Dataset Information

Are Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Models Reporting the Right C(max)? Central Venous Versus Peripheral Sampling Site.

ABSTRACT: Physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models can over-predict maximum plasma concentrations (C(max)) following intravenous administration. A proposed explanation is that invariably PBPK models report the concentration in the central venous compartment, rather than the site where the samples are drawn. The purpose of this study was to identify and validate potential corrective models based on anatomy and physiology governing the blood supply at the site of sampling and incorporate them into a PBPK platform. Four models were developed and scrutinised for their corrective potential. All assumed the peripheral sampling site concentration could be described by contributions from surrounding tissues and utilised tissue-specific concentration-time profiles reported from the full-PBPK model within the Simcyp Simulator. Predicted concentrations for the peripheral site were compared to the observed C(max). The models results were compared to clinical data for 15 studies over seven compounds (alprazolam, imipramine, metoprolol, midazolam, omeprazole, rosiglitazone and theophylline). The final model utilised tissue concentrations from adipose, skin, muscle and a contribution from artery. Predicted C(max) values considering the central venous compartment can over-predict the observed values up to 10-fold whereas the new sampling site predictions were within 2-fold of observed values. The model was particularly relevant for studies where traditional PBPK models over-predict early time point concentrations. A successful corrective model for C(max) prediction has been developed, subject to further validation. These models can be enrolled as built-up modules into PBPK platforms and potentially account for factors that may affect the initial mixing of the blood at the site of sampling.

SUBMITTER: Musther H

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4540731 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Sep

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Are Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Models Reporting the Right C(max)? Central Venous Versus Peripheral Sampling Site.

Musther Helen H Gill Katherine L KL Chetty Manoranjenni M Rostami-Hodjegan Amin A Rowland Malcolm M Jamei Masoud M

The AAPS journal 20150623 5

Physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models can over-predict maximum plasma concentrations (C(max)) following intravenous administration. A proposed explanation is that invariably PBPK models report the concentration in the central venous compartment, rather than the site where the samples are drawn. The purpose of this study was to identify and validate potential corrective models based on anatomy and physiology governing the blood supply at the site of sampling and incorporate them int ...[more]

PMID: 26100012

Similar Datasets

Project description:The binding of drugs to catheters can be a source variation in dosing chemotherapeutics. Drug contamination from the dosing central venous line (CVL) can impact the reporting of pharmacokinetic (PK) results and analysis. Peripheral venipuncture avoids binding complications from the CVL but dissuades patients from enrolling. Our group has developed a catheter clearing procedure to minimize the extent of contamination so that dosing and sampling from the CVL can ensue, promoting patient willingness to participate in phase I pediatric oncology trials.To develop a population pharmacokinetic model of actinomycin-D (AMD) in children with cancer incorporating expressions for drug contamination from PK samples obtained via indwelling CVLs and to evaluate the efficiency of a catheter clearing procedure in removing contamination as well as the impact of contamination on PK results.A dataset of 199 AMD plasma concentration measurements from 36 patients (age 1.6-20.3 years) was analyzed using nonlinear mixed-effects modeling. Quantitative modeling approaches, including baseline contamination model, covariate model, and catheter clearance model, were evaluated to describe catheter contamination. Monte Carlo simulations mimicking a prospective study in children with cancer were performed to assess the performance of the final model and impact of catheter contamination on PK reporting.The PK of AMD was best described by a linear 3-compartment model with first-order elimination. A baseline contamination model including a contamination factor proportional to the model-predicted concentration for samples obtained from central catheters was chosen as the most parsimonious and accurate among competing models. The final model parameters were allometrically scaled to a 70 kg person. The estimated mean parameter values were 11 L/h, 5.79, 24.2, 490 L, 17.7, and 42.8 L/h for total clearance, central volume of distribution, peripheral volume 1, peripheral volume 2, inter-compartmental clearance 1, and inter-compartmental clearance 2, respectively. The proportional contamination factor was 19.3 % immediately post-drug administration and decreased at a first-order rate of 0.0932 h(-1). Simulations precisely re-estimated kinetic parameters with catheter contamination adjustment. Large uncertainty and poor estimation were observed when contamination was ignored.Drug contamination from sampling catheter can impact AMD PK results and should be accounted for in the analysis. We provide a framework for evaluating catheter contamination and guidance on adjustment in the PK model.

Project description:BACKGROUND: Propofol is widely used for both short-term anesthesia and long-term sedation. It has unusual pharmacokinetics because of its high lipid solubility. The standard approach to describing the pharmacokinetics is by a multi-compartmental model. This paper presents the first detailed human physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model for propofol. METHODS: PKQuest, a freely distributed software routine http://www.pkquest.com, was used for all the calculations. The "standard human" PBPK parameters developed in previous applications is used. It is assumed that the blood and tissue binding is determined by simple partition into the tissue lipid, which is characterized by two previously determined set of parameters: 1) the value of the propofol oil/water partition coefficient; 2) the lipid fraction in the blood and tissues. The model was fit to the individual experimental data of Schnider et. al., Anesthesiology, 1998; 88:1170 in which an initial bolus dose was followed 60 minutes later by a one hour constant infusion. RESULTS: The PBPK model provides a good description of the experimental data over a large range of input dosage, subject age and fat fraction. Only one adjustable parameter (the liver clearance) is required to describe the constant infusion phase for each individual subject. In order to fit the bolus injection phase, for 10 or the 24 subjects it was necessary to assume that a fraction of the bolus dose was sequestered and then slowly released from the lungs (characterized by two additional parameters). The average weighted residual error (WRE) of the PBPK model fit to the both the bolus and infusion phases was 15%; similar to the WRE for just the constant infusion phase obtained by Schnider et. al. using a 6-parameter NONMEM compartmental model. CONCLUSION: A PBPK model using standard human parameters and a simple description of tissue binding provides a good description of human propofol kinetics. The major advantage of a PBPK model is that it can be used to predict the changes in kinetics produced by variations in physiological parameters. As one example, the model simulation of the changes in pharmacokinetics for morbidly obese subjects is discussed.

Dataset Information

Are Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Models Reporting the Right C(max)? Central Venous Versus Peripheral Sampling Site.

Publications

Are Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Models Reporting the Right C(max)? Central Venous Versus Peripheral Sampling Site.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets