4.7 Article

Evaluating a physiologically based pharmacokinetic model for predicting the pharmacokinetics of midazolam in Chinese after oral administration

期刊

ACTA PHARMACOLOGICA SINICA
卷 37, 期 2, 页码 276-284

出版社

NATURE PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1038/aps.2015.122

关键词

midazolam; pharmacokinetics; PBPK model; CYP3A4/5; Chinese

资金

  1. National Major Scientific and Technological Special Project: Innovative Drugs Development [2012ZX09303-006-002]
  2. PUMCH-Roche Quantitative Pharmacology Fellowship Program

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Aim: To evaluate the SimCYP simulator ethnicity-specific population model for predicting the pharmacokinetics of midazolam, a typical CYP3A4/5 substrate, in Chinese after oral administration. Methods: The physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) model for midazolam was developed using a SimCYP population-based simulator incorporating Chinese population demographic, physiological and enzyme data. A clinical trial was conducted in 40 Chinese subjects (the half was females) receiving a single oral dose of 15 mg midazolam. The subjects were separated into 4 groups based on age (20-50, 51-65, 66-75, and above 76 years), and the pharmacokinetics profiles of each age- and gender-group were determined, and the results were used to verify the PBPK model. Results: Following oral administration, the simulated profiles of midazolam plasma concentrations over time in virtual Chinese were in good agreement with the observed profiles, as were AUC and C-max. Moreover, for subjects of varying ages (20-80 years), the ratios of predicted to observed clearances were between 0.86 and 1.12. Conclusion: The SimCYP PBPK model accurately predicted the pharmacokinetics of midazolam in Chinese from youth to old age. This study may provide novel insight into the prediction of CYP3A4/5-mediated pharmacokinetics in the Chinese population relative to Caucasians and other ethnic groups, which can support the rational design of bridging clinical trials.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据