Lumping of Whole-Body Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Models

  • Ivan A. Nestorov
  • Leon J. Aarons
  • Philip A. Arundel
  • Malcolm Rowland


Lumping is a common pragmatic approach aimed at the reduction of whole-body physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model dimensionality and complexity. Incorrect lumping is equivalent to model misspecification with all the negative consequences to the subsequent model implementation. Proper lumping should guarantee that no useful information about the kinetics of the underlying processes is lost. To enforce this guarantee, formal standard lumping procedures and techniques need to be defined and implemented. This study examines the lumping process from a system theory point of view, which provides a formal basis for the derivation of principles and standard procedures of lumping. The lumping principle in PBPK modeling is defined as follows: Only tissues with identical model specification, and occupying identical positions in the system structure should be lumped together at each lumping iteration. In order to lump together parallel tissues, they should have similar or close time constants. In order to lump together serial tissues, they should equilibrate very rapidly with one another. The lumping procedure should include the following stages: (i) tissue specification conversion (when tissues with different model specifications are to be lumped together); (ii) classification of the tissues into classes with significantly different kinetics, according to the basic principle of lumping above; (iii) calculation of the parameters of the lumped compartments; (iv) simulation of the lumped system; (v) lumping of the experimental data; and (vi) verification of the lumped model. The use of the lumping principles and procedures to be adopted is illustrated with an example of a commonly implemented whole-body physiologically based pharmacokinetic model structure to characterize the pharmacokinetics of a homologous series of barbiturates in the rat.

pharmacokinetics whole body physiologically based model lumping system theory barbiturates 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    S. B. Charnik, R. Kawai, J. R. Nedelman, M. Lemaire, W. Niederberger, and H. Sato. Physiologically based modeling as a tool for drug development. J. Pharmacokin. Biopharm. 23:217–235 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    K. B. Bischoff. Physiological pharmacokinetics. Bull. Math. Biol. 48:309–322 (1986).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    M. Rowland. Physiologic pharmacokinetic models and interanimal species scaling. In M. Rowland, and G. T. Tucker (eds.), Pharmacokinetics: Theory and Methodology. International Encyclopedia of Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Section 122, Pergamon, Oxford, 1986, chap. 4, pp. 69–88.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    L. E. Gerlovski and R. K. Jain. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling: Principles and applications. J. Pharm. Sci. 72:1003–1129 (1983).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    M. E. Andersen. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PB-PK) models in the study of the disposition and biological effects of xenobiotics and drugs. Toxicol. Lett. 82/83:341–348 (1995).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    A. Bernareggi and M. Rowland. Physiological modeling of Cyclosporine kinetics in rat and man. J. Pharmacokin. Biopharm. 19:21–50 (1991).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    R. A. Shipley and R. E. Clark. Tracer Methods for In Vivo Kinetics, Academic Press, New York, 1972.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    C. W. Sheppard. Basic principles of the tracer method, Wiley, New York, 1962, p. 64.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    W. F. Ebling, D. R. Wada, and D. R. Stanski. From piecewise to full pharmacokinetic modeling: applied to Thiopental disposition in the rat. J. Pharmacokin. Biopharm. 22:259–292 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    S. Bjorkman, D. R. Wada, D. R. Stanski, and W. F. Ebling. Comparative pharmacokinetics of Fentanyl and Alfentanil in rats and humans based on parametric single-tissue models. J. Pharmacokin. Biopharm. 22:381–410 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    R. Kawai, M. Lemaire, J-L. Steimer, A. Bruelisauer, W. Niederberger, and M. Rowland. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic study on a Cyclosporine derivative, SDZ IMM 125. J. Pharmacokin. Biopharm. 22:327–365 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    H. Sato, Y. Sugiyama, Y. Sawada, T. Iga, and M. Nanano. Physiologically based pharmacokinetics of radioiodinated human β-endorphin in rats. Drug Metab. Dispos. 15:540–550 (1987).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    A. Tsuji, K. Hiside, N. Minami, E. Nakashima, T. Terasaki, and T. Yamana. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic model for Cefazolin in rabbits and preliminary extrapolation to man. Drug Metab. Dispos. 13:729–739 (1985).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    A. Tsuji, H. Sato, I. Tamai, H. Adachi, T. Nishihara, M. Ishiguro, N. Ohnuma, and T. Noguchi. Physiologically based pharmacokinetics of a new penem, SUN5555, for evaluation of in vivo efficacy. Drug Metab. Dispos. 18:245–252 (1990).PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    L. Dedic and M. Durisova. Frequency response method in pharmacokinetics. J. Pharmacokin Biopharm. 22:293–307 (1994).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    J. M. van Rossum, J. E. G. M. de Bie, G. van Lingen, and H. W. A. Teeuwen. Pharmacokinetics from dynamical systems point of view. J. Pharmacokin. Biopharm. 17:365–397 (1989).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    K. Godfrey. Compartmental Models and Their Application, Academic Press, 1983.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    D. A. Anderson. Compartmental Modeling and Tracer Kinetics. Lecture Notes in Biomathematics, Vol. 50, Springer-Verlag, 1983.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    M. Healey. Principles of Automatic Control, Hodder and Stoughton, London, 1975.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    O. I. Elgerd. Control System Theory, McGraw-Hill, Tokyo, 1967.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    G. J. Murphy. Basic Automatic Control Theory, D. van Nostrand, Princeton, 1957.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    I. Nestorov, L. J. Aarons, and M. Rowland. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling of a homologous series of barbiturates in the rat: A sensitivity analysis. J. Pharmacokin. Biopharm. 25:413–447 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    G. Blakey, I. Nestorov, P. Arundel, L. Aarons, and M. Rowland. Quantitative structure—pharmacokinetics relationships: I. Development of a whole-body physiologically based model to characterize changes in pharmacokinetics across a homologous series of barbiturates in the rat. J. Pharmacokin. Biopharm. 25:277–312 (1997).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    K. Kakemi, T. Arita, R. Hori, and R. Konishi. Absorption and excretion of drugs XXXII. Absorption of barbituric acid derivatives from rat small intestine. Chem. Pharm Bull. 15:1883–1887 (1967).PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    B. Davies and T. Morris. Physiological parameters in laboratory animals and humans. Pharma. Res. 10:1093–1095 (1993).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    M. Rowland and T. N. Tozer. Clinical Pharmacokinetics: Concepts and Applications, 3rd ed. Lea and Febiger, Philiadelphia, 1995.Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    ACSL Reference Manual, Version 11, MGA Software, Concord, MA 01742, 1995.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 1998

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ivan A. Nestorov
    • 1
    • 2
  • Leon J. Aarons
    • 2
    • 3
  • Philip A. Arundel
    • 4
  • Malcolm Rowland
    • 2
  1. 1.Central Laboratory of Biomedical EngineeringSofiaBulgaria
  2. 2.Centre for Applied Pharmacokinetic ResearchUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUnited Kingdom
  3. 3.School of Pharmacy and Pharmaceutical SciencesUniversity of ManchesterManchesterUnited Kingdom
  4. 4.Zeneca PharmaceuticalsCheshireUnited Kingdom

Personalised recommendations