Advertisement

pp 1-13 | Cite as

Clinical Pharmacology and Pharmacometrics to Better Understand Physiological Changes During Pregnancy and Neonatal Life

  • Tamara van DongeEmail author
  • Katrina Evers
  • Gilbert Koch
  • John van den Anker
  • Marc Pfister
Chapter
Part of the Handbook of Experimental Pharmacology book series

Abstract

Pregnant women, fetuses, and newborns are particularly vulnerable patient populations. During pregnancy, the body is subject to physiological changes that influence the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of drugs. Inappropriate dosing in pregnant women can result in sub-therapeutic or toxic effects, putting not only the pregnant woman but also her fetus at risk. During neonatal life, maturation processes also affect pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of drugs. Inappropriate dosing in newborns leads not only to short-term complications but can also have a negative impact on the long-term development of infants and children. For these reasons, it is crucial to characterize physiological changes in pregnant women, describe placental transfer kinetics of drugs, and describe physiological changes related to the transition from intrauterine to extrauterine life and maturation processes in preterm and term neonates. Quantitative pharmacological approaches such as pharmacometric and physiologically-based modeling and model-based simulations can be useful to better understand and predict such physiological changes and their effects on drug exposure and response. This review article (1) gives an overview of physiological changes in pregnant women, their fetuses, and (pre)term neonates, (2) presents case studies to illustrate applications of new modeling and simulation approaches, and (3) discusses challenges and opportunities in optimizing and personalizing treatments during pregnancy and neonatal life.

Keywords

Drug exposure Fetus Newborn Pediatric pharmacology Pharmacometrics Pregnancy 

Notes

Acknowledgment

TvD, KE, GK, JvdA, and MP would like to thank the Eckenstein-Geigy Foundation in Basel, Switzerland, for their financial support.

References

  1. Abduljalil K, Johnson TN, Rostami-Hodjegan A (2018) Fetal physiologically-based pharmacokinetic models: systems information on fetal biometry and gross composition. Clin Pharmacokinet 57:1149–1171Google Scholar
  2. Allegaert K, Anker JN (2015) Adverse drug reactions in neonates and infants: a population-tailored approach is needed. Br J Clin Pharmacol 80:788–795Google Scholar
  3. Anderson GD (2005) Pregnancy-induced changes in pharmacokinetics. Clin Pharmacokinet 44:989–1008Google Scholar
  4. Artunc-Ulkumen B, Guvenc Y, Goker A, Gozukara C (2015) Relationship of neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL) and procalcitonin levels with the presence and severity of the preeclampsia. J Matern Fetal Neonatal Med 28:1895–1900.  https://doi.org/10.3109/14767058.2014.972926CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Bonner JJ, Vajjah P, Abduljalil K, Jamei M, Rostami-Hodjegan A, Tucker GT, Johnson TN (2015) Does age affect gastric emptying time? A model-based meta-analysis of data from premature neonates through to adults. Biopharm Drug Dispos 36:245–257Google Scholar
  6. Bornhauser C, Quack KL, Seifert B, Simões-Wüst AP (2017) Diet, medication use and drug intake during pregnancy: data from the consecutive Swiss Health Surveys of 2007 and 2012. Swiss Med Wkly 147:w14572Google Scholar
  7. Colbers A, Greupink R, Litjens C, Burger D, Russel FG (2016) Physiologically based modelling of darunavir/ritonavir pharmacokinetics during pregnancy. Clin Pharmacokinet 55:381–396Google Scholar
  8. Dallmann A, Pfister M, van den Anker J, Eissing T (2018a) Physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling in pregnancy: a systematic review of published models. Clin Pharmacol Ther 104:1110–1124Google Scholar
  9. Dallmann A, van den Anker J, Pfister M, Koch G (2018b) Characterization of maternal and neonatal pharmacokinetic behavior of ceftazidime. J Clin Pharmacol 59:74–82Google Scholar
  10. Etwel F, Hutson JR, Madadi P, Gareri J, Koren G (2014) Fetal and perinatal exposure to drugs and chemicals: novel biomarkers of risk. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 54:295–315Google Scholar
  11. Evers KS et al (2018) Neurofilament as neuronal injury blood marker in preeclampsia. Hypertension 117:10314Google Scholar
  12. Hartmanshenn C, Scherholz M, Androulakis IP (2016) Physiologically-based pharmacokinetic models: approaches for enabling personalized medicine. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 43:481–504.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10928-016-9492-yCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hines RN (2008) The ontogeny of drug metabolism enzymes and implications for adverse drug events. Pharmacol Ther 118:250–267Google Scholar
  14. Huppertz B (2018) An updated view on the origin and use of angiogenic biomarkers for preeclampsia. Expert Rev Mol Diagn:1–9.  https://doi.org/10.1080/14737159.2018.1546579Google Scholar
  15. Karumanchi SA (2016) Angiogenic factors in preeclampsia: from diagnosis to therapy. Hypertension 67:1072–1079.  https://doi.org/10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.116.06421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kastl JT (2017) Renal function in the fetus and neonate–the creatinine enigma. In: Seminars in fetal and neonatal medicine, vol 2. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 83–89Google Scholar
  17. Ke AB, Greupink R, Abduljalil K (2018) Drug dosing in pregnant women: challenges and opportunities in using physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling and simulations. CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol 7:103–110Google Scholar
  18. Kearns GL, Abdel-Rahman SM, Alander SW, Blowey DL, Leeder JS, Kauffman RE (2003) Developmental pharmacology—drug disposition, action, and therapy in infants and children. N Engl J Med 349:1157–1167Google Scholar
  19. Kesho Bora Study Group (2011) Triple antiretroviral compared with zidovudine and single-dose nevirapine prophylaxis during pregnancy and breastfeeding for prevention of mother-to-child transmission of HIV-1 (Kesho Bora study): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet Infect Dis 11:171–180Google Scholar
  20. Koch G, Datta AN, Jost K, Schulzke SM, van den Anker J, Pfister M (2017) Caffeine citrate dosing adjustments to assure stable caffeine concentrations in preterm neonates. J Pediatr 191:50–56.e51Google Scholar
  21. Koren G (1997) Therapeutic drug monitoring principles in the neonate. Clin Chem 43:222–227Google Scholar
  22. Koren G, Hutson J, Gareri J (2008) Novel methods for the detection of drug and alcohol exposure during pregnancy: implications for maternal and child health. Clin Pharmacol Ther 83:631–634Google Scholar
  23. Ku LC, Smith PB (2014) Dosing in neonates: special considerations in physiology and trial design. Pediatr Res 77:2Google Scholar
  24. Kumer K, Premru-Srsen T, Fabjan-Vodusek V, Tul N, Fabjan T, Osredkar J (2018) Peripheral arterial tonometry and angiogenic biomarkers in preeclampsia. Hypertens Pregnancy 37:197–203.  https://doi.org/10.1080/10641955.2018.1524478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Levine RJ et al (2004) Circulating angiogenic factors and the risk of preeclampsia. N Engl J Med 350:672–683.  https://doi.org/10.1056/NEJMoa031884CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Loebstein R, Lalkin A, Koren G (1997) Pharmacokinetic changes during pregnancy and their clinical relevance. Clin Pharmacokinet 33:328–343Google Scholar
  27. Manokhina I, Del Gobbo GF, Konwar C, Wilson SL, Robinson WP (2017) Review: placental biomarkers for assessing fetal health. Hum Mol Genet 26:R237–R245Google Scholar
  28. Manolis E, Pons G (2009) Proposals for model-based paediatric medicinal development within the current European Union regulatory framework. Br J Clin Pharmacol 68:493–501Google Scholar
  29. Mayeux R (2004) Biomarkers: potential uses and limitations. NeuroRx 1:182–188Google Scholar
  30. Maynard SE, Karumanchi SA (2011) Angiogenic factors and preeclampsia. Semin Nephrol 31:33–46.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.semnephrol.2010.10.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Mitchell AA, Gilboa SM, Werler MM, Kelley KE, Louik C, Hernández-Díaz S, Study NBDP (2011) Medication use during pregnancy, with particular focus on prescription drugs: 1976-2008. Am J Obstet Gynecol 205:51. e51–51. e58Google Scholar
  32. Moore TJ, Weiss SR, Kaplan S, Blaisdell CJ (2002) Reported adverse drug events in infants and children under 2 years of age. Pediatrics 110:e53–e53Google Scholar
  33. Morton SU, Brodsky D (2016) Fetal physiology and the transition to extrauterine life. Clin Perinatol 43:395–407Google Scholar
  34. Pariente G, Leibson T, Carls A, Adams-Webber T, Ito S, Koren G (2016) Pregnancy-associated changes in pharmacokinetics: a systematic review. PLoS Med 13:e1002160Google Scholar
  35. Risch M et al (2017) High first-trimester maternal blood cystatin C levels despite normal serum creatinine predict pre-eclampsia in singleton pregnancies. Scand J Clin Lab Invest 77:634–643.  https://doi.org/10.1080/00365513.2017.1393692CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Saint-Faust M, Boubred F, Simeoni U (2014) Renal development and neonatal adaptation. Am J Perinatol 31:773–780Google Scholar
  37. Schalkwijk S, Buaben AO, Freriksen JJ, Colbers AP, Burger DM, Greupink R, Russel FG (2018) Prediction of fetal darunavir exposure by integrating human ex-vivo placental transfer and physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling. Clin Pharmacokinet 57:705–716Google Scholar
  38. Seyberth HW, Kauffman RE (2011) Basics and dynamics of neonatal and pediatric pharmacology. In: Pediatric clinical pharmacology. Springer, Berlin, pp 3–49Google Scholar
  39. Steegers EA, Von Dadelszen P, Duvekot JJ, Pijnenborg R (2010) Pre-eclampsia. Lancet 376:631–644Google Scholar
  40. Stout SA, Espel EV, Sandman CA, Glynn LM, Davis EP (2015) Fetal programming of children’s obesity risk. Psychoneuroendocrinology 53:29–39Google Scholar
  41. Sulemanji M, Vakili K (2013) Neonatal renal physiology. In: Seminars in pediatric surgery, vol 4. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 195–198Google Scholar
  42. van den Anker J, Reed MD, Allegaert K, Kearns GL (2018) Developmental changes in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. J Clin Pharmacol 58:S10–S25Google Scholar
  43. van Donge T, Pfister M, Bielicki J, Csajka C, Rodieux F, van den Anker J, Fuchs A (2018) Quantitative analysis of gentamicin exposure in neonates and infants calls into question its current dosing recommendations. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 62:02004–02017Google Scholar
  44. Venkatesha S et al (2006) Soluble endoglin contributes to the pathogenesis of preeclampsia. Nat Med 12:642–649.  https://doi.org/10.1038/nm1429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Widmer M et al (2015) Accuracy of angiogenic biomarkers at ≤20 weeks’ gestation in predicting the risk of pre-eclampsia: a WHO multicentre study. Pregnancy Hypertens 5:330–338Google Scholar
  46. Wilbaux M, Kasser S, Wellmann S, Lapaire O, Van Den Anker JN, Pfister M (2016) Characterizing and forecasting individual weight changes in term neonates. J Pediatr 173:101–107. e110Google Scholar
  47. Zhang Z, Unadkat JD (2017) Development of a novel maternal-fetal physiologically based pharmacokinetic model II: verification of the model for passive placental permeability drugs. Drug Metab Dispos 45:939–946Google Scholar
  48. Zhang Z, Imperial MZ, Patilea-Vrana GI, Wedagedera J, Gaohua L, Unadkat JD (2017) Development of a novel maternal-fetal physiologically based pharmacokinetic model I: insights into factors that determine fetal drug exposure through simulations and sensitivity analyses. Drug Metab Dispos 45:920–938Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Tamara van Donge
    • 1
    Email author
  • Katrina Evers
    • 1
  • Gilbert Koch
    • 1
  • John van den Anker
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Marc Pfister
    • 1
    • 4
  1. 1.Pediatric Pharmacology and PharmacometricsUniversity of Basel Children’s HospitalBaselSwitzerland
  2. 2.Intensive Care and Department of Pediatric SurgeryErasmus MC-Sophia Children’s HospitalRotterdamThe Netherlands
  3. 3.Division of Clinical PharmacologyChildren’s National Health SystemWashingtonUSA
  4. 4.Certara LPPrincetonUSA

Personalised recommendations