Evidence map›Paper›PMID 21456631›Full record

ArticleClinical pharmacokinetics2011

Towards a better prediction of peak concentration, volume of distribution and half-life after oral drug administration in man, using allometry.

Vikash K Sinha, Karin Vaarties, Stefan S De Buck, Luca A Fenu, Marjoleen Nijsen, Ron A H J Gilissen, Wendy Sanderson, Kelly Van Uytsel, Eva Hoeben, Achiel Van Peer and 2 more

Abstract readEvaluation Study
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Clinical pharmacokinetics, 2011. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
1.1field-weighted citation impact, top 21% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 21 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 4 institutions in 4 countries.

Vikash K SinhaClinical Pharmacology, Janssen Research and Development, a division of Janssen Pharmaceutica NV, Beerse, Belgium. vsinha@its.jnj.com
Karin Vaarties
Stefan S De Buck
Luca A Fenu
Marjoleen Nijsen
Ron A H J Gilissen
Wendy Sanderson
Kelly Van Uytsel
Eva Hoeben
Achiel Van Peer
Claire E Mackie
Johan W Smit
Janssen (Belgium) · BEAbbott Fund · USNovartis (Switzerland) · CHUppsala University · SE

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundIt is imperative that new drugs demonstrate adequate pharmacokinetic properties, allowing an optimal safety margin and convenient dosing regimens in clinical practice, which then lead to better patient compliance. Such pharmacokinetic properties include suitable peak (maximum) plasma drug concentration (C(max)), area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) and a suitable half-life (t(½)). The C(max) and t(½) following oral drug administration are functions of the oral clearance (CL/F) and apparent volume of distribution during the terminal phase by the oral route (V(z)/F), each of which may be predicted and combined to estimate C(max) and t(½). Allometric scaling is a widely used methodology in the pharmaceutical industry to predict human pharmacokinetic parameters such as clearance and volume of distribution. In our previous published work, we have evaluated the use of allometry for prediction of CL/F and AUC. In this paper we describe the evaluation of different allometric scaling approaches for the prediction of C(max), V(z)/F and t(½) after oral drug administration in man.

methodsTwenty-nine compounds developed at Janssen Research and Development (a division of Janssen Pharmaceutica NV), covering a wide range of physicochemical and pharmacokinetic properties, were selected. The C(max) following oral dosing of a compound was predicted using (i) simple allometry alone; (ii) simple allometry along with correction factors such as plasma protein binding (PPB), maximum life-span potential or brain weight (reverse rule of exponents, unbound C(max) approach); and (iii) an indirect approach using allometrically predicted CL/F and V(z)/F and absorption rate constant (k(a)). The k(a) was estimated from (i) in vivo pharmacokinetic experiments in preclinical species; and (ii) predicted effective permeability in man (P(eff)), using a Caco-2 permeability assay. The V(z)/F was predicted using allometric scaling with or without PPB correction. The t(½) was estimated from the allometrically predicted parameters CL/F and V(z)/F. Predictions were deemed adequate when errors were within a 2-fold range.

resultsC(max) and t(½) could be predicted within a 2-fold error range for 59% and 66% of the tested compounds, respectively, using allometrically predicted CL/F and V(z)/F. The best predictions for C(max) were obtained when k(a) values were calculated from the Caco-2 permeability assay. The V(z)/F was predicted within a 2-fold error range for 72% of compounds when PPB correction was applied as the correction factor for scaling.

conclusionsWe conclude that (i) C(max) and t(½) are best predicted by indirect scaling approaches (using allometrically predicted CL/F and V(z)/F and accounting for k(a) derived from permeability assay); and (ii) the PPB is an important correction factor for the prediction of V(z)/F by using allometric scaling. Furthermore, additional work is warranted to understand the mechanisms governing the processes underlying determination of C(max) so that the empirical approaches can be fine-tuned further.

Indexed as

Body WeightModels, BiologicalPharmacokineticsAdministration, OralAnimalsCaco-2 CellsDogsHalf-LifeHumansIntestinal AbsorptionIntestinal MucosaMacaca fascicularisMetabolic Clearance RateMicePermeabilityPharmaceutical PreparationsPharmaceutical Preparations

Identifiers

PMID21456631
OpenAlexW2075849144

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.