4.6 Article

Preclinical Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Modeling and Simulation in the Pharmaceutical Industry: An IQ Consortium Survey Examining the Current Landscape

期刊

AAPS JOURNAL
卷 17, 期 2, 页码 462-473

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1208/s12248-014-9716-2

关键词

pharmaceutical industry; preclinical pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling; simulation

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The application of modeling and simulation techniques is increasingly common in preclinical stages of the drug discovery and development process. A survey focusing on preclinical pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamics (PK/PD) analysis was conducted across pharmaceutical companies that are members of the International Consortium for Quality and Innovation in Pharmaceutical Development. Based on survey responses, similar to 68% of companies use preclinical PK/PD analysis in all therapeutic areas indicating its broad application. An important goal of preclinical PK/PD analysis in all pharmaceutical companies is for the selection/optimization of doses and/or dose regimens, including prediction of human efficacious doses. Oncology was the therapeutic area with the most PK/PD analysis support and where it showed the most impact. Consistent use of more complex systems pharmacology models and hybrid physiologically based pharmacokinetic models with PK/PD components was less common compared to traditional PK/PD models. Preclinical PK/PD analysis is increasingly being included in regulatory submissions with similar to 73% of companies including these data to some degree. Most companies (similar to 86%) have seen impact of preclinical PK/PD analyses in drug development. Finally, similar to 59% of pharmaceutical companies have plans to expand their PK/PD modeling groups over the next 2 years indicating continued growth. The growth of preclinical PK/PD modeling groups in pharmaceutical industry is necessary to establish required resources and skills to further expand use of preclinical PK/PD modeling in a meaningful and impactful manner.

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

4.6
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