Abstract
Background
Physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling in predicting metabolic drug–drug interactions (mDDIs) is routinely used in drug development. Currently, the US FDA endorses the use of PBPK to potentially support dosing recommendations for investigational drugs as enzyme substrates of mDDIs, and to inform a lack of mDDIs for investigational drugs as enzyme modulators.
Methods
We systematically evaluated the performance of PBPK modeling in predicting mDDIs published in the literature. Models developed to assess both investigational drugs as enzyme substrates (Groups 1 and 2, as being inhibited and induced, respectively) or enzyme modulators (Groups 3 and 4, as inhibitors and inducers, respectively) were evaluated. Predicted ratios of the area under the curve (AUCRs) and/or maximum plasma concentration (CmaxRs) with and without comedication were compared with the observed ratios.
Results
For Groups 1, 2, 3, and 4, 62, 50, 44, and 43% of model-predicted AUCRs, respectively, were within a predefined threshold of 1.25-fold of observed values (0.8–1.25x). When the threshold was widened to twofold, the values increased to 100, 80, 81, and 86% (0.5–2.0x). For Groups 3 and 4, prediction for mDDI liability (the existence or lack of mDDIs) using PBPK appears to be satisfactory.
Conclusion
Our analysis supports the FDA’s current recommendations on the use of PBPK to predict mDDIs.
This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.
References
US Food and Drug Administration. In vitro metabolism- and transporter-mediated drug–drug interaction studies guidance for industry. 2017. https://www.fda.gov/ucm/groups/fdagov-public/@fdagov-drugs-gen/documents/document/ucm581965.pdf. Accessed Jan 2018.
US Food and Drug Administration. Clinical drug interaction studies—study design, data analysis, and clinical implications guidance for industry. 2017. https://www.fda.gov/ucm/groups/fdagov-public/@fdagov-drugs-gen/documents/document/ucm292362.pdf. Accessed Jan 2018.
US Food and Drug Administration. US Food and Drug Administration Pharmaceutical Science and Clinical Pharmacology Advisory Committee Meeting. Silver Spring: US FDA; 2017.
Sager JE, Yu J, Ragueneau-Majlessi I, Isoherranen N. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling and simulation approaches: a systematic review of published models, applications, and model verification. Drug Metab Dispos. 2015;43(11):1823–37.
Wagner C, Zhao P, Pan Y, Hsu V, Grillo J, Huang SM, et al. Application of physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling to support dose selection: report of an FDA public workshop on PBPK. CPT Pharmacometr Syst Pharmacol. 2015;4(4):226–30.
Wagner C, Pan Y, Hsu V, Grillo JA, Zhang L, Reynolds KS, et al. Predicting the effect of cytochrome P450 inhibitors on substrate drugs: analysis of physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling submissions to the US Food and Drug Administration. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2015;54(1):117–27.
Wagner C, Pan Y, Hsu V, Sinha V, Zhao P. Predicting the effect of CYP3A inducers on the pharmacokinetics of substrate drugs using physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling: an analysis of PBPK submissions to the US FDA. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2016;55(4):475–83.
US Food and Drug Administration. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic analyses—format and content. 2016. https://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/UCM531207.pdf. Accessed Jan 2018.
Einolf HJ, Chen L, Fahmi OA, Gibson CR, Obach RS, Shebley M, et al. Evaluation of various static and dynamic modeling methods to predict clinical CYP3A induction using in vitro CYP3A4 mRNA induction data. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2014;95(2):179–88.
Fahmi OA, Shebley M, Palamanda J, Sinz MW, Ramsden D, Einolf HJ, et al. Evaluation of CYP2B6 induction and prediction of clinical drug–drug interactions: considerations from the IQ consortium induction working group—an industry perspective. Drug Metab Dispos. 2016;44(10):1720–30.
Guest EJ, Aarons L, Houston JB, Rostami-Hodjegan A, Galetin A. Critique of the two-fold measure of prediction success for ratios: application for the assessment of drug–drug interactions. Drug Metab Dispos. 2011;39(2):170–3.
Vieira MD, Kim MJ, Apparaju S, Sinha V, Zineh I, Huang SM, et al. PBPK model describes the effects of comedication and genetic polymorphism on systemic exposure of drugs that undergo multiple clearance pathways. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2014;95(5):550–7.
Han B, Mao J, Chien JY, Hall SD. Optimization of drug–drug interaction study design: comparison of minimal physiologically based pharmacokinetic models on prediction of CYP3A inhibition by ketoconazole. Drug Metab Dispos. 2013;41(7):1329–38.
Einolf HJ. Comparison of different approaches to predict metabolic drug–drug interactions. Xenobiotica. 2007;37(10):1257–94.
Fahmi OA, Hurst S, Plowchalk D, Cook J, Guo F, Youdim K, et al. Comparison of different algorithms for predicting clinical drug–drug interactions, based on the use of CYP3A4 in vitro data: predictions of compounds as precipitants of interaction. Drug Metab Dispos. 2009;37(8):1658–66.
Varma MV, Lin J, Bi YA, Kimoto E, Rodrigues AD. Quantitative rationalization of Gemfibrozil drug interactions: consideration of transporters-enzyme interplay and the role of circulating metabolite Gemfibrozil 1-O-beta-glucuronide. Drug Metab Dispos. 2015;43(7):1108–18.
Huang SM, Abernethy DR, Wang Y, Zhao P, Zineh I. The utility of modeling and simulation in drug development and regulatory review. J Pharm Sci. 2013;102(9):2912–23.
Snoeys J, Beumont M, Monshouwer M, Ouwerkerk-Mahadevan S. Mechanistic understanding of the nonlinear pharmacokinetics and intersubject variability of simeprevir: a PBPK-guided drug development approach. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2016;99(2):224–34.
Guo H, Liu C, Li J, Zhang M, Hu M, Xu P, et al. A mechanistic physiologically based pharmacokinetic-enzyme turnover model involving both intestine and liver to predict CYP3A induction-mediated drug–drug interactions. J Pharm Sci. 2013;102(8):2819–36.
Vieira ML, Kirby B, Ragueneau-Majlessi I, Galetin A, Chien JY, Einolf HJ, et al. Evaluation of various static in vitro-in vivo extrapolation models for risk assessment of the CYP3A inhibition potential of an investigational drug. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2014;95(2):189–98.
Guest EJ, Rowland-Yeo K, Rostami-Hodjegan A, Tucker GT, Houston JB, Galetin A. Assessment of algorithms for predicting drug–drug interactions via inhibition mechanisms: comparison of dynamic and static models. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2011;71(1):72–87.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Funding
Funding for this paper was made possible, in part, by the US FDA through the Medical Countermeasures Initiative. In addition, Dr. Chia-Hsiang Hsueh was supported in part by appointments to the Research Participation Program at the Center for Drug Evaluation and Research, administered by the Oak Ridge Institute for Science and Education through an interagency agreement between the US Department of Energy and the FDA. Views expressed in this paper do not necessarily reflect the official policies or endorsements of the FDA, Gilead Sciences, Inc., and Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation.
Conflicts of interest
Chia-Hsiang Hsueh, Vicky Hsu, Yuzhuo Pan, and Ping Zhao declare no conflicts of interest.
Electronic supplementary material
Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hsueh, CH., Hsu, V., Pan, Y. et al. Predictive Performance of Physiologically-Based Pharmacokinetic Models in Predicting Drug–Drug Interactions Involving Enzyme Modulation. Clin Pharmacokinet 57, 1337–1346 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40262-018-0635-8
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40262-018-0635-8