Pharmacokinetic Modelling to Study the Biodistribution of Nanoparticles

  • Rajith K. R. RajoliEmail author
Part of the AAPS Advances in the Pharmaceutical Sciences Series book series (AAPS, volume 41)


Pharmacokinetics is a key component of pharmacology and is an essential aspect during drug discovery and development phases that evaluates the safety and efficacy profiles. Mathematical models mainly physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models have been increasingly used that can help in drug screening and identification; dose optimisation prior to preclinical and clinical trials using in vitro data, thus saving time and resources. PBPK models describe the pharmacokinetic processes – absorption, distribution, metabolism and elimination (ADME) using various mathematical correlations including in vitro – in vivo extrapolations in humans. Nanoparticles are been increasingly used for drug delivery due to their advantages over conventional formulations such as enhanced absorption, longer half-life, good safety and efficacy, targeted delivery etc. However, studies using nanoparticles in humans can be associated with various obstacles including ethical and logistical, hindering the drug development process. PBPK models overcome the earlier mentioned problems and can evaluate various biological and molecular processes that define drug pharmacokinetics using in vitro data. This chapter summarises the approach of PBPK models, its challenges and possibilities to assess the key ADME mechanisms involved during various mucosal routes of administration using several allometric, anthropometric and rate equations to inform drug pharmacokinetics in humans.


PBPK Pharmacokinetics Mucosal Compartmental model ADME Nanoparticles 


  1. 1.
    Ratain MJ, P.W.J., Principles of pharmacokinetics, in Holland-Frei cancer medicine, P.R. Kufe DW, Weichselbaum RR, et al., Editor. 2003, Hamilton (ON): BC Decker.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Strimbu K, Tavel JA. What are biomarkers? Curr Opin HIV AIDS. 2010;5(6):463–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Rizk M, et al. Importance of drug pharmacokinetics at the site of action. Clin Transl Sci. 2017;10(3):133–42.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Tamimi NAM, Ellis P. Drug development: from concept to marketing! Nephron Clin Pract. 2009;113(3):c125–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ruane PJ, et al. Antiviral activity, safety, and pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of Tenofovir Alafenamide as 10-day monotherapy in HIV-1-positive adults. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr. 2013;63(4):449–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Tsamandouras N, Rostami-Hodjegan A, Aarons L. Combining the ‘bottom up’ and ‘top down’ approaches in pharmacokinetic modelling: fitting PBPK models to observed clinical data. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2015;79(1):48–55.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Peters SA. Variability, uncertainty, and sensitivity analysis. In: Physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling and simulations: Wiley; 2012. p. 161–81.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Teorell, T., Kinetics of distribution of substances administered to the body I the extravascular modes of administration. Archives Internationales De Pharmacodynamie Et De Therapie. 1937;57: p. 205–225.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rowland M, Peck C, Tucker G. Physiologically-based pharmacokinetics in drug development and regulatory science. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol. 2011;51(1):45–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    European Medicines Agency Guideline on the qualification and reporting of physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modelling and SIMULATION 2016.,
  11. 11.
    United States Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for Industry: physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Analyses—Format and Content. 2016 last update [cited Access 2016.; Available from:
  12. 12.
    Wagner C, et al. Application of physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling to support dose selection: report of an FDA public workshop on PBPK. CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol. 2015;4(4):226–30.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dolgin E. Long-acting HIV drugs advanced to overcome adherence challenge. Nat Med. 2014;20:323–4.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sager JE, et al. 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.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Bosgra S, et al. An improved model to predict physiologically based model parameters and their inter-individual variability from anthropometry. Crit Rev Toxicol. 2012;42(9):751–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Salamat, M., et al., Anthropometric predictive equations for estimating body composition. Adv Biomed Res.2015;4(1): p. 34–34.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Alexis F, et al. Factors affecting the clearance and biodistribution of polymeric nanoparticles. Mol Pharm. 2008;5(4):505–15.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Chillistone S, Hardman JG. Factors affecting drug absorption and distribution. Anaesth Intensive Care Med. 2017;18(7):335–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Huang W, Lee SL, Yu LX. Mechanistic approaches to predicting Oral drug absorption. AAPS J. 2009;11(2):217–24.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yu LX, Amidon GL. A compartmental absorption and transit model for estimating oral drug absorption. Int J Pharm. 1999;186(2):119–25.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bergström CAS, et al. Absorption classification of oral drugs based on molecular surface properties. J Med Chem. 2003;46(4):558–70.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Bakshi RP, et al. Long-acting injectable atovaquone nanomedicines for malaria prophylaxis. Nat Commun. 2018;9(1):315.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Agoram B, Woltosz WS, Bolger MB. Predicting the impact of physiological and biochemical processes on oral drug bioavailability. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2001;50:S41–67.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ensign LM, et al. Mucus Penetrating Nanoparticles: Biophysical Tool and Method of Drug and Gene Delivery. Adv Mater (Deerfield Beach, Fla). 2012;24(28):3887–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Lundquist P, Artursson P. Oral absorption of peptides and nanoparticles across the human intestine: opportunities, limitations and studies in human tissues. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2016;106:256–76.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gertz M, et al. Prediction of human intestinal first-pass metabolism of 25 CYP3A substrates from in vitro clearance and permeability data. Drug Metab Dispos. 2010;38(7):1147–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Winiwarter S, et al. Correlation of human Jejunal permeability (in vivo) of drugs with experimentally and theoretically derived parameters. A multivariate data analysis approach. J Med Chem. 1998;41(25):4939–49.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sun D, et al. Comparison of human duodenum and Caco-2 gene expression profiles for 12,000 gene sequences tags and correlation with permeability of 26 drugs. Pharm Res. 2002;19(10):1400–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Xia B, et al. Development of a novel oral cavity compartmental absorption and transit model for sublingual administration: illustration with zolpidem. AAPS J. 2015;17(3):631–42.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Löndahl J, et al. Measurement techniques for respiratory tract deposition of airborne nanoparticles: a critical review. J Aerosol Med Pulm Drug Deliv. 2014;27(4):229–54.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jaworski J, Redlarski G. A compartment model of alveolar–capillary oxygen diffusion with ventilation–perfusion gradient and dynamics of air transport through the respiratory tract. Comput Biol Med. 2014;51:159–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Yu J. A subcellular compartmental modeling approach to pulmonary drug development. In: Medicinal Chemistry: The University of Michigan; 2011.Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bolger, M.B., et al. Fluorometholone Ocular Suspension PBPK simulations using the OCAT™ model in GastroPlus™. In GTCBio Ocular Disease Conference. 2012. San Francisco, CA.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Kay K, et al. Physiologically-based pharmacokinetic model of vaginally administered dapivirine ring and film formulations. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2018;84(9):1950–69.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Poulin P, Theil FP. Prediction of pharmacokinetics prior to in vivo studies. 1. Mechanism-based prediction of volume of distribution. J Pharm Sci. 2002;91(1):129–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Li M, et al. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling of pharmaceutical nanoparticles. AAPS J. 2017;19(1):26–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Vilanova O, et al. Understanding the kinetics of protein–nanoparticle corona formation. ACS Nano. 2016;10(12):10842–50.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Almeida JPM, et al. In vivo biodistribution of nanoparticles. Nanomedicine. 2011;6(5):815–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    McDonald TO, et al. Antiretroviral solid drug nanoparticles with enhanced oral bioavailability: production, characterization, and in vitro-in vivo correlation. Adv Healthc Mater. 2014;3(3):400–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Reszka R, et al. Body distribution of free, liposomal and nanoparticle-associated mitoxantrone in B16-melanoma-bearing mice. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1997;280(1):232–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Evans MV, et al. A physiologically based pharmacokinetic model for intravenous and ingested Dimethylarsinic acid in mice. Toxicol Sci. 2008;104(2):250–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Peters S. Evaluation of a generic physiologically based pharmacokinetic model for Lineshape analysis. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2008;47(4):261–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Thompson MD, Beard DA. Development of appropriate equations for physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling of permeability-limited and flow-limited transport. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2011;38(4):405–21.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Rekić D, et al. In silico prediction of efavirenz and rifampicin drug–drug interaction considering weight and CYP2B6 phenotype. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2011;71(4):536–43.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Riley RJ, McGinnity DF, Austin RP. A unified model for predicting human hepatic, metabolic clearance from in vitro intrinsic clearance data in hepatocytes and microsomes. Drug Metab Dispos. 2005;33(9):1304–11.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Yildirimer L, et al. Toxicology and clinical potential of nanoparticles. Nano Today. 2011;6(6):585–607.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Ravindran S, et al. Pharmacokinetics, metabolism, distribution and permeability of nanomedicine. Curr Drug Metab. 2018;19(4):327–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Kadam RS, Bourne DWA, Kompella UB. Nano-advantage in enhanced drug delivery with biodegradable nanoparticles: contribution of reduced clearance. Drug Metab Dispos. 2012;40(7):1380–8.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Miyake M, et al. Evaluation of intestinal metabolism and absorption using the ussing chamber system equipped with intestinal tissue from rats and dogs. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2018;122:49–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Shebley M, et al. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic model qualification and reporting procedures for regulatory submissions: a consortium perspective. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2018;104(1):88–110.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Li M, et al. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling of pharmaceutical nanoparticles. AAPS J. 2017;19(1):26–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Yuan D, et al. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling of nanoparticles. J Pharm Sci. 2019;108(1):58–72.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Bachler G, von Goetz N, Hungerbuhler K. A physiologically based pharmacokinetic model for ionic silver and silver nanoparticles. Int J Nanomedicine. 2013;8:3365–82.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Bachler G, von Goetz N, Hungerbuhler K. Using physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling for dietary risk assessment of titanium dioxide (TiO2) nanoparticles. Nanotoxicology. 2015;9(3):373–80.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Kumar S, Singh SK. In silico-in vitro-in vivo studies of experimentally designed carvedilol loaded silk fibroin-casein nanoparticles using physiological based pharmacokinetic model. Int J Biol Macromol. 2017;96:403–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. 56.
    Jung F, et al. A comparison of two biorelevant in vitro drug release methods for nanotherapeutics based on advanced physiologically-based pharmacokinetic modelling. Eur J Pharm Biopharm. 2018;127:462–70.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Moss DM, et al. Applications of physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling for the optimization of anti-infective therapies. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2015;11(8):1203–17.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Kiser JJ, et al. Isoniazid pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and dosing in south African infants. Ther Drug Monit. 2012;34(4):446–51.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Moss DM, Siccardi M. Optimizing nanomedicine pharmacokinetics using physiologically based pharmacokinetics modelling. Br J Pharmacol. 2014;171(17):3963–79.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Molecular and Clinical PharmacologyUniversity of LiverpoolLiverpoolUK

Personalised recommendations