4.5 Article

Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetics Model in Pregnancy: A Regulatory Perspective on Model Evaluation

期刊

FRONTIERS IN PEDIATRICS
卷 9, 期 -, 页码 -

出版社

FRONTIERS MEDIA SA
DOI: 10.3389/fped.2021.687978

关键词

physiologically-based pharmacokinetics modelling; pharmacokinetics; pregnancy PBPK; foetal PBPK; breastfeeding PBPK; PBPK qualification; regulatory submissions

资金

  1. Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, Seattle, Washington, USA

向作者/读者索取更多资源

PBPK modelling is widely used in medicine development and regulatory submissions, especially in studying drug pharmacokinetics during pregnancy. Physiological changes during pregnancy may have potential impact on drug pharmacokinetics, so qualified models are needed to support high-risk decisions.
Physiologically based pharmacokinetics (PBPK) modelling is widely used in medicine development and regulatory submissions. The lack of clinical pharmacokinetic data in pregnancy is widely acknowledged; therefore, one area of current interest is in the use of PBPK modelling to describe the potential impact of anatomical and physiological changes during pregnancy on the medicine's pharmacokinetics. PBPK modelling could possibly represent a predictive tool to support the medicine benefit-risk decision and inform dose adjustment in this population and also to investigate medicine levels in the foetus to support the risk assessment to the foetus. In the context of regulatory application, there are, however, a number of considerations around model evaluation, and this should be tailored to the model purpose, in order to inform the confidence in the model for the intended application. A number of gestational age-related physiological changes are expected to alter the pharmacokinetics of medicines during pregnancy, and there are uncertainties on some parameters; therefore, well-qualified models are needed to improve assurance in the model prediction before this approach can be used to inform with confidence high-impact decisions as part of regulatory submissions.

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

4.5
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