4.5 Article

Influence of Plasma Protein Binding on Pharmacodynamics: Estimation of In Vivo Receptor Affinities of β Blockers Using a New Mechanism-Based PK-PD Modelling Approach

Journal

JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES
Volume 98, Issue 10, Pages 3816-3828

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1002/jps.21658

Keywords

beta-blockers; isoprenaline; tachycardia; heart rate; plasma protein binding NONMEM; population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modelling; agonist-antagonist interaction; mechanism-based

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The objective of this investigation was to examine in a systematic manner the influence of plasma protein binding on in vivo pharmacodynamics. Comparative pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic studies with four beta blockers were performed in conscious rats, using heart rate under isoprenaline-induced tachycardia as a pharmacodynamic endpoint. A recently proposed mechanism-based agonist-antagonist interaction model was used to obtain in vivo estimates of receptor affinities (K-B,(vivo)). These values were compared with in vitro affinities (K-B,(vitro)) on the basis of both total and free drug concentrations. For the total drug concentrations, the K-B,(vivo) estimates were 26, 13, 6.5 and 0.89 nM for S(-)-atenolol, S(-)-propranolol, S(-)-metoprolol and timolol. The K-B,(vivo) estimates on the basis of the free concentrations were 25, 2.0, 5.2 and 0.56 nM, respectively. The K-B,(vivo)-K-B,(vitro) correlation for total drug concentrations clearly deviated from the line of identity, especially for the most highly bound drug S(-)-propranolol (ratio K-B,(vivo)/K-B,(vitro) similar to 6.8). For the free drug, the correlation approximated the line of identity. Using this model, for beta-blockers the free plasma concentration appears to be the best predictor of in vivo pharmacodynamics. (C) 2008 Wiley-Liss, Inc. and the American Pharmacists Association J Pharm Sci 98:3816-3828, 2009

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available