Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Biopharmaceutics

, Volume 27, Issue 6, pp 577–596 | Cite as

Sensitivity Analysis of Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Systems: I. A Structural Approach to Sensitivity Analysis of Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Models

  • Ivan A. Nestorov
Article

Abstract

Based on a frequency response approach to the sensitivity analysis of pharmacokinetic models, the concept of structural sensitivity is introduced. The core of this concept is the factorization of the system sensitivity into two multipliers. The first one, called structural sensitivity index, has an analytical form, which depends solely on the structure and connectivity of the system and does not depend on the drug administered or the factor perturbed. The second multiplier, the parameter sensitivity index, depends on the drug properties, the tissue of interest and the parameter perturbed, but is largely independent of the structure of the system. The structural and parametric sensitivity indices can be evaluated and analyzed separately. The most important feature of the proposed approach is that the conclusions drawn from the analysis of the structural sensitivity index are valid across all mammalian species, as the latter share a common anatomical and physiological structure. The concept of structural sensitivity is illustrated on the commonly used structure of the whole body physiologically based pharmacokinetic models by showing that the factorization of the sensitivity carried out arises naturally from the mechanism of the distribution of perturbations throughout the organism. The concept of structural sensitivity has interesting practical implications. It enables the formal proof of relationships and facts that have been observed previously. Moreover, the conclusions drawn introduce in fact a ranking of the tissues or subsystems with respect to their impact on the model outputs. From this ranking, direct recommendations regarding the design of experiments for whole-body physiologically based pharmacokinetic models are derived.

sensitivity analysis structure physiologically based pharmacokinetic model transfer function frequency response 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

REFERENCES

  1. 1.
    J. P. C. Kleijnen. Sensitivity analysis and related analyses: A review of some statistical techniques. J. Statist. Comput. Simul. 57:111–142 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    R. C. H. Cheng and W. Holland. Sensitivity of computer simulation experiments to errors in input data. J. Statist. Comput. Simul. 57:219–241 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    G. E. B. Archer, A. Saltelli, and I. M. Sobol. Sensitivity measures, ANOVA-like techniques and the use of bootstrap. J. Statist. Comput. Simul. 58:99–120 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    I. Nestorov, L. Aarons, and M. Rowland. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic modelling of a homologous series of barbiturates in the rat. A sensitivity analysis. J. Pharmacokin. Biopharm. 25:413–447 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    R. A. Yetter, F. L. Dryer, and H. Rabitz. Some interpretative aspects of elementary sensitivity gradients in combustion kinetics modeling. Combustion Flame 59:107–133 (1985).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    M. V. Evans, W. D. Crank, H.-M. Yang, and J. E. Simmons. Applications of sensitivity analysis to a physiologically based pharmacokinetic model for carbon tetrachloride in rats. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 128:36–44 (1994).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    D. M. Hetrick, A. M. Jarabek, and C. C. Travis. Sensitivity analysis for physiologically based pharmacokinetic models. J. Pharmacokin. Biopharm. 19:1–20 (1991).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    P. Varkonyi, J. V. Bruckner, and J. M. Gallo. Effect of parameter variability on physiologically-based pharmacokinetic model predicted drug concentrations. J. Pharm. Sci. 84:381–384 (1995).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    R. C. Spear, F. Y. Bois, T. Woodruff, D. Auslander, J. Parker, and S. Selvin. Modeling benzene pharmacokinetics across three sets of animal data: Parametric sensitivity and risk implications. Risk Anal. 11:641–654 (1991).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    K. Thomaseth. PANSYM: A symbolic equation generator for mathematical modelling, analysis and control of metabolic and pharmacokinetic systems. Comput. Meth. Prog. Biomed. 42:99–112 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    P. M. Schlosser, T. Holcomb, and J. E. Bailey. Determining metabolic sensitivity coefficient directly from experimental data. Bioechn. Bioeng. 41:1027–1038 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    J. L. Gabrielsson and T. Groth. An extended physiological pharmacokinetic model of methadone disposition in the rat: Validation and sensitivity analysis. J. Pharmacokin. Biopharm. 16:183–201 (1988).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    K. Godfrey. Compartmental Models and Their Application, Academic Press, 1983.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    D. A. Anderson. Compartmental Modeling and Tracer Kinetics. Lecture Notes in Biomathematics, Vol. 50, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, 1983, p. 302.Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    M. Eslami. Theory of Sensitivity in Dynamic Systems. An Introduction, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, 1994, p. 600.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Y. Z. Tsipkin. Basics of Automatic Systems Theory [In Russian]. Nauka, Moscow, 1977, pp. 88–101.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    G. J. Murphy. Basic Automatic Control Theory, van Nostrand, Princeton, NJ, 1957, p. 832.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    J. M. van Rossum, J. E. G. M. de Bie, G. van Lingen, and H. W. A. Teeuwen. Pharmacokinetics from a dynamical systems point of view. J. Pharmacokin. Biopharm. 17:365–397 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    L. Dedik and M. Durisova. Frequency response method in pharmacokinetics. J. Pharmacokin. Biopharm. 22:293–307 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    I. A. Nestorov, L. J. Aarons, P. A. Arundel, and M. Rowland. Lumping of whole-body physiologically based pharmacokinetic models. J. Pharmacokin. Biopharm. 26:21–46 (1998).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    L. E. Gerlovski and R. K. Jain. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling: Principles and applications. J. Pharm. Sci. 72:1103–1129 (1983).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    M. C. Kohn. The importance of anatomical realism for validation of physiological models of disposition of inhaled toxicants. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 147:448–458 (1997).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    A. Bernareggi and M. Rowland. Physiological modeling of cyclosporine kinetics in rat and man. J. Pharmacokin. Biopharm. 19:21–50 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    D. Krewski, Y. Wang, S. Bartlett, and K. Krishnan. Uncertainty, variability, and sensitivity analysis in physiological pharmacokinetic models. J. Biopharm. Statist. 5:245–271 (1995).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ivan A. Nestorov
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for Applied Pharmacokinetic ResearchSchool of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical Sciences, University of ManchesterOxford RoadUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations