Abstract
Prior to 1970s, development and regulation of new drugs was devoid of a fully quantitative, pathophysiological conceptual foundation. Malcolm Rowland pioneered, in collaboration with colleagues and friends, our modern understanding of drug clearance concepts, and equipped drug development and regulatory scientists with key investigative tools such as physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling, standardized approaches to characterizing drug metabolism, and microdosing. From the 1970s to the present, Malcolm Rowland has contributed to key advances in pharmacokinetics that have had transformational impacts on drug regulatory science. These advances include concepts that have led to the fundamental understanding that mechanistically derived, quantitative variations in drug concentrations, rather than assigned dosage alone, drive pharmacodynamic effects (PKPD)—including disease biomarkers and clinical outcomes. This body of knowledge has transformed drug development and regulatory science theory and practice from naïve empiricism to a mechanism/model-based, quantitative scientific discipline. As a result, it is now possible to incorporate pre-clinical in vitro data on drug physico-chemical properties, metabolizing enzymes, transporters and permeability properties into PBPK-based simulations of expected PK distributions and drug–drug interactions in human populations. The most comprehensive application of PK-PD is in the modeling and simulation of clinical trials in the context of model-based drug development and regulation, imbedded in the “learn-confirm paradigm”. Regulatory agencies have embraced these advances and incorporated them into regulatory requirements, approval acceleration pathways and regulatory decisions. These developments are reviewed here, with emphasis on key contributions of Malcolm Rowland that facilitated this transformation.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Osterberg L, Blaschke T (2005) Adherence to medication. N Engl J Med 353:487–497
Urquhart J, Vrijens B (2005) New findings about patient adherence to prescribed drug dosing regimens: an introduction to pharmionics. Eur J Hosp Pharm Sci 11:103–106
Kenna LA, Sheiner LB (2004) Estimating treatment effect in the presence of non-compliance measured with error: precision and robustness of data analysis methods. Stat Med 23:3561–3580
Benet L, Rowland M (1982) Pharmacometrics: a new journal section. J Pharmaocokin Biopharm 10:349–350
Bacharach AL, Laurence DR (1964) Evaluation of drug activities: pharmacometrics, vol 1. Academic Press, New York
Steimer JL, Sheiner LB (2000) Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling in drug development. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 40:67–95
Zhang L, Sinha V, Forgue ST, Callies S, Ni L, Peck R, Allerheiligan SRB (2006) Model-based drug development: the road to quantitative pharmacology. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 33:567–1567
Lalonde RL, Kowalski KG, Hutmacher MM, Ewy W, Nichols DJ, Milligan PA, Corrigan BW, Lockwood PA, Marshall SA, Benincosa LJ, Tensfeldt TG, Parivar K, Amantea M, Glue P, Koide H, Miller R (2007) Model-based drug development. Clin Pharmacol Ther 82:21–32
Blackstone MO, Lindenbaum J, Buler VP (1971) Variations in biological availability of digoxin from four preparations. N Engl J Med 285:1344
21 C.F.R. (1977) § 320 Bioavailability and bioequivalance requirements. Fed Regist 42:1648
Pang KS, Rowland M (1977) Hepatic clearance of drugs. I. Theoretical considerations of a “well-stirred” model and a “parallel tube” model. Influence of hepatic blood flow, plasma and blood cell binding, and the hepatocellular enzymatic activity on hepatic drug clearance. J Pharmacokin Biopharm 5:625–653
Roberts MS, Rowland M (1977) A dispersion model of hepatic elimination: 1. Formulation of the model and bolus considerations. J Pharmacokin Biopharm 14
Benet LZ, Rowland M, Graham GG (1973) Hepatic clearance of drugs. I. Theoretical considerations of a “well stirred” model and a “parallel tube” model. Influence of hepatic blood flow, plasma and blood cell binding, and the hepatocellular enzymatic activity on hepatic drug clearance. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 1:123–136
Beal SL, Sheiner LB, Marathe VV (1977) Estimation of population characteristics of pharmacokinetic parameters from routine clinical data. J Pharmackinet Pharmacodyn 5:445–479
Food and Drug Administration (1989) Guideline for the study of drugs likely to be used in the elderly
Peck C, Collins J, Barr W, Benet L, Desjardins R, Furst D, Harter JG, Levy G, Ludden T, Rodman J, Sanathanan L, Schentag JJ, Shah VP, Sheiner LB, Skelly JP, Stanski DR, Temple RJ, Viswanathan CT, Weissinger J, Yacobi A (1992) Opportunities for integration of pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and toxicokinetics in rational drug development. Clin Pharmacol Ther 51:465–473
Sanathanan LP, Peck CC (1991) The randomized concentration-controlled trial: an evaluation of its sample size efficiency. Control Clin Trials 12:780–794
Peck CC (1992) Population approach in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics: FDA view. In: Conference on new strategies in drug development and clinical evaluation: the population approach. Commission of the European Communities: European cooperation in the field of scientific and technical research, pp 157–168
Food and Drug Administration (1999) Guidance for industry: population pharmacokinetics
Hale MD, Gillespie WR, Gupta SK, Tuck B, Holford NH (1996) Clinical trial simulation: streamlining your drug development process. Appl Clin Trials 5:35–40
Monteleone JPR, Holford NHG, Kimko HC, Peck CC (2000) Simulation of clinical trials. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 40:209–234
Lesko L, Williams RL (1999) The question-based review—a conceptual framework for good review practices. Appl Clin Trials 56–62
Food and Drug Administration (2003) Concept paper End-of-Phase-2A meetings with sponsors regarding exposure-response and IND and NDA products
Food and Drug Administration (2008) Guidance for industry End-of-Phase 2A meetings
Pharmacometrics at FDA (2009) http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/CentersOffices/CDER/ucm167032.htm
21 C.F.R. (1977) § 320 Part 25 guidelines for the conduct of an in vivo bioavailability study. Fed Regist 42:1648
Food and Drug Administration (2003) Guidance for industry clinical bioavailability and bioequivalence studies for orally administered drug products—general considerations. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm070124.pdf
Food and Drug Administration (1994) Guidance for industry: dose-response information to support drug registration
Food and Drug Administration (2003) Guidance for industry exposure-response relationships—study design, data analysis, and regulatory applications
Peck C, Temple R, Collins J (1973) Understanding consequences of concurrent therapies. JAMA 269:1550–1552
Banfield C, O’Reilly RE, Chan E, Rowland M (1983) Phenylbutazone-warfarin interaction in man: further stereochemical and metabolic considerations. Br J Clin Pharmacol 16:669–675
Rowland M, Matin SB (1973) Kinetics of drug–drug interactions. J Pharmacokin Biopharm 1:553–568
Food and Drug Administration (1999) Guidance for industry in vivo drug metabolism/drug interaction studies—study design, data analysis, and recommendations for dosing and labeling
Food and Drug Administration (2006) Guidance for industry drug interaction studies—study design, data analysis, and implications for dosing and labeling
Food and Drug Administration (1997) Guidance for industry in vivo drug metabolism/drug interaction studies—study design, data analysis, and recommendations for dosing and labeling
Jeffords AJM (1997) Clarification of the number of required clinical investigations for approval. Report 105-43 of U. S. Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources on the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997, pp 30–31
Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997 (1997)
Jeffords AJM (1997) Pediatric studies of drugs. Report 105-43 of U. S. Senate Committee on Labor and Human Resources on the Food and Drug Administration Modernization Act of 1997, pp 51–52
Bliley TJ (1997) Report 105-310 of the U. S. House Committee on Commerce Report on the Prescription Drug User Fee Reauthorization and Drug Regulatory Modernization Act of 1997, pp 67–68
Food and Drug Administration (1998) Guidance for industry providing evidence of effectiveness for human drug and biological products
Peck CC, Wechsler J (2002) Report of a workshop on confirmatory evidence to support a single clinical trial for new drug approval. Drug Inf J 36:517–534
Benowitz N, Forsyth RP, Melmon KL, Rowland M (1974) Lidocaine disposition kinetics in monkey and manI. Prediction by a perfusion model. Clin Pharmacol Ther 16:87–98
Blakey GM, Nestorov IA, Arundel PA, Aarons LJ, Rowland M (1997) Quantitative structure-pharmacokinetics relationships: I. Development of a whole-body physiologically based model to characterize changes in the pharmacokinetics across a homologous series of barbiturates in the rat. J Pharmacokin Biopharm 25:277–312
Rodgers T, Rowland M (2007) Mechanistic approaches to volume of distribution predictions: understanding the processes. Pharm Res 24:918–933
Rodgers T, Leahy E, Rowland M (2005) Physiologically-based pharmacokinetic modeling 1: predicting the tissue distribution of moderate-to-strong bases. J Pharm Sci 94:1259–1276
Rostami-Hodjegan A, Tucker GT (2007) Simulation and prediction of in vivo drug metabolism in human populations from in vitro data. Nat Rev Drug Discov 6:140–148
Bischoff KB, Dedrick RL, Zaharko DS, Longstreth JA (1971) Methotrexate pharmacokinetics. J Pharm Sci 60:1128–1133
Clewell HJ, Andersen ME, Wills RJ, Latriano L (1997) A physiologically based pharmacokinetic model for retinoic acid and its metabolites. J Am Acad Dermatol 36:S77–S85
Ghosh TK (2000) Clinical pharmacology and biopharmaceutics review: NDA 21-108 0.02% Tretinoin Emollient Cream (RENOVA®). http://wwwaccessdatafdagov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2000/21-108_Renova_BioPharmrpdf, p 19
Balant L, Rowland M, Peck C (2004) Physiologically based pharmacokinetics in drug development and regulatory science: a workshop report. AAPS J 6:6–10
Oo C, Chen YC (2009) The need for multiple doses of 400 mg ketoconazole as a precipitant inhibitor of a CYP3A substrate in an in vivo drug–drug interaction study. J Clin Pharmacol 49:368–369
Zhao P, Ragueneau-Majlessi I, Zhang L, Strong JM, Reynolds KS, Levy RH, Thummel KE, Huang S-M (2009) Quantitative evaluation of pharmacokinetic inhibition of CYP3A substrates by ketoconazole: a simulation study. J Clin Pharmacol 49:351–359
Peck C, Rowland M, Tucker G (2011) Physiologically based pharmacokinetics in drug development and regulatory science. Annu Rev Pharmacol Toxicol 51:45–73
Huang W, Lee SL, Yu LX (2009) Mechanistic approaches to predicting oral drug absorption. AAPS J 11:217–224
Huang S-M, Strong JM, Zhang L, Reynolds KS, Nallani S, Temple R, Abraham S, Habet SA, Baweja RK, Burckart GJ, Chung S, Colangelo P, Frucht D, Green MD, Hepp P, Karnaukhova E, Ko HS, Lee JI, Marroum PJ, Norden JM, Qiu W, Rahman A, Sobel S, Stifano T, Thummel K, Wei XX, Yasuda S, Zheng JH, Zhao H, Lesko LJ (2008) New era in drug interaction evaluation: US Food and Drug Administration update on CYP enzymes, transporters, and the guidance process. J Clin Pharmacol 48:662–670
Huang S-M, Zhao H, Lee JI, Reynolds K, Zhang L, Temple R, Lesko LJ (2010) Therapeutic protein–drug interactions and implications for drug development. Clin Pharmacol Ther 87:497–503
Zhang L, Zhang YD, Zhao P, Huang S-M (2009) Predicting drug–drug interactions: an FDA perspective. AAPS J 11:300–306
Zhang L, Reynolds KS, Zhao P, Huang S-M (2010) Drug interactions evaluation: an integrated part of risk assessment of therapeutics. Toxicol Appl Pharmacol 243:134–145
Duan JZ, Jackson AJ, Zhao P (2010, in press) Bioavailability considerations in evaluating drug–drug interactions using the population pharmacokinetic approach. J Clin Pharmacol. doi:10.1177/0091270010372387
Zhao P, Zhang L, Huang S-M (2010) Complex drug interactions: significance and evaluation. In: Pang KS, Rodrigues AD, Peter RM (eds) Enzyme- and transporter-based drug–drug interactions: progress and future challenges. Springer, New York, 746 pp
Food and Drug Administration (2005) Guidance for industry clinical lactation studies—study design, data analysis, and recommendations for labeling. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/RegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm127505.pdf
European Medicines Agency (2008) EMEA workshop on modeling in paediatric medicines. http://wwwemaeuropaeu/meetings/conferences/1415apr08htm
Manolis E, Pons G (2009) Proposals for model-based paediatric medicinal development within the current European Union regulatory framework. Br J Clin Pharmacol 68:493–501
Garnett CE, Beasley N, Bhattaram VA, Jadhav PR, Madabushi N, Stockbridge N, Tornoe CW, Wang Y, Zhu H, Gobburu JVS (2008) Concentration-QT relationships play a key role in the evaluation of proarrhythmic risk during regulatory review. J Clin Pharmacol 48:13–18
Garnett C, Lee JY, Gobburu JVS (2011) U.S. FDA perspective: impact of modeling and simulation on regulatory decision making. In: Kimko HC, Peck CC (eds) Clinical trials simulation: applications and trends. Springer
Zhu H, Wang Y, Gobburu JV, Garnett CE (2010) Considerations for clinical trial design and data analyses of thorough QT studies using drug–drug interaction. J Clin Pharmacol 50:1106–1111
Bhattaram V, Siddiqui O, Kapcala L, Gobburu J (2009) Endpoints and analyses to discern disease-modifying drug effects in early Parkinson’s disease. AAPS J 11:456–464
Wang Y, Bhattaram VA, Jadhav PR, Lesko LJ, Madabushi R, Powell JR, Qiu W, Sun H, Yim DS, Zheng JJ, Gobburu JVS (2008) Leveraging prior quantitative knowledge to guide drug development decisions and regulatory science recommendations: impact of FDA pharmacometrics during 2004–2006. J Clin Pharmacol 48:146–156
Lappin G, Kuhnz W, Jochemsen R, Kneer J, Chaudhary A, Oosterhuis B, Drijfhout WJ, Rowland M, Garner RC (2006) Use of microdosing to predict pharmacokinetics at the therapeutic dose: Experience with 5 drugs[ast]. Clin Pharmacol Ther 80:203–215
Food and Drug Administration (2006) Guidance for industry, investigators, and reviewers exploratory IND studies
Goodsaid F, Frueh FW (2007) Implementing the U.S. FDA guidance on pharmacogenomic data submissions. Environ Mol Mutagen 48:354–358
Huang SM, Goodsaid F, Rahman A, Fruehand F, Lesko LJ (2006) Application of pharmacogenomics in clinical pharmacology. Toxicol Mech Methods 16:89–99
Sheiner LB (1991) The intellectual health of clinical drug evaluation. Clin Pharmacol Ther 50:4–9
Critical Path Initiative. Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (2006). <http://www.fda.gov/CriticalPath>
Sheiner LB (1997) Learning versus confirming in clinical drug development. Clin Pharmacol Ther 61:275–291
Peck CC, Rubin DB, Sheiner LB (2003) Hypothesis: a single clinical trial plus causal evidence of effectiveness is sufficient for drug approval. Clin Pharmacol Ther 74:481–490
Doblin RE (2000) Regulation of the medical use of psychedelics and marijuana. PhD, Harvard University, Cambridge
Bhattaram VA, Booth BP, Ramchandani RP, Beasley BN, Wang Y, Tandon V, Duan JZ, Baweja RK, Marroum PJ, Uppoor RS, Rahman NA, Sahajwalla CG, Powell JR, Mehta M, Gobburu JV (2005) Impact of pharmacometrics on drug approval and labeling decisions: a survey of 42 new drug applications. AAPS J 7:E503–E512
Bhattaram VA, Bonapace C, Chilukuri DM, Duan JZ, Garnett C, Gobburu JV, Jang SH, Kenna L, Lesko LJ, Madabushi R, Men Y, Powell JR, Qiu W, Ramchandani RP, Tornoe CW, Wang Y, Zheng JJ (2007) Impact of pharmacometric reviews on new drug approval and labeling decisions—a survey of 31 new drug applications submitted between 2005 and 2006. Clin Pharmacol Ther 81:213–221
Garnett C, Lee J-Y, Gobburu JVS (2011, in press) U.S. FDA perspective: impact of modeling and simulation on regulatory decision making. In: Clinical trials simulation: applications and trends. Springer
Gobburu VS (2010) Pharmacometrics 2020. J Clin Pharmacol 50(9):151S–157S
Miller R, Ewy W, Corrigan BW, Ouellet D, Hermann D, Kowalski KG, Lockwood P, Koup JR, Donevan S, El-Kattan A, Li CS, Werth JL, Feltner DD, Lalonde RL (2005) How modeling and simulation have enhanced decision making in new drug development. J Pharmackinet Pharmacodyn 32:185–197
Olson SC, Bockbrader H, Boyd RA, Cook J, Koup JR, Lalonde RL, Siedlik PH, Powell JR (2000) Impact of population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic analyses on the drug development process: experience at Parke–Davis. Clin Pharmacokinet 38:449–459
Reigner BG, Williams PE, Patel IH, Steimer JL, Peck C, van Brummelen P (1997) An evaluation of the integration of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic principles in clinical drug development. Experience within Hoffmann La Roche. Clin Pharmacokinet 33:142–152
Miller R, Ewy W, Corrigan BW, Ouellet D, Hermann D, Kowalski KG, Lockwood P, Koup JR, Donevan S, El-Kattan A, Li CS, Werth JL, Feltner DE, Lalonde RL (2005) How modeling and simulation have enhanced decision making in new drug development 2. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 32:185–197
Balant L, Rowland M, Peck C (2000) Optimizing the science of drug development: opportunities for better candidate selection and accelerated evaluation in humans. J Clin Pharm 40:803–814
Rowland M, Tozer TN (2006) Introduction to pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics: the quantitative basis of drug therapy. Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, Baltimore
Rowland M, Tozer TN (1980, 1988, 1995, 2011) Clinical pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics: concepts and applications. Wolters Kluwer Health, Lippincott, Williams and Wilkins
Huang S-M (October 1, 2009) Personal Communication
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Peck, C.C. Quantitative clinical pharmacology is transforming drug regulation. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 37, 617–628 (2010). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10928-010-9171-3
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10928-010-9171-3