Modeling Drug Disposition and Drug–Drug Interactions Through Hypothesis-Driven Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetics: a Reversal Translation Perspective

  • Guo-Fu Li
  • Qing-Shan Zheng


A crucial feature of physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling is the ability to separate compound-dependent properties from population-dependent properties, enabling prospective prediction of compound exposure and disposition in a specific population by accounting for the demographic, physiological, and biological information of the population of interest. The impact of PBPK modeling for prospective prediction relies heavily on predictive accuracy, which is challenged by the scarcity of system-specific physiological or biological data, the quality of compound data measured from in vitro experiments, and the mechanistic understanding of processes governing the pharmacokinetics. It is, therefore, vital to regularly revisit and update the PBPK model for a special population, such as neonates and infants [1, 2], individuals of various ethnicities [3, 4], patients with renal impairment [5, 6], patients with chronic heart failure [7], or patients with cancer [8],...


Compliance with Ethical Standards


No funding was received for this work.

Conflict of interest

The authors have no conflicts of interest to declare.


  1. 1.
    Yu G, Zheng QS, Li GF. Similarities and differences in gastrointestinal physiology between neonates and adults: a physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling perspective. AAPS J. 2014;16(6):1162–6.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Maharaj AR, Edginton AN. Examining small intestinal transit time as a function of age: is there evidence to support age-dependent differences among children. Drug Metab Dispos. 2016;44(7):1080–9.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Li GF, Yu G, Liu HX, Zheng QS. Ethnic-specific in vitro-in vivo extrapolation and physiologically based pharmacokinetic approaches to predict cytochrome P450-mediated pharmacokinetics in the Chinese population: opportunities and challenges. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2014;53(2):197–202.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Huang W, Nakano M, Sager J, Ragueneau-Majlessi I, Isoherranen N. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic model of the CYP2D6 probe atomoxetine: extrapolation to special populations and drug–drug interactions. Drug Metab Dispos. 2017;45(11):1156–65.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Yoshida K, Sun B, Zhang L, Zhao P, Abernethy DR, Nolin TD, et al. Systematic and quantitative assessment of the effect of chronic kidney disease on CYP2D6 and CYP3A4/5. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2016;100(1):75–87.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Li GF, Wang K, Chen R, Zhao HR, Yang J, Zheng QS. Simulation of the pharmacokinetics of bisoprolol in healthy adults and patients with impaired renal function using whole-body physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling. Acta Pharmacol Sin. 2012;33(11):1359–71.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Li GF, Gu X, Yu G, Zheng QS. Comment on: “a physiologically based pharmacokinetic drug-disease model to predict carvedilol exposure in adult and paediatric heart failure patients by incorporating pathophysiological changes in hepatic and renal blood”. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2016;55(1):133–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Schwenger E, Pilla Reddy V, Moorthy G, Sharma P, Tomkinson H, Masson E, et al. Harnessing meta-analysis to refine an oncology patient population for physiology-based pharmacokinetic modeling of drugs. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2017. Scholar
  9. 9.
    Peters SA. Evaluation of a generic physiologically based pharmacokinetic model for lineshape analysis. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2008;47(4):261–75.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Perkins EJ, Posada M, Kellie Turner P, Chappell J, Ng WT, Twelves C. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic modelling of cytochrome P450 2C9-related tolbutamide drug interactions with Sulfaphenazole and Tasisulam. Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet. 2017. Scholar
  11. 11.
    T’jollyn H, Snoeys J, Van Bocxlaer J, De Bock L, Annaert P, Van Peer A, et al. Strategies for determining correct cytochrome P450 contributions in hepatic clearance predictions: in vitro-in vivo extrapolation as modelling approach and tramadol as proof-of concept compound. Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet. 2017;42(3):537–43.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Barter ZE, Tucker GT, Rowland-Yeo K. Differences in cytochrome p450-mediated pharmacokinetics between Chinese and Caucasian populations predicted by mechanistic physiologically based pharmacokinetic modelling. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2013;52(12):1085–100.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Brown HS, Ito K, Galetin A, Houston JB. Prediction of in vivo drug–drug interactions from in vitro data: impact of incorporating parallel pathways of drug elimination and inhibitor absorption rate constant. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2005;60(5):508–18.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Castellan AC, Tod M, Gueyffier F, Audars M, Cambriels F, Kassai B, et al. Quantitative prediction of the impact of drug interactions and genetic polymorphisms on cytochrome P450 2C9 substrate exposure. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2013;52(3):199–209.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    McGinnity DF, Tucker J, Trigg S, Riley RJ. Prediction Of CYP2C9-mediated drug-drug interactions: a comparison using data from recombinant enzymes and human hepatocytes. Drug Metab Dispos. 2005;33(11):1700–7.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Soars MG, Gelboin HV, Krausz KW, Riley RJ. A comparison of relative abundance, activity factor and inhibitory monoclonal antibody approaches in the characterization of human CYP enzymology. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2003;55(2):175–81.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Thomas RC, Ikeda GJ. The metabolic fate of tolbutamide in man and in the rat. J Med Chem. 1966;9(4):507–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Veronese ME, Miners JO, Randles D, Gregov D, Birkett DJ. Validation of the tolbutamide metabolic ratio for population screening with use of sulfaphenazole to produce model phenotypic poor metabolizers. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1990;47(3):403–11.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Wagner C, Pan Y, Hsu V, Grillo JA, Zhang L, Reynolds KS, et al. Predicting the effect of cytochrome P450 inhibitors on substrate drugs: analysis of physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling submissions to the US Food and Drug Administration. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2015;54(1):117–27.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Shord SS, Cavallari LH, Viana MA, Momary K, Neceskas J, Molokie RE, et al. Cytochrome P450 2C9 mediated metabolism in people with and without cancer. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2008;46(7):365–74.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    US Food and Drug Administration. Copanlisib: multi-discipline review. Accessed 06 Nov 2017.
  22. 22.
    US Food and Drug Administration. Ribociclib: multi-discipline review. Accessed 06 Nov 2017.

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Center for Drug Clinical ResearchShanghai University of Chinese MedicineShanghaiChina
  2. 2.Department of Pharmaceutics, College of PharmacyUniversity of FloridaGainesvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations