The AAPS Journal

, 21:19 | Cite as

PBPK Absorption Modeling: Establishing the In VitroIn Vivo Link—Industry Perspective

  • Cordula Stillhart
  • Xavier Pepin
  • Christophe Tistaert
  • David Good
  • An Van Den Bergh
  • Neil Parrott
  • Filippos KesisoglouEmail author
Commentary Theme: Dissolution and Translational Modeling Strategies Enabling Patient-Centric Product Development
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Theme: Dissolution and Translational Modeling Strategies Enabling Patient-Centric Product Development


The establishment of an in vitroin vivo correlation (IVIVC) is considered the gold standard to establish in vivo relevance of a dissolution method and to utilize dissolution data in the context of regulatory bioequivalence questions, including the development of dissolution specifications. However, several recent publications, including industry surveys and reviews from regulatory agencies, have indicated a low success rate for IVIVCs, especially for immediate-release formulations. In recent years, the use of physiologically based pharmacokinetics (PBPK) and absorption modeling, as a tool to facilitate formulation development, has been attracting increased attention. This manuscript provides an industry perspective on the current challenges with establishing IVIVCs and the potential PBPK and absorption modeling offer to increase their impact. Case studies across both immediate-release and extended-release formulations from five pharmaceutical companies are utilized to demonstrate how physiologically based IVIVC (PB-IVIVC) may facilitate drug product understanding and to inform bioequivalence assessment and clinically relevant specifications. Finally, PB-IVIVC best practices and a strategy for model development and application are proposed.


IVIVC oral absorption modeling physiologically based absorption modeling physiologically based biopharmaceutics modeling physiologically based pharmacokinetics 


Supplementary material

12248_2019_292_MOESM1_ESM.docx (54 kb)
ESM 1 (DOCX 54 kb)


  1. 1.
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, F.a.D.A., Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). Guidance for industry: waiver of in vivo bioavailability and bioequivalence studies for immediate-release solid oral dosage forms based on a biopharmaceutics classification system. 2017.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, F.a.D.A., Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). Guidance for industry: extended release oral dosage forms: development, evaluation, and application of in vitro/in vivo correlations. 1997.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    USP 41 chapter <1088> In vitro and in vivo evaluation of dosage forms, in United States Pharmacopeia, U.S.P.C. Inc., Editor. 2018.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Gillespie WR. Convolution-based approaches for in vivo-in vitro correlation modeling. In: Young D, Devane JG, Butler J, editors. In vitro-in vivo correlations. Boston: Springer US; 1997. p. 53–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wagner JG. Method for estimating rate constants for absorption, metabolism, and elimination from urinary excretion data. J Pharm Sci. 1967;56(4):489–94.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Loo JCK, Riegelman S. New method for calculating the intrinsic absorption rate of drugs. J Pharm Sci. 1968;57(6):918–28.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Margolskee A, Darwich AS, Galetin A, Rostami-Hodjegan A, Aarons L. Deconvolution and IVIVC: exploring the role of rate-limiting conditions. AAPS J. 2016;18(2):321–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Kaur P, Jiang X, Duan J, Stier E. Applications of in vitro-in vivo correlations in generic drug development: case studies. AAPS J. 2015;17(4):1035–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Suarez-Sharp S, Li M, Duan J, Shah H, Seo P. Regulatory experience with in vivo in vitro correlations (IVIVC) in new drug applications. AAPS J. 2016;18(6):1379–90.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jiang W, Kim S, Zhang X, Lionberger RA, Davit BM, Conner DP, et al. The role of predictive biopharmaceutical modeling and simulation in drug development and regulatory evaluation. Int J Pharm. 2011;418(2):151–60.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kesisoglou F, Chung J, van Asperen J, Heimbach T. Physiologically based absorption modeling to impact biopharmaceutics and formulation strategies in drug development-industry case studies. J Pharm Sci. 2016;105(9):2723–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kostewicz ES, Aarons L, Bergstrand M, Bolger MB, Galetin A, Hatley O, et al. PBPK models for the prediction of in vivo performance of oral dosage forms. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2014;57:300–21.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Zhang X, Duan J, Kesisoglou F, Novakovic J, Amidon GL, Jamei M, et al. Mechanistic oral absorption modeling and simulation for formulation development and bioequivalence evaluation: report of an FDA public workshop. CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol. 2017;6(8):492–5.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Cook JA. Development strategies for IVIVC in an industrial environment. Biopharm Drug Dispos. 2012;33(7):349–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Grady H, Elder D, Webster GK, Mao Y, Lin Y, Flanagan T, et al. Industry's view on using quality control, biorelevant, and clinically relevant dissolution tests for pharmaceutical development, registration, and commercialization. J Pharm Sci. 2018;107:34–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fotaki N, Gray V, Kesisoglou F, Mayock S, Mirza T, Salt A, et al. Survey results for in vitro-in vivo correlations (IVIVC): critical variables for success. Dissolut Tech. 2013;20(2):48–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nguyen MA, Flanagan T, Brewster M, Kesisoglou F, Beato S, Biewenga J, et al. A survey on IVIVC/IVIVR development in the pharmaceutical industry—past experience and current perspectives. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2017;102:1–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kakhi M, Suarez-Sharp S, Shepard T, Chittenden J. Application of an NLME-stochastic deconvolution approach to level a IVIVC modeling. J Pharm Sci. 2017;106(7):1905–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kesisoglou F. The role of physiologically based oral absorption modelling in formulation development under a quality by design paradigm. J Pharm Sci. 2017;106(4):944–9.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pathak SM, Ruff A, Kostewicz ES, Patel N, Turner DB, Jamei M. Model-based analysis of biopharmaceutic experiments to improve mechanistic oral absorption modeling: an integrated in vitro in vivo extrapolation perspective using ketoconazole as a model drug. Mol Pharm. 2017;14(12):4305–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Stillhart C, Parrott NJ, Lindenberg M, Chalus P, Bentley D, Szepes A. Characterising drug release from immediate-release formulations of a poorly soluble compound, Basmisanil, through absorption modelling and dissolution testing. AAPS J. 2017;19(3):827–36.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pepin XJ, et al. Justification of drug product dissolution rate and drug substance particle size specifications based on absorption PBPK modeling for Lesinurad immediate release tablets. Mol Pharm. 2016;13(9):3256–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Takano R, Sugano K, Higashida A, Hayashi Y, Machida M, Aso Y, et al. Oral absorption of poorly water-soluble drugs: computer simulation of fraction absorbed in humans from a miniscale dissolution test. Pharm Res. 2006;23(6):1144–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Snoeys J, Beumont M, Monshouwer M, Ouwerkerk-Mahadevan S. Mechanistic understanding of the nonlinear pharmacokinetics and intersubject variability of simeprevir: a PBPK-guided drug development approach. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2016;99(2):224–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Kesisoglou F, Xia B, Agrawal NG. Comparison of deconvolution-based and absorption modeling IVIVC for extended release formulations of a BCS III drug development candidate. AAPS J. 2015;17(6):1492–500.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Andreas CJ, Pepin X, Markopoulos C, Vertzoni M, Reppas C, Dressman JB. Mechanistic investigation of the negative food effect of modified release zolpidem. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2017;102:284–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chan KKH, Langenbucher F, Gibaldi M. Evaluation of in vivo drug release by numerical deconvolution using oral solution data as weighting function. J Pharm Sci. 1987;76(6):446–50.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cvijic S, Parojcic J, Langguth P. Viscosity-mediated negative food effect on oral absorption of poorly-permeable drugs with an absorption window in the proximal intestine: in vitro experimental simulation and computational verification. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2014;61:40–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Colon-Useche S, et al. Investigating the discriminatory power of BCS-biowaiver in vitro methodology to detect bioavailability differences between immediate release products containing a class I drug. Mol Pharm. 2015;12(9):3167–74.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Brown J, Chien C, Timmins P, Dennis A, Doll W, Sandefer E, et al. Compartmental absorption modeling and site of absorption studies to determine feasibility of an extended-release formulation of an HIV-1 attachment inhibitor phosphate ester prodrug. J Pharm Sci. 2013;102(6):1742–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jermain SV, Brough C, Williams RO. Amorphous solid dispersions and nanocrystal technologies for poorly water-soluble drug delivery—an update. Int J Pharm. 2018;535(1–2):379–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Mitra A, Kesisoglou F, Dogterom P. Application of absorption modeling to predict bioequivalence outcome of two batches of etoricoxib tablets. AAPS PharmSciTech. 2015;16(1):76–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Cordula Stillhart
    • 1
  • Xavier Pepin
    • 2
  • Christophe Tistaert
    • 3
  • David Good
    • 4
  • An Van Den Bergh
    • 5
  • Neil Parrott
    • 6
  • Filippos Kesisoglou
    • 7
    Email author
  1. 1.Pharmaceutical Research & Development, Formulation & Process SciencesF. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd.BaselSwitzerland
  2. 2.AstraZeneca, Pharmaceutical Technology & DevelopmentMacclesfieldUK
  3. 3.Pharmaceutical Sciences, Discovery, Product Development & Supply, Janssen Research and DevelopmentBeerseBelgium
  4. 4.Drug Product Science and TechnologyBristol-Myers Squibb Co.New BrunswickUSA
  5. 5.Pharmacodynamics, Pharmacokinetics, and Metabolism, Discovery, Product Development & SupplyJanssen Research and DevelopmentBeerseBelgium
  6. 6.Pharmaceutical Sciences, Pharmaceutical Research and Early DevelopmentRoche Innovation Center BaselBaselSwitzerland
  7. 7.Biopharmaceutics and Specialty Dosage Forms, Pharmaceutical SciencesMerck & Co., Inc.West PointUSA

Personalised recommendations