Cited by 61Pharmacogenetics and Drug MetabolismDrug Transport and Resistance MechanismsDrug-Induced Hepatotoxicity and Protection

Evaluation of Hepatic Clearance Prediction Using In Vitro Data: Emphasis on Fraction Unbound in Plasma and Drug Ionisation Using a Database of 107 Drugs

Hallifax, David, Houston, J. Brian·2012·Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences

Abstract

Underprediction of in vivo intrinsic clearance (CL(int)) of unbound drug from human hepatic in vitro systems using physiological extrapolation methodology is accepted as a common outcome. Poulin et al. (2012. J Pharm Sci 101:838-851) recently proposed an approach involving determination of effective fraction unbound in plasma (fu(p)) based on albumin-facilitated hepatic uptake of acidic/neutral drugs which improved prediction accuracy and precision for 25 drugs highly bound to plasma proteins. This approach includes correction of unbound drug according to the ionisation fraction either side of the plasma membrane based on pH difference. Here, we assessed the proposed method using a larger database of predictions of CL(int) for 107 drugs involving hepatocytes (89 drugs) and microsomes (64 drugs). The proposed method was similarly effective in minimising average prediction bias (to within twofold), unlike the conventional fu(p) correction method. However, precision was similar between methods and there was no evidence in the larger database that prediction bias was associated with fu(p). Prediction bias for hepatocytes was clearance dependent by either method, indicating important sources of bias from in vitro methodology. Therefore, to progress beyond empirical correction of bias, there is further need of mechanistic elucidation to improve prediction methodology.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jps.23202

Cites

19 of 19 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

2 of the 21 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Hallifax, D., & Houston, J. B.
Affiliations
University of Manchester (GB)
Corresponding author
Hallifax, David
Venue
Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-08
Volume
101
Issue
8
Pages
2645-2652
ISSN
0022-3549 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1996949498
Cited by
60
References
21
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 5 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 3 · 2018: 5 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 2
FWCI
7.25
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion)
Funders
University of Manchester
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmacogenetics and Drug Metabolism
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Drug Transport and Resistance Mechanisms
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Drug-Induced Hepatotoxicity and Protection
Keywords
intrinsic clearance, hepatocytes, microsomes, prediction bias, plasma protein binding, drug metabolism
MeSH terms
Animals, Pharmaceutical Preparations, Humans, Liver, Metabolic Clearance Rate, Microsomes, Liver, Models, Biological, Pharmacokinetics, Hepatocytes

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review