Advertisement

AAPS PharmSciTech

, 20:73 | Cite as

Pediatric Formulations: Knowledge Gaps Limiting the Expedited Preclinical to Clinical Translation in Children

  • Monika Lavan
  • Stephen R. ByrnEmail author
  • Gregory KnippEmail author
Review Article Theme: Team Science and Education for Pharmaceuticals: the NIPTE Model
  • 82 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. Theme: Team Science and Education for Pharmaceuticals: the NIPTE Model

Abstract

Traditionally, drug discovery and development research have been primarily focused on the mitigation of disease treatment for the general adult population, often overlooking the medical needs of pediatric patients. While remarkable progress toward the discovery of better medicines has been made, the pharmacological differences between children and adults are often neglected as part of the translation process. In fact, until recently, children have been considered therapeutic orphans due to the lack of significant drug discovery, formulation development, and dosage form design specifically tailored for pediatric patients. Perhaps the least understood is the significant physiological changes that occur during the maturation process from birth to adulthood. It requires careful considerations to achieve age-specific-desired therapeutic outcomes with minimal toxicity. This introduces considerable risk into the preclinical and clinical testing of new medicaments, which until recently, was avoided based on the conventional approach where a demonstration of safe and efficacious use in adults over several years potentially would minimize the chance of adverse juvenile responses. However, the lack of appropriate drug products for children has led to off-label use of adult medicines with potential life-threatening adverse reactions and health complications. Recent developments and future considerations regarding pediatric drug discovery and development using a patient-centric approach in the context of ontogenic biopharmaceutical considerations are discussed below.

KEY WORDS

pediatric neglected therapeutic orphans recent developments patient centric 

Notes

References

  1. 1.
    Kearns GL, Abdel-Rahman SM, Alander SW, Blowey DL, Leeder JS, Kauffman RE. Developmental pharmacology — drug disposition, action, and therapy in infants and children. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:1157–67.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Batchelor HK, Fotaki N, Klein S. Paediatric oral biopharmaceutics: key considerations and current challenges. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2014;73:102–26.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Ivanovska V, Rademaker CMA, van DL, Mantel-Teeuwisse AK. Pediatric drug formulations: a review of challenges and progress. Pediatrics. 2014;134:361–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Allegaert K, van de Velde M, van den Anker J. Neonatal clinical pharmacology. Paediatr Anaesth. 2014;24:30–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, Seto I, Hamm MP, Thomson D, Hartling L, Ioannidis JPA, et al. Empirical evaluation of age groups and age-subgroup analyses in pediatric randomized trials and pediatric meta-analyses. Pediatrics. 2012;129:S161–84.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gazarian M. Why are children still therapeutic orphans? Aust Prescr. 2003;26:122–3.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Laventhal N, Tarini B, Lantos J. Ethical issues in neonatal and pediatric clinical trials. Pediatr Clin N Am. 2012;59:1205–20.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barker CIS, Standing JF, Kelly LE, Faught LH, Needham AC, Rieder MJ, et al. Pharmacokinetic studies in children: recommendations for practice and research. Arch Dis Child. 2018;103:695–702.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gupta A, Khan MA. Challenges of pediatric formulations: a FDA science perspective. Int J Pharm. 2013;457:346–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ward RM, Kauffman R. Future of pediatric therapeutics: reauthorization of BPCA and PREA. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2007;81:477–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zisowsky J, Krause A, Dingemanse J. Drug development for pediatric populations: regulatory aspects. Pharmaceutics. 2010;2:364–88.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Giacoia GP, Taylor-Zapata P, Zajicek A. Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development pediatrics formulation initiative: proceedings from the second workshop on pediatric formulations. Clin Ther. 2012;34:S1–10.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Groninger E, Proost JH, de GSSN. Pharmacokinetic studies in children with cancer. Crit Rev Oncol Hematol. 2004;52:173–97.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Houghton PJ. New insights into drug development for pediatric solid tumors: what preclinical data justify clinical trials in pediatric cancer? Expert Rev Anticancer Ther. 2013;13:1135–8.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Brouwer KLR, Aleksunes LM, Brandys B, Giacoia GP, Knipp G, Lukacova V, et al. Human ontogeny of drug transporters: review and recommendations of the pediatric transporter working group. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2015;98:266–87.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mooij MG, Nies AT, Knibbe CAJ, Schaeffeler E, Tibboel D, Schwab M, et al. Development of human membrane transporters: drug disposition and pharmacogenetics. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2016;55:507–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Baiardi P, Giaquinto C, Girotto S, Manfredi C, Ceci A. Innovative study design for paediatric clinical trials. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2011;67:109–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Joseph PD, Craig JC, Caldwell PH. Clinical trials in children. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2015;79:357–69.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Turner MA. Clinical trials of medicines in neonates: the influence of ethical and practical issues on design and conduct. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2015;79:370–8.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    White MC, Holman DM, Boehm JE, Peipins LA, Grossman M, Henley SJ. Age and cancer risk. Am J Prev Med. 2014;46:S7–15.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Bradley JS, Byington CL, Shah SS, Alverson B, Carter ER, Harrison C, et al. The management of community-acquired pneumonia in infants and children older than 3 months of age: clinical practice guidelines by the Pediatric Infectious Diseases Society and the Infectious Diseases Society of America. Clin Infect Dis. 2011;53:e25–76.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Feero WG, Gutmacher AE. Genomics, personalized medicine, and pediatrics. Acad Pediatr. 2014;14:14–22.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ruggeri BA, Camp F, Miknyoczki S. Animal models of disease: pre-clinical animal models of cancer and their applications and utility in drug discovery. Biochem Pharmacol. 2014;87:150–61.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Zuberi A, Lutz C. Mouse models for drug discovery. Can new tools and technology improve translational power? ILAR J. 2016;57:178–85.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Cunha G, Overland M, Li Y, Cao M, Shen J, Sinclair A, et al. Methods for studying human organogenesis. Differ Res Biol Divers. 2016;91:10–4.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ziegler A, Gonzalez L, Blikslager A. Large animal models: the key to translational discovery in digestive disease research. Cell Mol Gastroenterol Hepatol. 2016;2:716–24.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gerdts V, Wilson HL, Meurens F, van Drunen Littel-van den Hurk S, Wilson D, Walker S, et al. Large animal models for vaccine development and testing. ILAR J. 2015;56:53–62.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Abdel-Rahman SM, Maxson S, Teo C, Hubbard AE, Kearns GL. Cerebrospinal fluid pharmacokinetics of cefpodoxime proxetil in piglets. J Clin Pharmacol. 2000;40:290–5.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Gasthuys E, Vandecasteele T, De Bruyne P, Walle JV, De Backer P, Cornillie P, et al. The potential use of piglets as human pediatric surrogate for preclinical pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic drug testing. Curr Pharm Des. 2016;22:4069–85.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Millecam J, De Clerck L, Govaert E, Devreese M, Gasthuys E, Schelstraete W, et al. The ontogeny of cytochrome P450 enzyme activity and protein abundance in conventional pigs in support of preclinical pediatric drug research. Front Pharmacol. 2018;9:470 https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fphar.2018.00470/full. Accessed 13 Jul 2018.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Singh VK, Thrall KD, Hauer-Jensen M. Minipigs as models in drug discovery. Expert Opin Drug Discovery. 2016;11:1131–4.Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Dekaney CM, Bazer FW, Jaeger LA. Mucosal morphogenesis and cytodifferentiation in fetal porcine small intestine. Anat Rec. 1997;249:517–23.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Dekaney CM, Wu G, Jaeger LA. Gene expression and activity of enzymes in the arginine biosynthetic pathway in porcine fetal small intestine. Pediatr Res. 2003;53:274–80.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Gonzalez LM, Moeser AJ, Blikslager AT. Porcine models of digestive disease: the future of large animal translational research. Transl Res J Lab Clin Med. 2015;166:12–27.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Ziegler AL, Blikslager AT. Impaired intestinal barrier function and relapsing digestive disease: lessons from a porcine model of early life stress. Neurogastroenterol Motil Off J Eur Gastrointest Motil Soc. 2017;29:1–4.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Krüger L, Gonzalez LM, Pridgen TA, McCall SJ, von Furstenberg RJ, Harnden I, et al. Ductular and proliferative response of esophageal submucosal glands in a porcine model of esophageal injury and repair. Am J Physiol Gastrointest Liver Physiol. 2017;313:G180–91.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Prather RS, Lorson M, Ross JW, Whyte JJ, Walters E. Genetically engineered pig models for human diseases. Annu Rev Anim Biosci. 2013;1:203–19.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Watson AL, Carlson DF, Largaespada DA, Hackett PB, Fahrenkrug SC. Engineered swine models of cancer. Front Genet. 7:–78 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4860525/. Accessed 10 Jun 2018.
  39. 39.
    Schachtschneider KM, Schwind RM, Newson J, Kinachtchouk N, Rizko M, Mendoza-Elias N, et al. The oncopig cancer model: an innovative large animal translational oncology platform. Front Oncol. 2017;7, 190 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5572387/. Accessed 14 Jun 2018.
  40. 40.
    Weaver ML, Grossi AB, Schützsack J, Parish J, Løgsted J, Bøgh IB, et al. Vehicle systems and excipients used in minipig drug development studies. Toxicol Pathol. 2016;44:367–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Kobayashi E, Hanazono Y, Kunita S. Swine used in the medical university: overview of 20 years of experience. Exp Anim. 2018;67:7–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Kulkarni R, Yumibe N, Wang Z, Zhang X, Tang CC, Ruterbories K, et al. Comparative pharmacokinetics studies of immediate- and modified-release formulations of glipizide in pigs and dogs. J Pharm Sci. 2012;101:4327–36.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Roth WJ, Kissinger CB, McCain RR, Cooper BR, Marchant-Forde JN, Vreeman RC, et al. Assessment of juvenile pigs to serve as human pediatric surrogates for preclinical formulation pharmacokinetic testing. AAPS J. 2013;15:763–74.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Gala RP, Popescu C, Knipp GT, McCain RR, Ubale RV, Addo R, et al. Physicochemical and preclinical evaluation of a novel buccal measles vaccine. AAPS PharmSciTech. 2017;18:283–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Lou H, Liu M, Wang L, Mishra SR, Qu W, Johnson J, et al. Development of a mini-tablet of co-grinded prednisone–neusilin complex for pediatric use. AAPS PharmSciTech. 2013;14:950–8.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Lopez FL, Ernest TB, Tuleu C, Gul MO. Formulation approaches to pediatric oral drug delivery: benefits and limitations of current platforms. Expert Opin Drug Deliv. 2015;12:1727–40.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Mitra B, Chang J, Wu S-J, Wolfe CN, Ternik RL, Gunter TZ, et al. Feasibility of mini-tablets as a flexible drug delivery tool. Int J Pharm. 2017;525:149–59.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  48. 48.
    Nahata MC. Safety of “inert” additives or excipients in paediatric medicines. Arch Dis Child Fetal Neonatal Ed. 2009;94:F392–3.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Tuleu C, Breitkreutz J. Educational paper: formulation-related issues in pediatric clinical pharmacology. Eur J Pediatr. 2013;172:717–20.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    Walsh J, Cram A, Woertz K, Breitkreutz J, Winzenburg G, Turner R, et al. Playing hide and seek with poorly tasting paediatric medicines: do not forget the excipients. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2014;73:14–33.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Gershanik J, Boecler B, Ensley H, McCloskey S, George W. The gasping syndrome and benzyl alcohol poisoning. N Engl J Med Boston. 1982;307:1384–8.Google Scholar
  52. 52.
    Avant D, Baer G, Moore J, Zheng P, Sorbello A, Ariagno R, et al. Neonatal safety information reported to the FDA during drug development studies. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2017;2017:1–9.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Salunke S, Giacoia G, Tuleu C. The STEP (Safety And Toxicity of Excipients for Paediatrics) database. Part 1—a need assessment study. Int J Pharm. 2012;435:101–11.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Salunke S, Brandys B, Giacoia G, Tuleu C. The STEP (Safety and Toxicity of Excipients for Paediatrics) database: part 2 – the pilot version. Int J Pharm. 2013;457:310–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    European Paediatric Formulation Initiative (EuPFI). http://www.eupfi.org /. Accessed 18 Jun 2018.
  56. 56.
    van Riet-Nales DA, Ferreira JA, Schobben AFAM, de NBJ, Egberts TCG, Rademaker CMA. Methods of administering oral formulations and child acceptability. Int J Pharm. 2015;491:261–7.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Kluk A, Sznitowska M, Brandt A, Sznurkowska K, Plata-Nazar K, Mysliwiec M, et al. Can preschool-aged children swallow several minitablets at a time? Results from a clinical pilot study. Int J Pharm. 2015;485:1–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Klingmann V. Acceptability of mini-tablets in young children: results from three prospective cross-over studies. AAPS PharmSciTech. 2017;18:263–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  59. 59.
    Klingmann V, Spomer N, Lerch C, Stoltenberg I, Frömke C, Bosse HM, et al. Favorable acceptance of mini-tablets compared with syrup: a randomized controlled trial in infants and preschool children. J Pediatr. 2013;163:1728–1732.e1.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Klingmann V, Seitz A, Meissner T, Breitkreutz J, Moeltner A, Bosse HM. Acceptability of uncoated mini-tablets in neonates—a randomized controlled trial. J Pediatr. 2015;167(5):893–896.e2.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  61. 61.
    Jalabert-Malbos M-L, Mishellany-Dutour A, Woda A, Peyron M-A. Particle size distribution in the food bolus after mastication of natural foods. Food Qual Prefer. 2007;18:803–12.Google Scholar
  62. 62.
    Peyron M-A, Mishellany A, Woda A. Particle size distribution of food boluses after mastication of six natural foods. J Dent Res. 2004;83:578–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  63. 63.
    Nagavelli LR, Lionberger RA, Sayeed VA, Yu L, Allgire J, Smith A, et al. Analysis of bead sizes for MR capsules labeled for sprinkle. AAPS PharmSciTech. 2010;11:1508–10.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  64. 64.
    Shakhnovich V, Abdel-Rahman SM. General considerations for pediatric oral drug formulation. In: Bar-Shalom D, Rose K, editors. Pediatric formulations. New York, NY: Springer New York; 2014. p. 89–104.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-8011-3_7. Accessed 7 Jun 2018.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  65. 65.
    Heimann G. Enteral absorption and bioavailability in children in relation to age. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 1980;18:43–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  66. 66.
    Pediatric Pharmacokinetics. In: Handbook of basic pharmacokinetics - including clinical applications, 7th ed. Ritschel WA, Kearns GL. The American Pharmacists Association; 2009. p. 263–278.Google Scholar
  67. 67.
    Mooij MG, Schwarz UI, de KBAE, Leeder JS, Gaedigk R, Samsom JN, et al. Ontogeny of human hepatic and intestinal transporter gene expression during childhood: age matters. Drug Metab Dispos. 2014;42:1268–74.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  68. 68.
    Nicolas J-M, Bouzom F, Hugues C, Ungell A-L. Oral drug absorption in pediatrics: the intestinal wall, its developmental changes and current tools for predictions. Biopharm Drug Dispos. 2017;38:209–30.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  69. 69.
    Xie F, Ding X, Zhang Q-Y. An update on the role of intestinal cytochrome P450 enzymes in drug disposition. Acta Pharm Sin B. 2016;6:374–83.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  70. 70.
    Paine MF, Hart HL, Ludington SS, Haining RL, Rettie AE, Zeldin DC. The human intestinal cytochrome P450 “pie.”. Drug Metab Dispos. 2006;34:880–6.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  71. 71.
    Bezirtzoglou EEV. Intestinal cytochromes P450 regulating the intestinal microbiota and its probiotic profile. Microb Ecol Health Dis 2012;23:0.3402/mehd.v23i0.18370.Google Scholar
  72. 72.
    Johnson TN, Tanner MS, Taylor CJ, Tucker GT. Enterocytic CYP3A4 in a paediatric population: developmental changes and the effect of coeliac disease and cystic fibrosis. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2001;51:451–60.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  73. 73.
    Thummel KE. Gut instincts: CYP3A4 and intestinal drug metabolism. J Clin Invest. 2007;117:3173–6.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  74. 74.
    Kato M. Intestinal first-pass metabolism of CYP3A4 substrates. Drug Metab Pharmacokinet. 2008;23:87–94.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  75. 75.
    Emoto C, Fukuda T, Mizuno T, Cox S, Schniedewind B, Christians U, et al. Age-dependent changes in sirolimus metabolite formation in patients with neurofibromatosis type 1. Ther Drug Monit. 2015;37:395–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  76. 76.
    van Herwaarden AE, Wagenaar E, van der Kruijssen CMM, van Waterschoot RAB, Smit JW, Song J-Y, et al. Knockout of cytochrome P450 3A yields new mouse models for understanding xenobiotic metabolism. J Clin Invest. 2007;117:3583–92.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  77. 77.
    Benet LZ, Izumi T, Zhang Y, Silverman JA, Wacher VJ. Intestinal MDR transport proteins and P-450 enzymes as barriers to oral drug delivery. J Control Release. 1999;62:25–31.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  78. 78.
    Lin JH, Chiba M, Baillie TA. Is the role of the small intestine in first-pass metabolism overemphasized? Pharmacol Rev. 1999;51:135–58.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. 79.
    Zheng H, Webber S, Zeevi A, Schuetz E, Zhang J, Bowman P, et al. Tacrolimus dosing in pediatric heart transplant patients is related to CYP3A5 and MDR1 gene polymorphisms. Am J Transplant. 2003;3:477–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  80. 80.
    Kearns GL. Impact of developmental pharmacology on pediatric study design: overcoming the challenges. J Allergy Clin Immunol. 2000;106:S128–38.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  81. 81.
    Baker GL. Human adipose tissue composition and age. Am J Clin Nutr. 1969;22:829–35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  82. 82.
    Ku LC, Smith PB. Dosing in neonates: special considerations in physiology and trial design. Pediatr Res. 2015;77:2–9.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  83. 83.
    Sethi PK, White CA, Cummings BS, Hines RN, Muralidhara S, Bruckner JV. Ontogeny of plasma proteins, albumin and binding of diazepam, cyclosporine, and deltamethrin. Pediatr Res. 2016;79:409–15.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  84. 84.
    Lacroix D, Sonnier M, Moncion A, Cheron G, Cresteil T. Expression of CYP3A in the human liver — evidence that the shift between CYP3A7 and CYP3A4 occurs immediately after birth. Eur J Biochem. 1997;247:625–34.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  85. 85.
    Mukherjee A, Dombi T, Wittke B, Lalonde R. Population pharmacokinetics of sildenafil in term neonates: evidence of rapid maturation of metabolic clearance in the early postnatal period. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2009;85:56–63.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  86. 86.
    Vandenplas Y, Belli DC, Benatar A, Cadranel S, Cucchiara S, Dupont C, et al. The role of cisapride in the treatment of pediatric gastroesophageal reflux. The European Society of Paediatric Gastroenterology, Hepatology and Nutrition. J Pediatr Gastroenterol Nutr. 1999;28:518–28.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  87. 87.
    Pearce RE, Gotschall RR, Kearns GL, Leeder JS. Cytochrome P450 involvement in the biotransformation of cisapride and racemic norcisapride in vitro: differential activity of individual human CYP3A isoforms. Drug Metab Dispos. 2001;29:1548–54.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  88. 88.
    Kearns GL, Robinson PK, Wilson JT, Wilson-Costello D, Knight GR, Ward RM, et al. Cisapride disposition in neonates and infants: in vivo reflection of cytochrome P450 3A4 ontogeny. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2003;74:312–25.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  89. 89.
    Leeder JS, Kearns GL. Interpreting pharmacogenetic data in the developing neonate: the challenge of hitting a moving target. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2012;92:434–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  90. 90.
    Blake MJ, Castro L, Leeder JS, Kearns GL. Ontogeny of drug metabolizing enzymes in the neonate. Semin Fetal Neonatal Med. 2005;10:123–38.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  91. 91.
    Allegaert K, Verbesselt R, Naulaers G, van den AJN, Rayyan M, Debeer A, et al. Developmental pharmacology: neonates are not just small adults. Acta Clin Belg. 2008;63:16–24.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  92. 92.
    O’Hara K, Wright IMR, Schneider JJ, Jones AL, Martin JH. Pharmacokinetics in neonatal prescribing: evidence base, paradigms and the future. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2015;80:1281–8.PubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
  93. 93.
    Leeder JS, Gaedigk R, Marcucci KA, Gaedigk A, Vyhlidal CA, Schindel BP, et al. Variability of CYP3A7 expression in human fetal liver. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 2005;314:626–35.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  94. 94.
    Hiratsuka M, Mizugaki M. Genetic polymorphisms in drug-metabolizing enzymes and drug targets. Mol Genet Metab. 2001;73:298–305.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  95. 95.
    Zanger UM, Schwab M. Cytochrome P450 enzymes in drug metabolism: regulation of gene expression, enzyme activities, and impact of genetic variation. Pharmacol Ther. 2013;138:103–41.PubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial and Physical Pharmacy, College of PharmacyPurdue UniversityIndianaUSA

Personalised recommendations