Skip to main content
Skip table of contents

Introduction to Physiologically-Based Pharmacokinetics

Physiologically-based pharmacokinetics (PBPK) models the distribution and clearance of a drug on the basis of the drug's interactions with all the organs in a body. Because of the need for estimates or measurements of tissue:plasma partition coefficients (Kp) and tissue protein binding (fut) values, PBPK has traditionally been considered difficult to parameterize. Throughout the development and refinement of PBPK, these problems have been solved through in silico estimates of Kp and fut that were based on tissue composition of neutral lipids, phospholipids, proteins, and water 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 .

Many drug companies are now building PBPK models for all new candidate drugs early in the discovery and development cycles. These models can be parameterized using in silico (distribution) and in vitro (intrinsic clearance) methods and can provide a rough estimate of the human and animal plasma concentration versus time profiles prior to in vivo testing in animals 9 10 . Furthermore, these models provide one of the most successful methods for scale-up from animals to human. PBPK models also allow for an early estimate of local organ tissue concentrations which can be tied to pharmacodynamic models to get an estimate of the response in any particular tissue. The Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA) commissioned a study of the best methods for prediction of human exposure prior to Phase I clinical testing and published a series of papers that described the results of three years of model testing 11 12 13 14 15 . All previous research in this area established that PBPK was superior to allometric for interspecies extrapolation and human exposure estimation 16 17 18 19 .

 Based on the PhRMA initiative results, Poulin concluded that for oral administration, PBPK and mechanistic absorption simulations were inferior to allometric scaling in estimating human exposure prior to clinical testing. A careful analysis of Poulin's publication, however, indicates that in 2011, he was tasked to build his own CAT/PBPK model and used 1996 technology that resulted in the poor performance that was published in 2011. In actuality, PBPK has become a valuable tool for drug discovery 20 21 22 .

In a study by Cole et al. 23 , GastroPlus® was identified as the most accurate software for predicting first-in-human exposure through in vitro to in vivo extrapolation (IVIVE). Table 2-1 and Table 2-2 compare GastroPlus® with other commercial methods and Pfizer's pre-2008 approach for estimating human exposure from in vitro and preclinical data for IV and oral profile prediction, respectively. These tables use RANK (Weighted Sum of Squares) and AFE (Average Fold Error) as metrics. The study used allometric scaling and 1-compartmental pharmacokinetics and involved data from four animal species.

Table 2-1:   Summary of IV profile prediction accuracy

 Approach

Profile RANK

Vss

CL

AFE

% w/in 2-fold error (3-fold error)

AFE

% w/in 2-fold error (3-fold error)

GastroPlus®

-11.7 (1)

1.4

90 (100)

1.6

80 (85)

PKSim

-6.4 (2)

1.7

70 (90)

1.6

80 (85)

Pfizer approach

-3.8 (3)

1.6

75 (85)

1.6

80 (85)

SimCYP –him

5.6 (4)

1.5

80 (95)

2.5

58 (74)

SimCYP - rhCYP

7.8 (5)

1.5

80 (95)

2.4

55 (65)

ChloePK

8.5 (6)

-

-

1.7

70 (80)

Table 2-2:   Summary of oral profile prediction accuracy

 Approach

Profile RANK

Vss

CL

AFE

% w/in 2-fold error (3-fold error)

AFE

% w/in 2-fold error (3-fold error)

GastroPlus®

-9.8 (1)

2.7

50 (72)

2.0

67 (72)

Current Pfizer Approach

-5.3 (2)

3.9

33 (56)

2.5

44 (61)

SimCYP – rhCYP

-3.7 (3)

3.0

56 (67)

2.2

61 (72)

SimCYP – him

5.7 (4)

3.6

41 (53)

2.7

53 (59)

PKSim

6.1 (5)

4.7

22 (39)

5.0

17 (33)

ChloePK

7.0 (6)

2.8

39 (50)

2.4

50 (61)


image-20240814-143734.png

The implementation of PBPK in GastroPlus® includes an internal module named PEAR Physiology™ (Population Estimates for Age-Related Physiology). This module calculates organ physiologies for American (Western), Japanese (Asian), and Chinese human models across ages ranging from premature neonates to 85 years old. Additionally, it provides adult-only organ physiologies for several commonly used pre-clinical species. See Population Estimates for Age Related Physiology.



  1. Rodgers, T., Leahy, D., et al. (2005). “Physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling 1: predicting the tissue distribution of moderate-to-strong bases.” J. Pharm. Sci. 94(6): 1259-76.
  2. Rodgers T. and Rowland M. (2006). “Physiologically-based Pharmacokinetic Modeling 2: Predicting the tissue distribution of acids, very weak bases, neutrals and zwitterions.” J. Pharm. Sci. 95(6):1238-57.
  3. Poulin, P., Schoenlein, K., et al. (2001). “Prediction of adipose tissue: plasma partition coefficients for structurally unrelated drugs.” J. Pharm. Sci. 90(4): 436-47.
  4. Poulin, P. and Theil, F.P. (2000). “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. 89(1): 16-35.
  5. Poulin, P. and Theil, F.P. (2002). “Prediction of pharmacokinetics prior to in vivo studies. 1. Mechanism-based prediction of volume of distribution.” J. Pharm. Sci. 91(1): 129-56.
  6. Poulin, P. and Theil, F.P. (2002). “Prediction of pharmacokinetics prior to in vivo studies. II. Generic physiologically based pharmacokinetic models of drug disposition.” J. Pharm. Sci. 91(5): 1358-70.
  7. Rodgers, T., Leahy, D., et al. (2007). “Physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling 1: Predicting the tissue distribution of moderate-to-strong bases.” J. Pharm. Sci.96(11): 3151-3152.
  8. Rodgers, T. and Rowland, M. (2007). “Physiologically-based Pharmacokinetic Modeling 2: Predicting the tissue distribution of acids, very weak bases, neutrals and zwitterions.” J. Pharm. Sci. 96(11): 3153-3154.
  9. Miller, Neil A., Reddy, Micaela B., Heikkinen, Aki T., Lukacova, Viera, and Parrott, Neil. (2019). “Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Modelling for First-In-Human Predictions: An Updated Model Building Strategy Illustrated with Challenging Industry Case Studies.” Clin. Pharmacokinet. 58(6): 727-746.
  10. Kostewicz, Edumund S., et. al. (2014). “PBPK models for the prediction of in vivo performance of oral dosage forms.” European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences. 57: 300-321.
  11. Jones, H.M., Gardner, I.B., et al. (2011). “Simulation of human intravenous and oral pharmacokinetics of 21 diverse compounds using physiologically based pharmacokinetic modelling.” Clin. Pharmacokinet. 50(5): 331-47.
  12. Poulin, P., Jones, H.M., et al. (2011). "PhRMA CPCDC initiative on predictive models of human pharmacokinetics, part 1: goals, properties of the PhRMA dataset, and comparison with literature datasets." J Pharm Sci 100(10): 4050-73.
  13. Poulin, P., Jones, R.D., et al. (2011). “PHRMA CPCDC initiative on predictive models of human pharmacokinetics, part 5: prediction of plasma concentration-time profiles in human by using the physiologically-based pharmacokinetic modeling approach.” J. Pharm. Sci. 100(10): 4127-57.
  14. Ring, B.J., Chien, J.Y., et al. (2011). “PhRMA CPCDC initiative on predictive models of human pharmacokinetics, part 3: comparative assessment of prediction methods of human clearance.” J. Pharm. Sci. 100(10): 4090-110.
  15. Vuppugalla, R., Marathe, P., et al. (2011). “PhRMA CPCDC initiative on predictive models of human pharmacokinetics, part 4: prediction of plasma concentration-time profiles in human from in vivo preclinical data by using the Wajima approach.” J. Pharm. Sci. 100(10): 4111-26.
  16. De Buck, S.S., Sinha, V.K., et al. (2007). “Prediction of human pharmacokinetics using physiologically based modeling: a retrospective analysis of 26 clinically tested drugs.” Drug Metab. Dispos. 35(10): 1766-80.
  17. Jones, H.M., Gardner, I.B., et al. (2011). “Simulation of human intravenous and oral pharmacokinetics of 21 diverse compounds using physiologically based pharmacokinetic modelling.” Clin. Pharmacokinet. 50(5): 331-47.
  18. Gibson, C.R., Bergman, A., et al. (2009). “Prediction of Phase I single-dose pharmacokinetics using recombinant cytochromes P450 and physiologically based modelling.” Xenobiotica 39(9): 637-48.
  19. Parrott, N., Paguereau, N., et al. (2005). “An evaluation of the utility of physiologically based models of pharmacokinetics in early drug discovery.” J. Pharm. Sci. 94(10): 2327-43.
  20. Nestorov, I. (2003). “Whole body pharmacokinetic models.” Clin. Pharmacokinet. 42(10): 883-908.
  21. Rowland, M., Balant, L., et al. (2004). “Physiologically based pharmacokinetics in drug development and regulatory science: a workshop report (Georgetown University, Washington, DC, May 29-30, 2002).” AAPS Pharm. Sci. 6(1): E6.
  22. Rowland, M., Peck, C., et al. (2011). “Physiologically-based pharmacokinetics in drug development and regulatory science.” Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol. 2011(51): 45- 73.
  23. Cole, S., Lin, J., et al. (2008). “Predicting concentration vs time profiles in man from in vitro and pre-clinical data - An evaluation of PBPK.” 2nd Asia Pacific Regional ISSX Meeting, Shanghai, China, May 11-13, 2008.
JavaScript errors detected

Please note, these errors can depend on your browser setup.

If this problem persists, please contact our support.