4.5 Review

Direct In Vivo Human Intestinal Permeability (Peff) Determined with Different Clinical Perfusion and Intubation Methods

期刊

JOURNAL OF PHARMACEUTICAL SCIENCES
卷 104, 期 9, 页码 2702-2726

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1002/jps.24258

关键词

absorption; bioavailability; biopharmaceutics classification system; human intestinal permeability; intestinal perfusion; intestinal transporters; oral drug delivery; pharmacokinetics; physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling

资金

  1. Innovative Medicines Initiative Joint Undertaking - European Union's Seventh Framework Programme (FP7) [115369]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Regional in vivo human intestinal effective permeability (P-eff) is calculated by measuring the disappearance rate of substances during intestinal perfusion. P-eff is the most relevant parameter in the prediction of rate and extent of drug absorption from all parts of the intestine. Today, human intestinal perfusions are not performed on a routine basis in drug development. Therefore, it would be beneficial to increase the accuracy of the in vitro and in silico tools used to evaluate the intestinal P-eff of novel drugs. This review compiles historical P-eff data from 273 individual measurements of 80 substances from 61 studies performed in all parts of the human intestinal tract. These substances include: drugs, monosaccharaides, amino acids, dipeptides, vitamins, steroids, bile acids, ions, fatty acids, and water. The review also discusses the determination and prediction of P-eff using in vitro and in silico methods such as quantitative structure-activity relationship, Caco-2, Ussing chamber, animal intestinal perfusion, and physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling. Finally, we briefly outline how to acquire accurate human intestinal P-eff data by deconvolution of plasma concentration-time profiles following regional intestinal bolus dosing. (c) 2014 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. and the American Pharmacists Association J Pharm Sci 104:2702-2726, 2015

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