Pharmaceutical Research

, Volume 20, Issue 6, pp 864–872 | Cite as

Prediction of in Vivo Tissue Distribution from in Vitro Data. 2. Correlation Between in Vitro and in Vivo Tissue Distribution of a Homologous Series of Nine 5-n-Alkyl-5-Ethyl Barbituric Acids

  • Peter BallardEmail author
  • David E. Leahy
  • Malcolm Rowland


Purpose. To evaluate the ability to determine accurate in vivo tissue-to-unbound plasma distribution coefficients (Kpue) from in vitro data.

Methods. Fresh pieces of fifteen rat tissues/organs were incubated at 37°C with a homologous series of nine barbiturates covering a wide range of lipophilicity (Log P 0.02 to 4.13). Steady-state in vivoKpue values were estimated from the tissue and plasma concentrations following simultaneous dosing by constant rate i.v. infusion of all nine barbiturates. Drug concentrations in the tissues and media were determined by HPLC with UV or mass spectrometric detection.

Results. The pharmacokinetics of the barbiturate series following constant rate i.v. infusion indicated a range of clearance (0.49 to 30 ml.min\\-1) and volume of distribution at steady state (0.51 to 1.9\-1) values. Good agreement was observed between the in vitro and in vivoKpu values, although for the most lipophilic barbiturates the in vitro data underpredicted the in vivo tissue distribution for all tissues.

Conclusions. The in vitro system for predicting the extent of in vivo tissue distribution works well for compounds of widely differing lipophilicity, although for the most lipophilic drugs it may result in an underprediction of in vivo values.

in vitro-in vivo correlation barbiturate tissue distribution pharmacokinetics 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    H.-S. G. Chen and J. F. Gross. Estimation of tissue-to-plasma partition coefficients used in physiological pharmacokinetic models. J. Pharmacokinet. Biopharm. 7:117–125 (1979).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    K. B. Bischoff, R. L. Dedrick, and D. S. Zaharko. Preliminary model for methotrexate pharmacokinetics. J. Pharm. Sci. 59:149–154 (1970).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    A. Benareggi and M. Rowland. Physiologic modeling of cyclosporin kinetics in rat and man. J. Pharmacokinet. Biopharm. 19:21–50 (1991).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. L. Gabrielsson, L. K. Paalzow, and L. Nordstrom. A physiologically based pharmacokinetic model for theophylline disposition in the pregnant and nonpregnant rat. J. Pharmacokinet. Biopharm. 12:149–165 (1984).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    L. Granero, J. Chesa-Jimenez, V. Monserrat, M. Almela, M.-J. Gimeno, F. Torres-Molina, and J.-E. Peris-Ribera. Physiological pharmacokinetic model for ceftazidime disposition in the rat and its application to prediction of plasma concentration in humans. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 1:3–11 (1993).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Y. Igari, Y. Sugiyama, S. Awazu, and M. Hanano. Comparative physiologically based pharmacokinetics of hexobarbital, phenobarbital and thiopental in the rat. J. Pharmacokinet. Biopharm. 10:53–75 (1982).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    G. E. Blakey, I. A. Nesterov, P. A. Arundel, L. J. Aarons, and M. Rowland. Quantitative structure pharmacokinetics relationships: 1. Development of a whole-body physiologically based model to characterize changes in pharmacokinetics across a homologous series of barbiturates in the rat. J. Pharmacokinet. Biopharm. 25:277–312 (1997).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    R. Gubser, C. DiFransesco, and M. H. Bickel. Uptake of lipophilic model compounds into the isolated perfused rat epididymal adipose tissue. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Therap. 237:967–971 (1986).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    C.-H. Chou, A. M. Evans, G. Fornasini, and M. Rowland. Relationship between lipophilicity and hepatic dispersion and distribution for a homologous series of barbiturates in the isolated perfused in situ rat liver. Drug Metab. Dispos. 21:933–938 (1993).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    A. Heatherington and M. Rowland. Estimation of reference spaces in the perfused rat hindlimb. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 2:261–270 (1994).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    M. H. Bickel, R. M. Raaflaub, M. Hellmuller, and E. J. Stauffer. Characterization of drug distribution and binding competition by two-chamber and multi-chamber distribution dialysis. J. Pharm. Sci. 76:68–74 (1987).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    T. M. Ludden, L. S. Schanker, and R. C. Lanman. Binding of organic compounds to rat liver and lung. Drug Metab. Dispos. 4:8–16 (1976).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. H. Bickel and J. W. Steele. Binding of basic and acidic drugs to rat tissue subcellular fractions. Chemico-Biol. Int. 8:151–162 (1974).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    W. O. Berndt. Use of the tissue slice technique for evaluation of renal transport processes. Env. Health Persp. 15:73–88 (1976).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    R. Drew and Z. H. Siddik. Effect of a specific 5HT uptake inhibitor (citalopram) on drug accumulation by rat lung slices. Pharmacol. 20:27–31 (1980).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    C. Post, R. G. G. Andersson, A. Ryrfeldt, and E. Nilsson. Transport and binding of lidocaine by lung slices and perfused lung of rats. Acta Pharmacol. Tox. 43:156–163 (1978).Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    P. Ballard, P. A. Arundel, D. E. Leahy, and M. Rowland. Prediction of in vivo tissue distribution from in vitro data 2. Influence of albumin diffusion from tissue slices during an in vitro incubation on estimated tissue-to-unbound plasma partition coefficients (Kpu). Pharm. Res. 20:857–863.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    P. Ballard, D. E. Leahy, and M. Rowland. Prediction of in vivo tissue distribution from in vitro data. 1. Experiments with markers of aqueous spaces. Pharm. Res. 17:660–663 (2000).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    S. Toon and M. Rowland. Structure-pharmacokinetic relationships among the barbiturates in the rat. J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 225:752–763 (1983).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    G. Blakey. Whole body tissue distribution of the 5-alkyl-5-ethyl barbituric acids in the rat (preliminary results). PhD thesis, University of Manchester, 1993.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    S. H. Steiner, M. J. Moor, and M. H. Bickel. Kinetics of distribution and adipose tissue storage as a function of lipophilicity and chemical structure. I. Barbiturates. Drug Metab. Dispos. 19:8–14 (1991).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    C. B. Frederick, D. W. Potter, M. I. Chang-Mateu, and M. E. Andersen. A physiologically-based pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic model to describe the oral dosing of rats with ethyl acrylate and its implications for risk assessment. Tox. Appl. Pharmacol. 114:246–260 (1992).Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    V. Fiserova-Bergerova, M. Tichy, and F. J. Di Carlo. Effects of biosolubility on pulmonary uptake and disposition of gases and vapors of lipophilic chemicals. Drug Metab. Rev. 15:1033–1070 (1984).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    J. H. Lin, Y. Sugiyama, S. Awazu, and M. Hanano. In vitro and in vivo evaluation of the tissue blood partition coefficient for physiological pharmacokinetic models. J. Pharmacokinet. Biopharm. 10:637–647 (1982).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    H. Harashima, Y. Sugiyama, Y. Sawada, T. Iga, and M. Hanano. Comparison between in vivo and in vitro tissue-to-plasma unbound concentration ratios (Kp,f) of quinidine in rats. J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 36:340–342 (1984).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    G. Schuhmann, B. Fichtl, and H. Kurz. Prediction of drug distribution in vivo on the basis of in vitro binding data. Biopharm. Drug Dispos. 8:73–86 (1987).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    P. Poulin and F.-P. Theil. Prediction of pharmacokinetics prior to in vivo studies. I. Mechanism-based prediction of volume of distribution. J. Pharm. Sci. 91:129–156 (2002).CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    P. Poulin and F.-P. Theil. Prediction of pharmacokinetics prior to in vivo studies. II. Generic physiologically based pharmacokinetic models of drug disposition. J. Pharm. Sci. 91:1358–1370 (2002).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    I. Nestorov, L. J. Aarons, and M. Rowland. Quantitative structure-pharmacokinetics relationships: II. A mechanistically based model to evaluate the relationship between tissue distribution parameters and compound lipophilicity. J. Pharmacokinet. Biopharm. 26:521–545 (1998).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    T. D. Yih and J. M. van Rossum. Ks values of some homologous series of barbiturates and the relationship with the lipophilicity and metabolic clearance. Biochem. Pharmacol. 26:2117–2120 (1977).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    C. Hansch, A. R. Steward, S. M. Anderson, and D. Bentley. The parabolic dependence of drug action upon lipophilic character as revealed by a study of hypnotics. J. Med. Chem. 11:1–11 (1967).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peter Ballard
    • 1
    Email author
  • David E. Leahy
    • 2
  • Malcolm Rowland
    • 3
  1. 1.Discovery-DMPK, Mereside, AstraZenecaAlderley Park, CheshireUnited Kingdom
  2. 2.CyprotexMacclesfield, CheshireUnited Kingdom
  3. 3.dSchool of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical SciencesUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations