Cited by 43Drug Solubulity and Delivery SystemsPharmaceutical studies and practicesComputational Drug Discovery Methods

IMI – oral biopharmaceutics tools project – evaluation of bottom-up PBPK prediction success part 1: Characterisation of the OrBiTo database of compounds

Open access
Margolskee, Alison, Darwich, Adam S., Pepin, Xavier, Pathak, Shriram M., Bolger, Michael B., Aarons, Leon, Rostami-Hodjegan, Amin, Angstenberger, Jonas +39 more·2017·European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences

Abstract

Predicting oral bioavailability (F oral) is of importance for estimating systemic exposure of orally administered drugs. Physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modelling and simulation have been applied extensively in biopharmaceutics recently. The Oral Biopharmaceutical Tools (OrBiTo) project (Innovative Medicines Initiative) aims to develop and improve upon biopharmaceutical tools, including PBPK absorption models. A large-scale evaluation of PBPK models may be considered the first step. Here we characterise the OrBiTo active pharmaceutical ingredient (API) database for use in a large-scale simulation study. The OrBiTo database comprised 83 APIs and 1475 study arms. The database displayed a median logP of 3.60 (2.40-4.58), human blood-to-plasma ratio of 0.62 (0.57-0.71), and fraction unbound in plasma of 0.05 (0.01-0.17). The database mainly consisted of basic compounds (48.19%) and Biopharmaceutics Classification System class II compounds (55.81%). Median human intravenous clearance was 16.9L/h (interquartile range: 11.6-43.6L/h; n=23), volume of distribution was 80.8L (54.5-239L; n=23). The majority of oral formulations were immediate release (IR: 87.6%). Human F oral displayed a median of 0.415 (0.203-0.724; n=22) for IR formulations. The OrBiTo database was found to be largely representative of previously published datasets. 43 of the APIs were found to satisfy the minimum inclusion criteria for the simulation exercise, and many of these have significant gaps of other key parameters, which could potentially impact the interpretability of the simulation outcome. However, the OrBiTo simulation exercise represents a unique opportunity to perform a large-scale evaluation of the PBPK approach to predicting oral biopharmaceutics.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.ejps.2016.09.027

Cites

25 of 25 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Margolskee, A., Darwich, A. S., Pepin, X., Pathak, S. M., Bolger, M. B., Aarons, L., Rostami-Hodjegan, A., Angstenberger, J., Graf, F., Laplanche, L., Müller, T., Carlert, S., Daga, P., Murphy, D., Tannergren, C., Yasin, M., Greschat-Schade, S., Mück, W., Muenster, U., van der Mey, D., Frank, K. J., Lloyd, R., Adriaenssen, L., Bevernage, J., De Zwart, L., Swerts, D., Tistaert, C., Van Den Bergh, A., Van Peer, A., Beato, S., Nguyen-Trung, A.-T., Bennett, J., McAllister, M., Wong, M., Zane, P., Ollier, C., Vicat, P., Kolhmann, M., Marker, A., Brun, P., Mazuir, F., Beilles, S., Venczel, M., Boulenc, X., Loos, P., Lennernäs, H., & Abrahamsson, B.
Affiliations
  • University of Manchester (GB)
  • AstraZeneca (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • Simcyp (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • Simulations Plus (United States) (US)
  • AbbVie (Germany) (DE)
  • AstraZeneca (Sweden) (SE)
  • AstraZeneca (United States) (US)
  • Bayer (Germany) (DE)
  • Novartis (Switzerland) (CH)
  • GlaxoSmithKline (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • Janssen (Belgium) (BE)
  • Uppsala University (SE)
Corresponding author
Margolskee, Alison
Venue
European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2017-01
Volume
96
Pages
598-609
ISSN
0928-0987 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2523718461
Cited by
43
References
25
Citations by year
2026: 1 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 9 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 4 · 2016: 2
FWCI
3.99
Type
journal article
Language
en
Locations
  • European Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Explorer (The University of Manchester) (publishedVersion, other-oa)
Funders
Medical Research Council (MC_G1100157)
Topics
  • Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmaceutical Science › Drug Solubulity and Delivery Systems
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pharmaceutical studies and practices
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
Keywords
oral bioavailability, physiologically based pharmacokinetic modelling, active pharmaceutical ingredients, Biopharmaceutics Classification System, drug clearance, volume of distribution, lipophilicity, immediate-release formulation, simulation exercises
MeSH terms
Administration, Oral, Biopharmaceutics, Drug Evaluation, Preclinical, Pharmaceutical Preparations, Forecasting, Humans, Intestinal Absorption, Models, Biological, Databases, Factual

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