Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Disease System Analysis: Basic Disease Progression Models in Degenerative Disease

  • Research Paper
  • Published:
Pharmaceutical Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Purpose

To describe the disease status of degenerative diseases (i.e., type 2 diabetes mellitus, Parkinson’s disease) as function of disease process and treatment effects, a family of disease progression models is introduced.

Methods

Disease progression is described using a progression rate (R dp ) acting on the synthesis or elimination parameters of the indirect response model. Symptomatic effects act as disease-dependent or -independent effects on the synthesis or elimination parameters. Protective drug effects act as disease dependent or -independent effects on R dp .

Results

Simulations with the ten disease models show distinctly different signature profiles of treatment effects on disease status. Symptomatic effects result in improvement of disease status with a subsequent deterioration. Treatment cessation results in a disease status equal to the situation where treatment had not been applied. Protective effects result in a lasting reduction, or even reversal, of the disease progression rate and the resulting disease status during the treatment period. After cessation of treatment the natural disease course will continue from the disease status at that point.

Conclusion

Disease system analysis constitutes a scientific basis for the distinction between symptomatic versus protective drug effects in relation to specific disease processes as well as the identification of the exposure-response relationship during the time-course of disease.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. L. B. Sheiner. (1997) ArticleTitleLearning versus confirming in clinical drug development Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 61 275–291

    Google Scholar 

  2. A. Sharma W. J. Jusko. (1996) ArticleTitleCharacterization of four basic models of indirect pharmacodynamic responses J. Pharmacokinet. Biopharm. 24 611–635

    Google Scholar 

  3. K. P. Zuideveld H. J. Maas N. Treijtel J. Hulshof P. H. Graaf Particlevan der L. A. Peletier M. Danhof. (2001) ArticleTitleA set-point model with oscillatory behavior predicts the time course of 8-OH-DPAT-induced hypothermia Am. J. Physiol., Regul. Integr. Comp. Physiol. 281 R2059–R2071

    Google Scholar 

  4. N. L. Dayneka V. Garg W. J. Jusko. (1993) ArticleTitleComparison of four basic models of indirect pharmacodynamic responses J. Pharmacokinet. Biopharm. 21 457–478

    Google Scholar 

  5. W. J. Jusko H. C. Ko. (1994) ArticleTitlePhysiologic indirect response models characterize diverse types of pharmacodynamic effects Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 56 406–419

    Google Scholar 

  6. P. H. Graaf ParticleVan der M. Danhof. (1997) ArticleTitleAnalysis of drug–receptor interactions in vivo: a new approach in pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic modelling Int. J. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 35 442–446

    Google Scholar 

  7. P. H. Graaf ParticleVan Der E. A. Schaick ParticleVan R. A. Math-ot A. P. Ijzerman M. Danhof. (1997) ArticleTitleMechanism-based pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic modeling of the effects of N6-cyclopentyladenosine analogs on heart rate in rat: estimation of in vivo operational affinity and efficacy at adenosine A1 receptors J.Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 283 809–816

    Google Scholar 

  8. P. H. Graaf ParticleVan der E. A. Schaick ParticleVan S. A. Visser H. J. De Greef ParticleDe A. P. Ijzerman M. Danhof. (1999) ArticleTitleMechanism-based pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic modeling of antilipolytic effects of adenosine A(1) receptor agonists in rats: prediction of tissue-dependent efficacy in vivo J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 290 702–709

    Google Scholar 

  9. S. A. Visser D. R. Huntjens P. H. Graaf Particlevan der L. A. Peletier M. Danhof. (2003) ArticleTitleMechanism-based modeling of the pharmacodynamic interaction of alphaxalone and midazolam in rats J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 307 765–775

    Google Scholar 

  10. S. A. Visser C. J. Smulders B. P. Reijers P. H. Graaf ParticleVan der L. A. Peletier M. Danhof. (2002) ArticleTitleMechanism-based pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic modeling of concentration-dependent hysteresis and biphasic electroencephalogram effects of alphaxalone in rats J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 302 1158–1167

    Google Scholar 

  11. K. P. Zuideveld J. Rusic-Pavletic H. J. Maas L. A. Peletier P. H. Graaf ParticleVan der M. Danhof. (2002) ArticleTitlePharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic modeling of buspirone and its metabolite 1-(2-pyrimidinyl)-piperazine in rats J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 303 1130–1137

    Google Scholar 

  12. K. P. Zuideveld N. Treijtel H. J. Maas J. M. Gubbens-Stibbe L. A. Peletier P. H. Graaf Particlevan Der M. Danhof. (2002) ArticleTitleA competitive interaction model predicts the effect of WAY-100,635 on the time course of R-(+)-8-hydroxy-2-(di-n-propylamino)tetralin-induced hypothermia J. Pharmacol. Exp. Ther. 300 330–338

    Google Scholar 

  13. P. L. Chan N. H. Holford. (2001) ArticleTitleDrug treatment effects on disease progression Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 41 625–659

    Google Scholar 

  14. N. H. Holford K. Peace. (1994) ArticleTitleThe effect of tacrine and lecithin in Alzheimer’s disease. A population pharmacodynamic analysis of five clinical trials Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 47 17–23

    Google Scholar 

  15. N. H. Holford K. Peace. (1992) ArticleTitleMethodologic aspects of a population pharmacodynamic model for cognitive effects in Alzheimer patients treated with tacrine Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 89 11466–11470

    Google Scholar 

  16. N. H. Holford K. E. Peace. (1992) ArticleTitleResults and validation of a population pharmacodynamic model for cognitive effects in Alzheimer patients treated with tacrine Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 89 11471–11475

    Google Scholar 

  17. N. H. G. Holford. Understanding disease progression using clinical pharmacology. In M. Danhof, M. Karlsson, and R. J. Powell (eds.), Measurement and Kinetics of in vivo Drug Effects, Leiden/Amsterdam Center for Drug Research, Leiden. Advances in Simultaneous Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Modelling, 4th International Symposium, 24–27 April, Noordwijkerhout, 2002.

  18. A. J. Stoessl C. S. Lee R. Fuente-Fernandez Particlede la (2003) ArticleTitleNew concepts and tools in imaging for the study of neurodegenerative disease J. Neural. Transm., Suppl. 65 157–166

    Google Scholar 

  19. L. J. Lesko A. J. Atkinson Jr. SuffixJr (2001) ArticleTitleUse of biomarkers and surrogate endpoints in drug development and regulatory decision making: criteria, validation, strategies Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 41 347–366

    Google Scholar 

  20. W. A. Colburn. (2003) ArticleTitleBiomarkers in drug discovery and development: from target identification through drug marketing J. Clin. Pharmacol. 43 329–341

    Google Scholar 

  21. W. A. Colburn J. W. Lee. (2003) ArticleTitleBiomarkers, validation and pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic modelling Clin. Pharmacokinet. 42 997–1022

    Google Scholar 

  22. A. J. Atkinson W. A. Colburn V. DeGruttola D. L. DeMets G. J. Downing D. F. Hoth J. A. Oates C. C. Peck R. T. Schooley B. A. Spilker J. Woodcock S. L. Zeger. (2001) ArticleTitleBiomarkers and surrogate endpoints in clinical trials: preferred definitions and conceptual framework Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 69 89–95

    Google Scholar 

  23. S. E. Ilyin S. M. Belkowski C. R. Plata-Salaman. (2004) ArticleTitleBiomarker discovery and validation: technologies and integrative approaches Trends Biotechnol. 22 411–416

    Google Scholar 

  24. L. J. Lesko M. Rowland C. C. Peck T. F. Blaschke. (2000) ArticleTitleOptimizing the science of drug development: opportunities for better candidate selection and accelerated evaluation in humans Pharm. Res. 17 1335–1344

    Google Scholar 

  25. O. Sander G. Herborn E. Bock R. Rau. (1999) ArticleTitleProspective six year follow up of patients withdrawn from a randomised study comparing parenteral gold salt and methotrexate Ann. Rheum. Dis. 58 281–287

    Google Scholar 

  26. S. E. Nissen E. M. Tuzcu P. Schoenhagen B. G. Brown P. Ganz R. A. Vogel T. Crowe G. Howard C. J. Cooper B. Brodie C. L. Grines A. N. DeMaria. (2004) ArticleTitleEffect of intensive compared with moderate lipid-lowering therapy on progression of coronary atherosclerosis: a randomized controlled trial JAMA 291 1071–1080

    Google Scholar 

  27. M. Crnkic B. Mansson L. Larsson P. Geborek D. Heinegard T. Saxne. (2003) ArticleTitleSerum cartilage oligomeric matrix protein (COMP) decreases in rheumatoid arthritis patients treated with infliximab or etanercept Arthritis Res. Ther. 5 R181–R185

    Google Scholar 

  28. F. C. Breedveld P. Emery E. Keystone K. Patel D. E. Furst J.R. Kalden E. W. St Clair M. Weisman J. Smolen P. E. Lipsky R. N. Maini. (2004) ArticleTitleInfliximab in active early rheumatoid arthritis Ann. Rheum. Dis. 63 149–155

    Google Scholar 

  29. N. H. Holford, P. L. Chan, and J. Nutt. Disease progression in Parkinson’s disease—evidence for protective effects of drug treatment. 13th Population Approach Group Conference, Uppsala, Sweden, http://www.page-meeting.org, 2004.

  30. C. J. Haagsma P. L. Riel Particlevan A. J. Jong Particlede L. B. Putte Particlevan de (1997) ArticleTitleCombination of sulphasalazine and methotrexate versus the single components in early rheumatoid arthritis: a randomized, controlled, double-blind, 52 week clinical trial Br. J. Rheumatol. 36 1082–1088

    Google Scholar 

  31. E. N. Jonsson L. B. Sheiner. (2002) ArticleTitleMore efficient clinical trials through use of scientific model-based statistical tests Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 72 603–614

    Google Scholar 

  32. L. B. Sheiner. (2002) ArticleTitleIs intent-to-treat analysis always (ever) enough? Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 54 203–211

    Google Scholar 

  33. L. B. Sheiner D. B. Rubin. (1995) ArticleTitleIntention-to-treat analysis and the goals of clinical trials Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 57 6–15

    Google Scholar 

  34. K. P. Zuideveld A. Gestel Particlevan L. A. Peletier P. H. Graaf ParticleVan der M. Danhof. (2002) ArticleTitlePharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic modelling of the hypothermic and corticosterone effects of the 5-HT1A receptor agonist flesinoxan Eur. J. Pharmacol. 445 43–54

    Google Scholar 

  35. N. Frey C. Laveille M. Paraire M. Francillard N. H. Holford R. Jochemsen. (2003) ArticleTitlePopulation PKPD modelling of the long-term hypoglycaemic effect of gliclazide given as a once-a-day modified release (MR) formulation Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 55 147–157

    Google Scholar 

  36. P. Jenner. (2003) ArticleTitleDopamine agonists, receptor selectivity and dyskinesia induction in Parkinson’s disease Curr. Opin. Neurol. 16 S3–S7

    Google Scholar 

  37. P. Jenner. (2002) ArticleTitlePharmacology of dopamine agonists in the treatment of Parkinson’s disease Neurology 58 S1–S8

    Google Scholar 

  38. C. E. Clarke M. Guttman. (2002) ArticleTitleDopamine agonist monotherapy in Parkinson’s disease Lancet 360 1767–1769

    Google Scholar 

  39. A. H. Schapira. (2004) ArticleTitleDisease modification in Parkinson’s disease Lancet Neurol. 3 362–368

    Google Scholar 

  40. T. H. Johnston J. M. Brotchie. (2004) ArticleTitleDrugs in development for Parkinson’s disease Curr. Opin. Investig. Drugs 5 720–726

    Google Scholar 

  41. W. C. Koller M. G. Cersosimo. (2004) ArticleTitleNeuroprotection in Parkinson’s disease: an elusive goal Curr. Neurol. Neurosci. Rep. 4 277–283

    Google Scholar 

  42. C. W. Olanow. (2004) ArticleTitleThe scientific basis for the current treatment of Parkinson’s disease Annu. Rev. Med. 55 41–60

    Google Scholar 

  43. D. B. Campbell R. Lavielle C. Nathan. (1991) ArticleTitleThe mode of action and clinical pharmacology of gliclazide: a review Diabetes Res. Clin. Pract. 14 S21–S36

    Google Scholar 

  44. G. Pillai R. Gieschke T. Goggin P. Jacqmin R. C. Schimmer J. L. Steimer. (2004) ArticleTitleA semimechanistic and mechanistic population PK–PD model for biomarker response to ibandronate, a new bisphosphonate for the treatment of osteoporosis Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 58 618–631

    Google Scholar 

  45. E. Abadie D. Ethgen B. Avouac G. Bouvenot J. Branco O. Bruyere G. Calvo J. P. Devogelaer R. L. Dreiser G. Herrero-Beaumont A. Kahan G. Kreutz A. Laslop E. M. Lemmel G. Nuki L. Putte ParticleVan De L. Vanhaelst J. Y. Reginster. (2004) ArticleTitleRecommendations for the use of new methods to assess the efficacy of disease-modifying drugs in the treatment of osteoarthritis Osteoarthr. Cartil. 12 263–268

    Google Scholar 

  46. P. Richette T. Bardin. (2004) ArticleTitleStructure-modifying agents for osteoarthritis: an update Jt. Bone Spine 71 18–23

    Google Scholar 

  47. J. DeJongh, D. Eckland, R. J. Heine, and M. Danhof. Pioglitazone efficacy in NIDDM (diabetes type II) therapy: unification of two glycemic control markers by a cascading disease progression model. In M. Danhof, M. Karlsson, and R. J. Powell (eds.), Measurement and Kinetics of in vivo Drug Effects, Leiden/Amsterdam Center for Drug Research, Leiden. Advances in Simultaneous Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Modelling, 4th International Symposium, 24–27 April, Noordwijkerhout, 2002.

  48. W. DeWinter, T. M. Post, J. DeJongh, R. Urquhart, I. Moules, D. Eckland, and M. Danhof. A mechanistic disease progression model for type 2 diabetes mellitus and pioglitazone treatment effects. 13th Population Approach Group Conference, Uppsala, Sweden, http://www.page-meeting.org, 2004.

  49. W. DeWinter, J. DeJongh, B. Ploeger, R. Urquhart, I. Moules, D. Eckland, and M. Danhof. Disease progression modelling; application of population analysis to distinguish between symptomatic and protective treatment effects. 12th Population Approach Group Conference, Verona, Italy, http://www.page-meeting.org, 2003.

  50. J. Gabrielsson D. Weiner. (2000) Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Data Analysis: Concepts and Applications Apothekarsocieteten, Swedish Pharmaceutical Society Stockholm

    Google Scholar 

  51. D. E. Mager E. Wyska W. J. Jusko. (2003) ArticleTitleDiversity of mechanism-based pharmacodynamic models Drug Metab. Dispos. 31 510–518

    Google Scholar 

  52. A. Sharma W. J. Jusko. (1998) ArticleTitleCharacteristics of indirect pharmacodynamic models and applications to clinical drug responses Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 45 229–239

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Leiden Experts on Advanced Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Teun M. Post, Jan I. Freijer, Joost DeJongh & Meindert Danhof

  2. Leiden/Amsterdam Center for Drug Research, Division of Pharmacology, Leiden University, P.O. Box 9502, 2300 RA, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Joost DeJongh & Meindert Danhof

Authors
  1. Teun M. Post
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jan I. Freijer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Joost DeJongh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Meindert Danhof
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Meindert Danhof.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Post, T.M., Freijer, J.I., DeJongh, J. et al. Disease System Analysis: Basic Disease Progression Models in Degenerative Disease. Pharm Res 22, 1038–1049 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11095-005-5641-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11095-005-5641-5

Key Words

Search

Navigation