Lead profiling‘In silico’ simulations to assess the ‘in vivo’ consequences of ‘in vitro’ metabolic drug–drug interactions
Section Editors:
Han van de Waterbeemd, Christopher Kohl – Pfizer Global Research & Development, Sandwich Laboratories, PDM (Pharmacokinetics, Dynamics and Metabolism), ipc 664, Ramsgate Road, Sandwich, Kent, UK CT13 9NJ
The propensity of a drug to undergo clinically relevant interactions with concomitant medications can decide on commercial success or failure and in the extreme case even lead to withdrawal of the product from the market. Accurate early prediction of metabolic drug–drug interactions (M-DDI) is therefore a cornerstone of successful drug discovery and development. Amin Rostami-Hodjegan and Geoff Tucker have a long-standing track record in exploring the scientific background of metabolic drug–drug interactions. Their efforts have culminated in the development of the M-DDI prediction software SIMCYP. Here, they review the underlying science of the prediction tools currently available.
Introduction
There have been several high-profile issues in drug development recently relating to problems with metabolic drug–drug interactions (M-DDI) (e.g. with terfenadine, fenfluramine, mibefradil, bromfenac, astemizole and cisapride). The consequences have ranged from restricted use or withdrawal to non-approval by regulatory agencies [see the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) site (http://www.fda.gov/medwatch/safety.htm) for an updated list].
Recently, there has also been an increased interest in programs and databases that may help to assess the likelihood of M-DDIs by identifying sources of relevant in vitro data and by facilitating access to information on reported interactions. The use of such information, together with the application of predictive models, may expedite the clinical prevention of M-DDIs as well as new drug development.
Although the use of in vitro methods to evaluate the potential for M-DDI has become routine in the drug development process, their interpretation and value remain the subject of debate within the pharmaceutical industry. Part of this controversy relates to the level of confidence in extrapolating from in vitro data to in vivo outcome (IVIVE) 1, 2. In this context, it is vital to appreciate the difference between a useful “simulation” and a precise “prediction”.
Section snippets
Simulation versus prediction
Simulation is but a first step on the road to prediction. In the absence of complete information, in silico IVIVE represents a simulation. Nevertheless, it is valuable in summarising the probable impact of all previous information, in posing “what if” questions, in weighing the importance of missing data and in designing the next real experiment. Once further information becomes available, the simulation moves to becoming a prediction (Fig. 1). The ability to predict M-DDI accurately using
Methods and assumptions
Most approaches to calculate the level of a M-DDI rely on the following equation, describing the average increase in the area under the plasma concentration–time curve (auc; see Glossary for definition of abbreviations) of a ‘victim’ drug following administration of a ‘perpetrator’ drug (after Rowland and Matin [4]):where fmj is the fraction of substrate clearance mediated by the inhibited metabolic pathway “j” and
Conclusions
Many large pharmaceutical companies are embracing the philosophy of using modelling and simulation technologies, and it has been suggested that in silico approaches may represent up to 15% of R&D spend in the next 5–10 years [22]. However, there are indications that implementation is not always optimal (see Outstanding issues for a list of some outstanding issues). The reasons for this are many, and include excessive ‘compartmentalisation’ of departments (pre-clinical ADME does not always
Outstanding issues
- •
Better communication between large databases and predictive programs.
- •
Improved collaboration between companies in sharing databases on IVIVE cases.
- •
Rationalisation of IP issues related to anonymity and access to data and databases without compromising confidentiality.
- •
Commitment to dedicate personnel (realignment) to carry out prospective and retrospective evaluation of IVIVE.
- •
Redistribution of expenditure such that frontloading with high quality in vitro data becomes more common and the value of
Related articles
Chien, J.Y. et al. (2003) Physiological approaches to the prediction of drug–drug interactions in study populations. Curr. Drug Metab. 4, 347–356
Ito, K. et al. (1998) Prediction of pharmacokinetic alterations caused by drug–drug interactions: metabolic interaction in the liver. Pharmacol. Rev. 50, 387–411
Tucker, G.T. (1992) The rational selection of drug-interaction studies – implications of recent advances in drug-metabolism. Int. J. Clin. Pharmacol. Therap. 30, 550–553
Venkatakrishnan, K. et al
Glossary
- AUC
- area under concentration–time curve (amount × time/volume).
- CLint
- intrinsic clearance.
- CLR
- renal clearance.
- CYP
- cytochrome P450, a group of enzymes responsible for the metabolism of many xenobiotics.
- EH,m
- fraction of dug passing through liver metabolised to metabolite of interest (m).
- fe
- fraction of drug clearance by renal excretion.
- fm
- fraction of drug clearance by metabolic route of interest (m).
- fumic
- fraction of drug unbound in microsomal preparations.
- FH
- fraction of dug passing through liver not
References (22)
The effects of dose staggering on metabolic drug–drug interactions
Eur. J. Pharm. Sci.
(2003)Variable contribution of cytochromes P450 2D6, 2C9 and 3A4 to the 4-hydroxylation of tamoxifen by human liver microsomes
Biochem. Pharmacol.
(1997)Qualitative and quantitative assessment of drug–drug interaction potential in man, based on Ki, IC50 and inhibitor concentration
Curr. Drug Metab.
(2004)Sense and nonsense in the prediction of drug–drug interactions
Curr. Drug Metab.
(2000)Use of in vitro drug metabolism data to evaluate metabolic drug–drug interactions in man: the need for quantitative databases
J. Clin. Pharmacol.
(2001)- et al.
Kinetics of drug–drug interactions
J. Pharmacokinet. Biopharm.
(1973) Database analyses for the prediction of in vivo drug–drug interactions from in vitro data
Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol.
(2004)Quantitative prediction of in vivo drug clearance and drug interactions from in vitro data on metabolism, together with binding and transport
Annu. Rev. Pharmacol. Toxicol.
(1998)Drug metabolism by enzyme mechanisms
Prog. Drug Res.
(1963)The rational selection of drug-interaction studies – implications of recent advances in drug-metabolism
Int. J. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther.
(1992)
Cited by (210)
Recent applications of physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling to assess the toxicity of mixtures: A review
2023, Current Opinion in ToxicologyNovel inhibitors of breast cancer resistance protein (BCRP, ABCG2) among marketed drugs
2023, European Journal of Pharmaceutical SciencesIn vitro inhibition of human UDP-glucuronosyltransferase (UGT) 1A1 by osimertinib, and prediction of in vivo drug-drug interactions
2021, Toxicology LettersCitation Excerpt :Notably, after oral administration, the concentration of osimertinib at the active site of gastrointestinal enzyme was higher than systemic level. Two algorithms have been introduced by Cao et al. (Cao et al., 2012) and Rostami-Hodjegan and Tucker (Rostami-Hodjegan and Tucker, 2004) for the prediction of the concentration of inhibitor in intestinal enzyme catalytic sites (typically located intracellular). Both predictive tools have been recognized in evaluating potential clinical intestinal DDI (Cao et al., 2012; Filppula et al., 2014; Galetin et al., 2008; Jiang et al., 2020; Obach et al., 2006; Rostami-Hodjegan and Tucker, 2004).
Predicting the effect of tea polyphenols on ticagrelor by incorporating transporter-enzyme interplay mechanism
2020, Chemico-Biological InteractionsTowards the quantum-enabled technologies for development of drugs or delivery systems
2020, Journal of Controlled ReleaseCitation Excerpt :Furthermore, MC method could be applied for overcoming the challenging issues associated with differences in the vasculature, red blood cells, or blood flow [169]. MC simulations enable assessment of the effects of surface modification on the endothelial binding of NPs as well as the interactions of NPs with healthy and cancer cells [113,169]. Molecular modeling is a promising approach for simulating the motion of molecules and providing better understanding about the uptake of NPs and their properties [27].
“Natural” is not synonymous with “Safe”: Toxicity of natural products alone and in combination with pharmaceutical agents
2020, Regulatory Toxicology and Pharmacology