Laura Krumpholz , Sebastian Polak , Barbara Wiśniowska
{"title":"了解 IVPT 结果的变异性--咖啡因体外人体皮肤渗透 PBPK 模型的开发、验证和确认。","authors":"Laura Krumpholz , Sebastian Polak , Barbara Wiśniowska","doi":"10.1016/j.ejps.2024.106943","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>In the context of evaluating the safety and efficacy of dermal products, pharmacokinetic (PK) studies face considerable challenges, particularly concerning topically applied formulations. This underscores the necessity for alternative methods, such as in vitro permeation tests (IVPT) and physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modelling, to better understand the dermal pharmacokinetics of a product. The purpose of this study was to modify, verify, and validate the PBPK model of caffeine permeation through human skin previously developed by Patel et al. (2022), and compare simulation results with experimental data from IVPT studies. Moreover, the study aimed to analyse the IVPT data variability and explore the potential of using the PBPK model to understand the influence of biological and drug-related factors on the IVPT results. In total, eight manuscripts describing nine experiments were included. The overall shapes of the permeation curves were considered acceptable based on visual checks for all analysed experiments. Five out of nine experiments met the predefined standard 2-fold difference criterion for comparison of the cumulative amount of caffeine in the receptor solution.. Our investigation highlights challenges in validating PBPK models for IVPT experiments, as the quality and consistency of experimental results pose significant hurdles. Despite access to data on caffeine permeation in scientific literature, reliable model validation is currently infeasible. Inter-laboratory variation suggests that alternative validation methods may be needed. Further studies should focus on issues with other compounds, especially lipophilic ones.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":12018,"journal":{"name":"European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences","volume":"204 ","pages":"Article 106943"},"PeriodicalIF":4.3000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-20","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Towards the understanding of the IVPT results variability—Development, verification and validation of the PBPK model of caffeine in vitro human skin permeation\",\"authors\":\"Laura Krumpholz , Sebastian Polak , Barbara Wiśniowska\",\"doi\":\"10.1016/j.ejps.2024.106943\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<div><div>In the context of evaluating the safety and efficacy of dermal products, pharmacokinetic (PK) studies face considerable challenges, particularly concerning topically applied formulations. This underscores the necessity for alternative methods, such as in vitro permeation tests (IVPT) and physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modelling, to better understand the dermal pharmacokinetics of a product. The purpose of this study was to modify, verify, and validate the PBPK model of caffeine permeation through human skin previously developed by Patel et al. (2022), and compare simulation results with experimental data from IVPT studies. Moreover, the study aimed to analyse the IVPT data variability and explore the potential of using the PBPK model to understand the influence of biological and drug-related factors on the IVPT results. In total, eight manuscripts describing nine experiments were included. The overall shapes of the permeation curves were considered acceptable based on visual checks for all analysed experiments. Five out of nine experiments met the predefined standard 2-fold difference criterion for comparison of the cumulative amount of caffeine in the receptor solution.. Our investigation highlights challenges in validating PBPK models for IVPT experiments, as the quality and consistency of experimental results pose significant hurdles. Despite access to data on caffeine permeation in scientific literature, reliable model validation is currently infeasible. Inter-laboratory variation suggests that alternative validation methods may be needed. Further studies should focus on issues with other compounds, especially lipophilic ones.</div></div>\",\"PeriodicalId\":12018,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences\",\"volume\":\"204 \",\"pages\":\"Article 106943\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":4.3000,\"publicationDate\":\"2024-10-20\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"3\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0928098724002562\",\"RegionNum\":3,\"RegionCategory\":\"医学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0928098724002562","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
Towards the understanding of the IVPT results variability—Development, verification and validation of the PBPK model of caffeine in vitro human skin permeation
In the context of evaluating the safety and efficacy of dermal products, pharmacokinetic (PK) studies face considerable challenges, particularly concerning topically applied formulations. This underscores the necessity for alternative methods, such as in vitro permeation tests (IVPT) and physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modelling, to better understand the dermal pharmacokinetics of a product. The purpose of this study was to modify, verify, and validate the PBPK model of caffeine permeation through human skin previously developed by Patel et al. (2022), and compare simulation results with experimental data from IVPT studies. Moreover, the study aimed to analyse the IVPT data variability and explore the potential of using the PBPK model to understand the influence of biological and drug-related factors on the IVPT results. In total, eight manuscripts describing nine experiments were included. The overall shapes of the permeation curves were considered acceptable based on visual checks for all analysed experiments. Five out of nine experiments met the predefined standard 2-fold difference criterion for comparison of the cumulative amount of caffeine in the receptor solution.. Our investigation highlights challenges in validating PBPK models for IVPT experiments, as the quality and consistency of experimental results pose significant hurdles. Despite access to data on caffeine permeation in scientific literature, reliable model validation is currently infeasible. Inter-laboratory variation suggests that alternative validation methods may be needed. Further studies should focus on issues with other compounds, especially lipophilic ones.
期刊介绍:
The journal publishes research articles, review articles and scientific commentaries on all aspects of the pharmaceutical sciences with emphasis on conceptual novelty and scientific quality. The Editors welcome articles in this multidisciplinary field, with a focus on topics relevant for drug discovery and development.
More specifically, the Journal publishes reports on medicinal chemistry, pharmacology, drug absorption and metabolism, pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, pharmaceutical and biomedical analysis, drug delivery (including gene delivery), drug targeting, pharmaceutical technology, pharmaceutical biotechnology and clinical drug evaluation. The journal will typically not give priority to manuscripts focusing primarily on organic synthesis, natural products, adaptation of analytical approaches, or discussions pertaining to drug policy making.
Scientific commentaries and review articles are generally by invitation only or by consent of the Editors. Proceedings of scientific meetings may be published as special issues or supplements to the Journal.