4.5 Article

An Analytical Solution for Saturable Absorption in Pharmacokinetics Models

期刊

PHARMACEUTICAL RESEARCH
卷 40, 期 2, 页码 481-485

出版社

SPRINGER/PLENUM PUBLISHERS
DOI: 10.1007/s11095-022-03455-z

关键词

absorption model; Hill kinetics; Pharmacokinetics; saturable absorption

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This article investigates the absorption models of drugs in the body, including carrier mediated transport and saturable absorption. By studying the exact solutions of different absorption models, the differences between these models can be illustrated.
Objective The first-order absorption is a common model used in Pharmacokinetics. The absorption of some drugs follows carrier mediated transport. It has been proposed that the amount of drug available may saturate the transport mechanism resulting in an absorption slower than the one predicted by the first-order model. Saturable absorption has been modeled at the differential equation level by substituting the constant rate absorption by a Hill kinetics absorption. However, its exact solution is so far unknown. The goal of this is to know the exact solution of different Hill kinetic absorption models.Methods We start defining different absorption models and increasing then their complexity. The simplest case is the first-order absorption model and the most complex will be a generalized Hill kinetic absorption model. The differential equation of each model is integrated.Results The complexity of the models their solutions may be not expressed in a close-form, or in term of elementary functions. We obtain and discuss the exact solutions of the different Hill kinetics absorption models. To do that, the solutions are studied according to the possible values of the free parameters of the models. We show the differences between models through simulations.Conclusions The knowledge of closed-form solutions allows to illustrate the differences between the different absorption models and minimizes the errors of numerical integration.

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