Display options
Cite
Ridgway D, Tuszynski JA, Tam YK. Reassessing models of hepatic extraction. J Biol Phys. 2003;29(1):1-21doi: 10.1023/A:1022531403741.
Ridgway, D., Tuszynski, J. A., & Tam, Y. K. (2003). Reassessing models of hepatic extraction. Journal of biological physics, 29(1), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022531403741
Ridgway, D, et al. "Reassessing models of hepatic extraction." Journal of biological physics vol. 29,1 (2003): 1-21. doi: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1022531403741
Ridgway D, Tuszynski JA, Tam YK. Reassessing models of hepatic extraction. J Biol Phys. 2003 Mar;29(1):1-21. doi: 10.1023/A:1022531403741. PMID: 23345816; PMCID: PMC3456842.
Copy Download .nbib Format: NLM
Share it on

J Biol Phys. 2003 Mar;29(1):1-21. doi: 10.1023/A:1022531403741.

Reassessing models of hepatic extraction.

Journal of biological physics

D Ridgway, J A Tuszynski, Y K Tam

Affiliations

  1. Kinetana Group Inc., 9650 - 20 Ave., Edmonton, AB T6N 1G1.

PMID: 23345816 PMCID: PMC3456842 DOI: 10.1023/A:1022531403741

Abstract

The aim of this investigation is to compare different mathematical models of the liver in the context of in vitro-in vivo correlation. We reanalyze drugs from the Houston reviews [1, 2], and compare the mathematical models. For the well-stirred model, a particular form of the distributed tubes model, and the dispersion model, fits are done to in vitro and in vivo intrinsic clearance data from microsomal and hepatocyte experiments. The distributed and dispersion models have decreased residuals as compared to the well-stirred model, but neither is to be clearly preferred over theother. It seems likely that drug-specific factors have a major impact on the quality of IVIVC correlations. While new experiments are needed to validate IVIVC models, our results indicate that improved correlation of in vitroand in vivo data is possible for high clearance drugs by using either a dispersion or distributed tube model rather than a well-stirred model.

Keywords: in vivo-in vitro correlations; multi-compartment models; pharmacokinetics

References

  1. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1991 Apr;20(4):253-62 - PubMed
  2. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1985 Oct;13(5):477-92 - PubMed
  3. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1997 Oct;283(1):46-58 - PubMed
  4. Am J Physiol. 1983 Jun;244(6):G583-9 - PubMed
  5. J Pharm Sci. 1999 Dec;88(12):1362-5 - PubMed
  6. Drug Metab Rev. 1997 Nov;29(4):891-922 - PubMed
  7. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1988 Feb;16(1):41-83 - PubMed
  8. Xenobiotica. 1994 Nov;24(11):1107-17 - PubMed
  9. J Theor Biol. 1999 Aug 21;199(4):435-47 - PubMed
  10. J Pharm Pharmacol. 1986 Mar;38(3):177-81 - PubMed
  11. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1986 Jun;14(3):261-88 - PubMed
  12. Drug Metab Dispos. 1998 Mar;26(3):216-21 - PubMed
  13. Xenobiotica. 1996 Sep;26(9):897-907 - PubMed
  14. J Clin Pharmacol. 1988 May;28(5):388-94 - PubMed
  15. J Pharm Sci. 2000 Dec;89(12):1579-86 - PubMed
  16. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 1977 Feb;200(2):420-4 - PubMed
  17. Xenobiotica. 1995 Sep;25(9):907-16 - PubMed
  18. J Theor Biol. 1987 Jun 21;126(4):457-82 - PubMed
  19. J Theor Biol. 1997 Sep 7;188(1):89-101 - PubMed
  20. Fundam Clin Pharmacol. 1989;3(2):79-88 - PubMed
  21. Drug Metab Rev. 1992;24(1):49-88 - PubMed
  22. J Theor Biol. 1997 Jan 7;184(1):1-6 - PubMed
  23. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1998 Apr;26(2):247-60 - PubMed
  24. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1977 Dec;5(6):625-53 - PubMed
  25. Biochem Pharmacol. 1994 Apr 29;47(9):1469-79 - PubMed
  26. J Pharm Sci. 1982 May;71(5):600-2 - PubMed
  27. Drug Metab Dispos. 1997 Dec;25(12):1359-69 - PubMed
  28. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1986 Jun;14(3):227-60 - PubMed
  29. Toxicol Lett. 1995 Sep;79(1-3):99-106 - PubMed
  30. J Pharm Sci. 2000 Dec;89(12):1587-8 - PubMed
  31. J Pharm Sci. 1990 Apr;79(4):281-7 - PubMed
  32. J Clin Pharmacol. 1988 Oct;28(10):879-88 - PubMed

Publication Types