Advertisement

Pharmaceutical Research

, 35:87 | Cite as

Comparing Mechanistic and Preclinical Predictions of Volume of Distribution on a Large Set of Drugs

  • Rosa Chan
  • Tom De Bruyn
  • Matthew Wright
  • Fabio Broccatelli
Research Paper
  • 566 Downloads

Abstract

Purpose

Volume of distribution at steady state (Vdss) is a fundamental pharmacokinetic (PK) parameter driven predominantly by passive processes and physicochemical properties of the compound. Human Vdss can be estimated using in silico mechanistic methods or empirically scaled from Vdss values obtained from preclinical species. In this study the accuracy and the complementarity of these two approaches are analyzed leveraging a large data set (over 150 marketed drugs).

Methods

For all the drugs analyzed in this study experimental in vitro measurements of LogP, plasma protein binding and pKa are used as input for the mechanistic in silico model to predict human Vdss. The software used for predicting human tissue partition coefficients and Vdss based on the method described by Rodgers and Rowland is made available as supporting information.

Results

This assessment indicates that overall the in silico mechanistic model presented by Rodgers and Rowland is comparably accurate or superior to empirical approaches based on the extrapolation of in vivo data from preclinical species.

Conclusions

These results illustrate the great potential of mechanistic in silico models to accurately predict Vdss in humans. This in silico method does not rely on in vivo data and is, consequently, significantly time and resource sparing. The success of this in silico model further suggests that reasonable predictability of Vdss in preclinical species could be obtained by a similar process.

Key words

mechanistic in silico model PBPK physicochemical properties preclinical volume of distribution (Vdss

Abbreviations

ADME

Absorption, distribution, metabolism and elimination or excretion

BP

Blood-to-plasma concentration ratio

cyno

Cynomologus monkey

fu

Fraction of compound unbound in plasma

L/kg

Liter per kilogram

LogP

The octanol–water partition coefficient

P&T

Poulin and Theil

PBPK

Physiologically-based pharmacokinetic modeling

pKa

The negative base 10 logarithm of the acid dissociation constant

R&R

Rodgers and Rowland

Vdss

Volume of distribution at steady state

Notes

Acknowledgments and Disclosures

Rosa Chan was supported by the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists Graduate Fellowship, American Foundation for Pharmaceutical Education Pre-Doctoral Fellowship, North American Graduate Fellowship from the American College of Toxicology, and NIGMS grant R25 GM56847. All authors declare no conflict of interest.

Supplementary material

11095_2018_2360_MOESM1_ESM.r (1 kb)
ESM 1 (R 1004 bytes)
11095_2018_2360_MOESM2_ESM.r (8 kb)
ESM 2 (R 7 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Wagner J. Biopharmaceutics and relevant pharmacokinetics. Hamilton: Drug Intelligence Publications; 1971.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gibaldi M, Perrier D. Pharmacokinetics. In: Swarbrick J, editor. New York: Marcel Dekker; 1975. p. 175–87.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Riegelman S, Loo J, Rowland M. Concept of a volume of distribution and possible errors in evaluation of this parameter. J Pharm Sci Elsevier Masson SAS. 1968;57:128–33.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lombardo F, Obach RS, DiCapua FM, Bakken GA, Lu J, Potter DM, et al. A hybrid mixture discriminant analysis-random forest computational model for the prediction of volume of distribution of drugs in human. J Med Chem. 2006;49(7):2262.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Grover A, Benet LZ. Effects of drug transporters on volume of distribution. AAPS J. 2009;11:250–61.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shugarts S, Benet LZ. The role of transporters in the pharmacokinetics of orally administered drugs. Pharm Res. 2009;26:2039–54.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Obach RS, Baxter JG, Liston TE, Silber BM, Jones BC, MacIntyre F, et al. The prediction of human pharmacokinetic parameters from preclinical and in vitro metabolism data. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1997;283:46–58.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lombardo F, Waters NJ, Argikar UA, Dennehy MK, Zhan J, Gunduz M, et al. Comprehensive assessment of human pharmacokinetic prediction based on in vivo animal pharmacokinetic data, part 1: volume of distribution at steady state. J Clin Pharmacol. 2013;53:167–77.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Poulin P, Theil FP. Prediction of pharmacokinetics prior to in vivo studies. 1. Mechanism-based prediction of volume of distribution. J Pharm Sci Elsevier Masson SAS. 2002;91:129–56.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Berezhkovskiy LM. Volume of distribution at steady state for a linear pharmacokinetic system with peripheral elimination. J Pharm Sci Elsevier Masson SAS. 2004;93:1628–40.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Rodgers T, Leahy D, Rowland M. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling 1: predicting the tissue distribution of moderate-to-strong bases. J Pharm Sci Elsevier Masson SAS. 2005;94:1259–76.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Rodgers T, Rowland M. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic modelling 2: predicting the tissue distribution of acids, very weak bases, neutrals and zwitterions. J Pharm Sci Elsevier Masson SAS. 2006;95:1238–57.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Rodgers T, Rowland M. Mechanistic approaches to volume of distribution predictions: understanding the processes. Pharm Res. 2007;24:918–33.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Jones RDO, Jones HM, Rowland M, Gibson CR, Yates JWT, Chien Y, et al. PhRMA CPCDC initiative on predictive models of human pharmacokinetics, part 2 : comparative assessment of prediction methods of human volume of distribution. 2011;100:4074–89.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Manallack DT. The pKa distribution of drugs: application to drug discovery. Perspect Medicin Chem. 2007;1:25–38.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wishart DS, Knox C, Guo AC, Shrivastava S, Hassanali M, Stothard P, et al. DrugBank: a comprehensive resource for in silico drug discovery and exploration. 2006;34:668–72.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Benet LZ, Broccatelli F, Oprea TI. BDDCS applied to over 900 drugs. AAPS J. 2011;13:519–47.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Uchimira T, Motohiro K, Tomohisa S, Kinoshita H. Prediction of human blood-to-plasma drug concentration ratio. Biopharm Drug Dispos. 2010:286–97.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Poulin P, Theil F. Development of a novel method for predicting human volume of distribution at steady-state of basic drugs and comparative assessment with existing methods. J Pharm Sci Elsevier Masson SAS. 2009;98:4941–61.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing [Internet]. Vienna, Austria. 2015. Available from: http://www.r-project.org/.
  21. 21.
    RStudio I. shiny: Easy web applications in R [Internet]. 2017. Available from: http://shiny.rstudio.com/.
  22. 22.
    Abduljalil K, Edwards D, Barnett A, Rose RH, Cain T, Jamei M. A tutorial on pharmacodynamic scripting facility in Simcyp. CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol. 2016;5:455–65.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    EC K, Moss AM, Ishisa K, Govindarajan R, Unadkat JD. The role of the equilibrative nucleoside transporter 1 on tissue and fetal distribution of ribavirin in the mouse. Biopharm Drug Dispos. 2016:336–4.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Roberts MS, Magnusson BM, Burczynski FJ, Weiss M. Enterohepatic circulation: physiological, pharmacokinetic and clinical implications. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2002;41:751–90.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Manallack DT, Prankerd RJ, Yuriev E, Oprea TI, David K. The significance of acid/base properties in drug discovery. Chem Soc Rev. 2014;42:485–96.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Berry LM, Li C, Zhao Z, Al BET. Species differences in distribution and prediction of human Vss from preclinical data. Drug Metab Dispos. 2011;39:2103–6.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Haddad S, Poulin P, Krishnan K. Relative lipid content as the sole mechanistic determinant of the adipose tissue: blood partition coefficients of highly lipophilic organic chemicals. Chemosphere. 2000;40:839–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Poulin P, Haddad S. Advancing prediction of tissue distribution and volume of distribution of highly lipophilic compounds from a simplified tissue-composition-based model as a mechanistic animal alternative method. J Pharm Sci. Elsevier Masson SAS. 2012;101:2250–61.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Bioengineering and Therapeutic Sciences, School of Pharmacy and MedicineUniversity of California San FranciscoSan FranciscoUSA
  2. 2.Drug Metabolism & Pharmacokinetics Genentech, IncSouth San FranciscoUSA

Personalised recommendations