Evidence map›Paper›PMID 32198137›Full record

ArticleThe Journal of pharmacology and experimental therapeutics2020

Mechanistic PBPK Modeling of Urine pH Effect on Renal and Systemic Disposition of Methamphetamine and Amphetamine.

Weize Huang, Lindsay C Czuba, Nina Isoherranen

Open access · bronzeAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in The Journal of pharmacology and experimental therapeutics, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
10citing papers in PubMed
2.3field-weighted citation impact, top 14% 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

10 citing papers in PubMed, 20 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Role of metabolites in drug-drug interactions.Drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics · 2026
    Review
  2. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling of small molecules: How much progress have we made?Drug metabolism and disposition: the biological fate of chemicals · 2025
    Review
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. 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

3 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.

Weize HuangDepartment of Pharmaceutics, School of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.ORCID 0000-0001-5903-721X
Lindsay C CzubaDepartment of Pharmaceutics, School of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.ORCID 0000-0001-9142-5706
Nina IsoherranenDepartment of Pharmaceutics, School of Pharmacy, University of Washington, Seattle, Washington ni2@uw.edu.ORCID 0000-0002-9548-3126
University of Washington · US

Funding

Understanding Fetal Exposure to Cannabinoids Through In Vitro and In Vivo StudiesP01DA032507 · NIDA · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI UNADKAT, JASHVANT D · 2013 to 2023
$12.4M
Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism Training ProgramT32DK007247 · NIDDK · UNIVERSITY OF WASHINGTON · PI GREGORY J MORTON, KRISTINA Marie UTZSCHNEIDER · 1986 to 2026
$10.0M
NIDA NIH HHS P01 DA032507NIDDK NIH HHS T32 DK007247
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The effect of urine pH on renal excretion and systemic disposition has been observed for many drugs and metabolites. When urine pH is altered, tubular ionization, passive reabsorption, renal clearance, and systemic exposure of drugs and metabolites may all change dramatically, raising clinically significant concerns. Surprisingly, the urine pH effect on drug disposition is not routinely explored in humans, and regulatory agencies have neither developed guidance on this issue nor required industry to conduct pertinent human trials. In this study, we hypothesized that physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling could be used as a cost-effective method to examine potential urine pH effect on drug and metabolite disposition. Our previously developed and verified mechanistic kidney model was integrated with a full-body PBPK model to simulate renal clearance and area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) with varying urine pH statuses using methamphetamine and amphetamine as model compounds. We first developed and verified drug models for methamphetamine and amphetamine under normal urine pH condition [absolute average fold error (AAFE) < 1.25 at study level]. Then, acidic and alkaline urine scenarios were simulated. Our simulation results show that the renal excretion and plasma concentration-time profiles for methamphetamine and amphetamine could be recapitulated under different urine pH (AAFE < 2 at individual level). The methamphetamine-amphetamine parent-metabolite full-body PBPK model also successfully simulated amphetamine plasma concentration-time profiles (AAFE < 1.25 at study level) and amphetamine/methamphetamine urinary concentration ratios (AAFE < 2 at individual level) after dosing methamphetamine. This demonstrates that our mechanistic PBPK model can predict urine pH effect on systemic and urinary disposition of drugs and metabolites. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: Our study shows that integrating mechanistic kidney model with full-body physiologically based pharmacokinetic model can predict the magnitude of alteration in renal excretion and area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC) of drugs and metabolites when urine pH is changed. This provides a cost-effective method to evaluate the likelihood of renal and systemic disposition changes due to varying urine pH. This is important because multiple drugs and diseases can alter urine pH, leading to quantitatively and clinically significant changes in drug and metabolite disposition that may require adjustment of therapy.

Indexed as

AmphetamineArea Under CurveHumansHydrogen-Ion ConcentrationKidneyMethamphetamineModels, BiologicalRenal EliminationAmphetamineMethamphetamine

Identifiers

PMID32198137
PMCPMC7250368
OpenAlexW3012046587

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.