Can Mechanistic Static Models for Drug-Drug Interactions Support Regulatory Filing for Study Waivers and Label Recommendations?

BACKGROUND AND

objectiveMechanistic static and dynamic physiologically based pharmacokinetic models are used in clinical drug development to assess the risk of drug-drug interactions (DDIs). Currently, the use of mechanistic static models is restricted to screening DDI risk for an investigational drug, while dynamic physiologically based pharmacokinetic models are used for quantitative predictions of DDIs to support regulatory filing. As physiologically based pharmacokinetic model development by sponsors as well as a review of models by regulators require considerable resources, we explored the possibility of using mechanistic static models to support regulatory filing, using representative cases of successful physiologically based pharmacokinetic submissions to the US Food and Drug Administration under different classes of applications.

methodsDrug-drug interaction predictions with mechanistic static models were done for representative cases in the different classes of applications using the same data and modelling workflow as described in the Food and Drug Administration clinical pharmacology reviews. We investigated the hypothesis that the use of unbound average steady-state concentrations of modulators as driver concentrations in the mechanistic static models should lead to the same conclusions as those from physiologically based pharmacokinetic modelling for non-dynamic measures of DDI risk assessment such as the area under the plasma concentration-time curve ratio, provided the same input data are employed for the interacting drugs.

resultsDrug-drug interaction predictions of area under the plasma concentration-time curve ratios using mechanistic static models were mostly comparable to those reported in the Food and Drug Administration reviews using physiologically based pharmacokinetic models for all representative cases in the different classes of applications.

conclusionsThe results reported in this study should encourage the use of models that best fit an intended purpose, limiting the use of physiologically based pharmacokinetic models to those applications that leverage its unique strengths, such as what-if scenario testing to understand the effect of dose staggering, evaluating the role of uptake and efflux transporters, extrapolating DDI effects from studied to unstudied populations, or assessing the impact of DDIs on the exposure of a victim drug with concurrent mechanisms. With this first step, we hope to trigger a scientific discussion on the value of a routine comparison of the two methods for regulatory submissions to potentially create a best practice that could help identify examples where the use of dynamic changes in modulator concentrations could make a difference to DDI risk assessment.