Cargando…

A comparative evaluation of models to predict human intestinal metabolism from nonclinical data

Extensive gut metabolism is often associated with the risk of low and variable bioavailability. The prediction of the fraction of drug escaping gut wall metabolism as well as transporter‐mediated secretion (F (g)) has been challenged by the lack of appropriate preclinical models. The purpose of this...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Yau, Estelle, Petersson, Carl, Dolgos, Hugues, Peters, Sheila Annie
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5412686/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28152562
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bdd.2068
_version_ 1783233057198702592
author Yau, Estelle
Petersson, Carl
Dolgos, Hugues
Peters, Sheila Annie
author_facet Yau, Estelle
Petersson, Carl
Dolgos, Hugues
Peters, Sheila Annie
author_sort Yau, Estelle
collection PubMed
description Extensive gut metabolism is often associated with the risk of low and variable bioavailability. The prediction of the fraction of drug escaping gut wall metabolism as well as transporter‐mediated secretion (F (g)) has been challenged by the lack of appropriate preclinical models. The purpose of this study is to compare the performance of models that are widely employed in the pharmaceutical industry today to estimate F (g) and, based on the outcome, to provide recommendations for the prediction of human F (g) during drug discovery and early drug development. The use of in vitro intrinsic clearance from human liver microsomes (HLM) in three mechanistic models – the ADAM, Q (gut) and Competing Rates – was evaluated for drugs whose metabolism is dominated by CYP450s, assuming that the effect of transporters is negligible. The utility of rat as a model for human F (g) was also explored. The ADAM, Q (gut) and Competing Rates models had comparable prediction success (70%, 74%, 69%, respectively) and bias (AFE = 1.26, 0.74 and 0.81, respectively). However, the ADAM model showed better accuracy compared with the Q (gut) and Competing Rates models (RMSE =0.20 vs 0.30 and 0.25, respectively). Rat is not a good model (prediction success =32%, RMSE =0.48 and AFE = 0.44) as it seems systematically to under‐predict human F (g). Hence, we would recommend the use of rat to identify the need for F (g) assessment, followed by the use of HLM in simple models to predict human F (g). © 2017 Merck KGaA. Biopharmaceutics & Drug Disposition Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5412686
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-54126862017-05-19 A comparative evaluation of models to predict human intestinal metabolism from nonclinical data Yau, Estelle Petersson, Carl Dolgos, Hugues Peters, Sheila Annie Biopharm Drug Dispos Special Issue Articles Extensive gut metabolism is often associated with the risk of low and variable bioavailability. The prediction of the fraction of drug escaping gut wall metabolism as well as transporter‐mediated secretion (F (g)) has been challenged by the lack of appropriate preclinical models. The purpose of this study is to compare the performance of models that are widely employed in the pharmaceutical industry today to estimate F (g) and, based on the outcome, to provide recommendations for the prediction of human F (g) during drug discovery and early drug development. The use of in vitro intrinsic clearance from human liver microsomes (HLM) in three mechanistic models – the ADAM, Q (gut) and Competing Rates – was evaluated for drugs whose metabolism is dominated by CYP450s, assuming that the effect of transporters is negligible. The utility of rat as a model for human F (g) was also explored. The ADAM, Q (gut) and Competing Rates models had comparable prediction success (70%, 74%, 69%, respectively) and bias (AFE = 1.26, 0.74 and 0.81, respectively). However, the ADAM model showed better accuracy compared with the Q (gut) and Competing Rates models (RMSE =0.20 vs 0.30 and 0.25, respectively). Rat is not a good model (prediction success =32%, RMSE =0.48 and AFE = 0.44) as it seems systematically to under‐predict human F (g). Hence, we would recommend the use of rat to identify the need for F (g) assessment, followed by the use of HLM in simple models to predict human F (g). © 2017 Merck KGaA. Biopharmaceutics & Drug Disposition Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2017-04-18 2017-04 /pmc/articles/PMC5412686/ /pubmed/28152562 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bdd.2068 Text en © 2017 Merck KGaA. Biopharmaceutics & Drug Disposition Published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes.
spellingShingle Special Issue Articles
Yau, Estelle
Petersson, Carl
Dolgos, Hugues
Peters, Sheila Annie
A comparative evaluation of models to predict human intestinal metabolism from nonclinical data
title A comparative evaluation of models to predict human intestinal metabolism from nonclinical data
title_full A comparative evaluation of models to predict human intestinal metabolism from nonclinical data
title_fullStr A comparative evaluation of models to predict human intestinal metabolism from nonclinical data
title_full_unstemmed A comparative evaluation of models to predict human intestinal metabolism from nonclinical data
title_short A comparative evaluation of models to predict human intestinal metabolism from nonclinical data
title_sort comparative evaluation of models to predict human intestinal metabolism from nonclinical data
topic Special Issue Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5412686/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28152562
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/bdd.2068
work_keys_str_mv AT yauestelle acomparativeevaluationofmodelstopredicthumanintestinalmetabolismfromnonclinicaldata
AT peterssoncarl acomparativeevaluationofmodelstopredicthumanintestinalmetabolismfromnonclinicaldata
AT dolgoshugues acomparativeevaluationofmodelstopredicthumanintestinalmetabolismfromnonclinicaldata
AT peterssheilaannie acomparativeevaluationofmodelstopredicthumanintestinalmetabolismfromnonclinicaldata
AT yauestelle comparativeevaluationofmodelstopredicthumanintestinalmetabolismfromnonclinicaldata
AT peterssoncarl comparativeevaluationofmodelstopredicthumanintestinalmetabolismfromnonclinicaldata
AT dolgoshugues comparativeevaluationofmodelstopredicthumanintestinalmetabolismfromnonclinicaldata
AT peterssheilaannie comparativeevaluationofmodelstopredicthumanintestinalmetabolismfromnonclinicaldata