Advertisement

Accounting for inter-correlation between enzyme abundance: a simulation study to assess implications on global sensitivity analysis within physiologically-based pharmacokinetics

  • Nicola MelilloEmail author
  • Adam S. Darwich
  • Paolo Magni
  • Amin Rostami-Hodjegan
Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Enzymes Correlation Simulation Physiologically based pharmacokinetics Global sensitivity analysis 

Notes

Acknowledgements

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).

References

  1. 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
  2. 2.
    McNally K, Cotton R, Hogg A, Loizou G (2015) Reprint of PopGen: a virtual human population generator. Toxicology 332:77–93.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tox.2015.04.014 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Willmann S, Höhn K, Edginton A et al (2007) Development of a physiology-based whole-body population model for assessing the influence of individual variability on the pharmacokinetics of drugs. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 34:401–431.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10928-007-9053-5 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rostami-Hodjegan A (2018) Reverse translation in PBPK and QSP: going backwards in order to go forward with confidence. Clin Pharmacol Ther 103:224–232.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cpt.904 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 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. 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. 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
  8. 8.
    Kosuke Doki, Darwich Adam S, Brahim Achour et al (2018) Implications of intercorrelation between hepatic CYP3A4-CYP2C8 enzymes for the evaluation of drug–drug interactions: a case study with repaglinide. Br J Clin Pharmacol 84:972–986.  https://doi.org/10.1111/bcp.13533 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 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
  10. 10.
    von Richter O, Burk O, Fromm MF et al (2004) Cytochrome P450 3A4 and P-glycoprotein expression in human small intestinal enterocytes and hepatocytes: a comparative analysis in paired tissue specimens. Clin Pharmacol Ther 75:172–183.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.clpt.2003.10.008 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Drozdzik M, Busch D, Lapczuk J et al (2017) Protein abundance of clinically relevant drug-metabolizing enzymes in the human liver and intestine: a comparative analysis in paired tissue specimens. Clin Pharmacol Ther.  https://doi.org/10.1002/cpt.967 Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Saltelli A, Tarantola S, Campolongo F, Ratto M (2004) Sensitivity analysis in practice: a guide to assessing scientific models. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Saltelli A, Ratto M, Andres T et al (2008) Global sensitivity analysis. The Primer. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Saltelli A (2002) Making best use of model evaluations to compute sensitivity indices. Comput Phys Commun 145:280–297.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0010-4655(02)00280-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sobol IM (1993) Sensitivity Estimates for Nonlinear Mathematical Models. Math Model Comput Exp 1:407–414Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    MATLAB (2017) MATLAB R2017b. The MahWorks, Inc., NatickGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jones RD, Jones HM, Rowland M et al (2011) PhRMA CPCDC initiative on predictive models of human pharmacokinetics, part 2: comparative assessment of prediction methods of human volume of distribution. J Pharm Sci 100:4074–4089.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jps.22553 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Simcyp (2017) Simcyp Simulator, Version 17. CERTARA, L. P., SheffieldGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Bu H-Z (2006) A Literature review of enzyme kinetic parameters for CYP3A4-mediated metabolic reactions of 113 drugs in human liver microsomes: structure–kinetics relationship assessment. Curr Drug Metab 7:231–249.  https://doi.org/10.2174/138920006776359329 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lennernäs H (2014) Human in vivo regional intestinal permeability: importance for pharmaceutical drug development. Mol Pharm 11:12–23.  https://doi.org/10.1021/mp4003392 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jamei M, Marciniak S, Edwards D et al (2013) The Simcyp population based simulator: architecture, implementation, and quality assurance. In Silico Pharmacol 1:9.  https://doi.org/10.1186/2193-9616-1-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Shitara Y, Maeda K, Ikejiri K et al (2013) Clinical significance of organic anion transporting polypeptides (OATPs) in drug disposition: their roles in hepatic clearance and intestinal absorption. Biopharm Drug Dispos 34:45–78.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bdd.1823 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 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
  24. 24.
    Ménochet K, Kenworthy KE, Houston JB, Galetin A (2012) Simultaneous assessment of uptake and metabolism in rat hepatocytes: a comprehensive mechanistic model. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 341:2–15.  https://doi.org/10.1124/jpet.111.187112 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 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
  26. 26.
    Couto N, Al-Majdoub ZM, Achour B et al (2019) Quantification of proteins involved in drug metabolism and disposition in the human liver using label-free global proteomics. Mol Pharm 16:632–647.  https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.molpharmaceut.8b00941 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Greenblatt DJ, von Moltke LL, Harmatz JS et al (2003) Time course of recovery of cytochrome p450 3A function after single doses of grapefruit juice. Clin Pharmacol Ther 74:121–129.  https://doi.org/10.1016/S0009-9236(03)00118-8 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Da Veiga S, Wahl F, Gamboa F (2009) Local polynomial estimation for sensitivity analysis on models with correlated inputs. Technometrics 51:452–463.  https://doi.org/10.1198/TECH.2009.08124 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Li G, Rabitz H, Yelvington PE et al (2010) Global sensitivity analysis for systems with independent and/or correlated inputs. J Phys Chem A 114:6022–6032.  https://doi.org/10.1021/jp9096919 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Saltelli A, Tarantola S (2002) On the relative importance of input factors in mathematical models: safety assessment for nuclear waste disposal. J Am Stat Assoc 97:702–709CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Xu C, Gertner G (2007) Extending a global sensitivity analysis technique to models with correlated parameters. Comput Stat Data Anal 51:5579–5590.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.csda.2007.04.003 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 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. 33.
    Valetin J (2002) Basic anatomical and physiological data for use in radiological protection: reference values. International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP), OttawaGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Olivares-Morales A, Ghosh A, Aarons L, Rostami-Hodjegan A (2016) Development of a novel simplified PBPK absorption model to explain the higher relative bioavailability of the OROS® formulation of oxybutynin. AAPS J 18:1532–1549.  https://doi.org/10.1208/s12248-016-9965-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Brown RP, Delp MD, Lindstedt SL et al (1997) Physiological parameter values for physiologically based pharmacokinetic models. Toxicol Ind Health 13:407–484.  https://doi.org/10.1177/074823379701300401 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Rodgers T, Leahy D, Rowland M (2005) Physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling 1: predicting the tissue distribution of moderate-to-strong bases. J Pharm Sci 94:1259–1276.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jps.20322 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Dressman JB, Fleisher D (1986) Mixing-tank model for predicting dissolution rate control of oral absorption. JPharmSci 75:109–116.  https://doi.org/10.1002/jps.2600750202 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Laboratory of Bioinformatics, Mathematical Modelling and Synthetic Biology, Department of Electrical, Computer and Biomedical EngineeringUniversità degli Studi di PaviaPaviaItaly
  2. 2.Centre for Applied Pharmacokinetic Research, Division of Pharmacy & OptometryThe University of ManchesterManchesterUK
  3. 3.Simcyp DivisionCertara UK LimitedSheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations