4.5 Article

Hepatobiliary Clearance Prediction: Species Scaling From Monkey, Dog, and Rat, and In Vitro-In Vivo Extrapolation of Sandwich-Cultured Human Hepatocytes Using 17 Drugs

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES
卷 106, 期 9, 页码 2795-2804

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1016/j.xphs.2017.04.043

关键词

hepatobiliary disposition; hepatic transport; efflux pumps; hepatic clearance; preclinical pharmacokinetics

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Hepatobiliary elimination can be a major clearance pathway dictating the pharmacokinetics of drugs. Here, we first compared the dose eliminated in bile in preclinical species (monkey, dog, and rat) with that in human and further evaluated single-species scaling (SSS) to predict human hepatobiliary clearance. Six compounds dosed in bile ductecannulated (BDC) monkeys showed biliary excretion comparable to human; and the SSS of hepatobiliary clearance with plasma fraction unbound correction yielded reasonable predictions (within 3-fold). Although dog SSS also showed reasonable predictions, rat over-predicted hepatobiliary clearance for 13 of 24 compounds. Second, we evaluated the translatability of in vitro sandwich-cultured human hepatocytes (SCHHs) to predict human hepatobiliary clearance for 17 drugs. For drugs with no significant active uptake in SCHH studies (i.e., with or without rifamycin SV), measured intrinsic biliary clearance was directly scalable with good predictability (absolute average fold error [AAFE] = 1.6). Drugs showing significant active uptake in SCHH, however, showed improved predictability when scaled based on extended clearance term (AAFE = 2.0), which incorporated sinusoidal uptake along with a global scaling factor for active uptake and the canalicular efflux clearance. In conclusion, SCHH is a useful tool to predict human hepatobiliary clearance, whereas BDC monkey model may provide further confidence in the prospective predictions. (C) 2017 American Pharmacists Association (R). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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