreme cases has become paramount. We performed a simulation study to assess the impact of the correlation between the abundances of two enzymes on the pharmacokinetics of drugs that are substrate of both, under assumptions of presence or lack of such correlations. We considered three semi-physiological models representing the cases of: (1) intravenously administered drugs metabolised by two enzymes expressed in the liver; (2) orally administered drugs metabolised by CYP3A4 expressed in the liver and gut wall; (3) intravenously administered drugs that are substrates of CYP3A4 and OATP1B1 in the liver. Finally, the impact of considering or ignoring correlation between enzymatic abundances on global sensitivity analysis (GSA) was investigated using variance based GSA on a reduced PBPK model for repaglinide, substrate of CYP3A4 and CYP2C8. Implementing such correlations can increase the confidence interval for population pharmacokinetic parameters (e.g., AUC, bioavailability) and impact the GSA results. Ignoring these correlations could lead to the generation of implausible parameters combinations and to an incorrect estimation of pharmacokinetic related parameters. Thus, known correlations should always be considered in building population PBPK models.
KeywordsEnzymes Correlation Simulation Physiologically based pharmacokinetics Global sensitivity analysis
The authors would like to thank Eleanor Savill for her assistance in the submission of the manuscript.
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflicts of interest
Amin Rostami-Hodjegan is an employee of Certara UK Limited (Simcyp Division).
- 1.CHMP (EMA) (2016) Guideline on the qualification and reporting of physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modelling and simulation—draft. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP), European Medicines Agency (EMA), LondonGoogle Scholar
- 5.Tsamandouras N, Wendling T, Rostami-Hodjegan A et al (2015) Incorporation of stochastic variability in mechanistic population pharmacokinetic models: handling the physiological constraints using normal transformations. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 42:349–373. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10928-015-9418-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 6.Jamei M, Dickinson GL, Rostami-Hodjegan A (2009) 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 24:53–75. https://doi.org/10.2133/dmpk.24.53 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 7.Al Feteisi H, Achour B, Rostami-Hodjegan A, Barber J (2015) Translational value of liquid chromatography coupled with tandem mass spectrometry-based quantitative proteomics for in vitro–in vivo extrapolation of drug metabolism and transport and considerations in selecting appropriate techniques. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol 11:1357–1369. https://doi.org/10.1517/17425255.2015.1055245 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Achour B, Russell MR, Barber J, Rostami-Hodjegan A (2014) Simultaneous quantification of the abundance of several cytochrome P450 and uridine 5′-diphospho-glucuronosyltransferase enzymes in human liver microsomes using Multiplexed targeted proteomics. Drug Metab Dispos 42:500–510. https://doi.org/10.1124/dmd.113.055632 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 12.Saltelli A, Tarantola S, Campolongo F, Ratto M (2004) Sensitivity analysis in practice: a guide to assessing scientific models. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
- 13.Saltelli A, Ratto M, Andres T et al (2008) Global sensitivity analysis. The Primer. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
- 15.Sobol IM (1993) Sensitivity Estimates for Nonlinear Mathematical Models. Math Model Comput Exp 1:407–414Google Scholar
- 16.MATLAB (2017) MATLAB R2017b. The MahWorks, Inc., NatickGoogle Scholar
- 18.Simcyp (2017) Simcyp Simulator, Version 17. CERTARA, L. P., SheffieldGoogle Scholar
- 23.Gertz M, Tsamandouras N, Säll C et al (2014) Reduced physiologically-based pharmacokinetic model of repaglinide: impact of OATP1B1 and CYP2C8 genotype and source of in vitro data on the prediction of drug–drug interaction risk. Pharm Res 31:2367–2382. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11095-014-1333-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 25.Kajosaari LI, Laitila J, Neuvonen PJ, Backman JT (2005) Metabolism of repaglinide by CYP2C8 and CYP3A4 in vitro: effect of fibrates and rifampicin. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 97:249–256. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1742-7843.2005.pto_157.x CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 32.Iooss B, Lemaître P (2015) A review on global sensitivity analysis methods. In: Meloni C, Dellino G (eds) Uncertainty management in simulation-optimization of complex systems: algorithms and applications. Springer, New YorkGoogle Scholar
- 33.Valetin J (2002) Basic anatomical and physiological data for use in radiological protection: reference values. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), OttawaGoogle Scholar