Methods to Predict Volume of Distribution
- 31 Downloads
Purpose of Review
Prior to human studies, knowledge of drug disposition in the body is useful to inform decisions on drug safety and efficacy, first in human dosing, and dosing regimen design. It is therefore of interest to develop predictive models for primary pharmacokinetic parameters, clearance, and volume of distribution. The volume of distribution of a drug is determined by the physiological properties of the body and physiochemical properties of the drug, and is used to determine secondary parameters, including the half-life. The purpose of this review is to provide an overview of current methods for the prediction of volume of distribution of drugs, discuss a comparison between the methods, and identify deficiencies in current predictive methods for future improvement.
Several volumes of distribution prediction methods are discussed, including preclinical extrapolation, physiological methods, tissue composition-based models to predict tissue:plasma partition coefficients, and quantitative structure-activity relationships. Key factors that impact the prediction of volume of distribution, such as permeability, transport, and accuracy of experimental inputs, are discussed. A comparison of current methods indicates that in general, all methods predict drug volume of distribution with an absolute average fold error of 2-fold. Currently, the use of composition-based PBPK models is preferred to models requiring in vivo input.
Composition-based models perfusion-limited PBPK models are commonly used at present for prediction of tissue:plasma partition coefficients and volume of distribution, respectively. A better mechanistic understanding of important drug distribution processes will result in improvements in all modeling approaches.
KeywordsDistribution Volume of distribution Tissue:plasma partition coefficients Membrane partitioning Prediction models
The authors acknowledge funding from the National Institutes of Health grants (R01GM104178 and R01GM114369).
Compliance with Ethical Standards
Conflict of Interest
The authors have no conflicts of interest.
Human and Animal Rights and Informed Consent
This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors.
Papers of particular interest, published recently, have been highlighted as: • Of importance •• Of major importance
- 1.Rowland M, Tozer T. Clinical Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics: Concepts and Applications. Fourth ed. 2011.Google Scholar
- 2.Gabrielsson J, Weiner D. Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Data Analysis: Concepts and Applications. Fourth ed. 2010.Google Scholar
- 3.Obach RS, Baxter JG, Liston TE, Silber BM, Jones BC, MacIntyre F, et al. The prediction of human pharmacokinetic parameters from preclinical and in vitro metabolism data. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1997;283(1):46–58.Google Scholar
- 6.Hardman JG, Limbird LE. Goodman and Gilman's the pharmacological basis of therapeutics 10th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill; 2001.Google Scholar
- 8.Cole S, Bagal S, El-Kattan A, Fenner K, Hay T, Kempshall S, et al. Full efficacy with no CNS side-effects: unachievable panacea or reality? DMPK considerations in design of drugs with limited brain penetration. Xenobiotica. 2012;42(1):11–27. https://doi.org/10.3109/00498254.2011.617847.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 9.Shitara Y, Maeda K, Ikejiri K, Yoshida K, Horie T, Sugiyama Y. Clinical significance of organic anion transporting polypeptides (OATPs) in drug disposition: their roles in hepatic clearance and intestinal absorption. Biopharm Drug Dispos. 2013;34(1):45–78. https://doi.org/10.1002/bdd.1823.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 16.Jones R, Jones HM, Rowland M, Gibson CR, Yates JWT, Chien JY, et al. PhRMA CPCDC initiative on predictive models of human pharmacokinetics, part 2: comparative assessment of prediction methods of human volume of distribution. J Pharm Sci. 2011;100(10):4074–89. https://doi.org/10.1002/jps.22553.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 23.•• Korzekwa K, Nagar S. Drug Distribution Part 2. Predicting volume of distribution from plasma protein binding and membrane partitioning. Pharm Res. 2017;34(3):544–51. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11095-016-2086-y This article describes a new method for the prediction of the Vss ,which utilizes partitioning into microsomes to represent phospholipid partitioning in a physiological-based Vss equation. This study also looked at other tissue interactions which may be important for describing the distribution of a drug.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 27.Poulin P, Theil F-P. A priori prediction of tissue:plasma partition coefficients of drugs to facilitate the use of physiologically-based pharmacokinetic models in drug discovery. J Pharm Sci. 2000;89(1):16–35. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1520-6017(200001)89:1<16::aid-jps3>3.0.co;2-e.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 28.Poulin P, Schoenlein K, Theil FP. Prediction of adipose tissue: plasma partition coefficients for structurally unrelated drugs. J Pharm Sci. 2001;90(4):436–47. https://doi.org/10.1002/1520-6017(200104)90:4<436::aid-jps1002>3.0.co;2-p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 40.•• Korzekwa K, Nagar S. On the nature of physiologically-based pharmacokinetic models –a priori or a posteriori? Mechanistic or empirical? Pharm Res. 2017;34(3):529–34. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11095-016-2089-8 This article provides a commentary on the current assumptions and methods used in physiologically-based pharmacokinetic models.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 41.Hinderling PH. Red blood cells: a neglected compartment in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics. Pharmacol Rev. 1997;49(3):279–95.Google Scholar
- 47.• Kovacsics D, Patik I, Özvegy-Laczka C. The role of organic anion transporting polypeptides in drug absorption, distribution, excretion and drug-drug interactions. Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol. 2017;13(4):409–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/17425255.2017.1253679 This article is a current review discussing the OATP family of transporters and the importance of OATPs in the absorption and distribution of drugs, as well as their role in drug-drug interactions.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 49.• Kulkarni P, Korzekwa K, Nagar S. Intracellular unbound atorvastatin concentrations in the presence of metabolism and transport. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2016;359(1):26–36. https://doi.org/10.1124/jpet.116.235689 This article used a 5-compartmental model for the prediction of intracellular concentrations of atorvastation, to understand the influence of transporters on the intracellular concentration.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 50.•• Di L, Breen C, Chambers R, Eckley ST, Fricke R, Ghosh A, et al. Industry perspective on contemporary protein-binding methodologies: considerations for regulatory drug-drug interaction and related guidelines on highly bound drugs. J Pharm Sci. 2017;106(12):3442–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xphs.2017.09.005 This article offers an industry perspective on the current methods used to determine the plasma protein binding of a drug, as well as factors which should be considered in current methodology.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 52.•• Chan R, De Bruyn T, Wright M, Broccatelli F. Comparing mechanistic and preclinical predictions of volume of distribution on a large set of drugs. Pharm Res. 2018;35(4):11. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11095-018-2360-2 This article compared the use of composition-based tissue: plasma partition coefficient prediction models, as well as preclinical extrapolation for the prediction of the Vss for a set of 152 drugs.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 54.Sui XF, Sun J, Li HY, Wang YJ, Liu JF, Liu XH, et al. Prediction of volume of distribution values in human using immobilized artificial membrane partitioning coefficients, the fraction of compound ionized and plasma protein binding data. Eur J Med Chem. 2009;44(11):4455–60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejmech.2009.06.004.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 55.De Buck SS, Sinha VK, Fenu LA, Gilissen RA, Mackie CE, Nijsen MJ. The prediction of drug metabolism, tissue distribution, and bioavailability of 50 structurally diverse compounds in rat using mechanism-based absorption, distribution, and metabolism prediction tools. Drug Metab Dispos. 2007;35(4):649–59. https://doi.org/10.1124/dmd.106.014027.CrossRefGoogle Scholar