Cited by 124Pharmaceutical studies and practicesAnimal testing and alternativesComputational Drug Discovery Methods

Improving the Accuracy of Predicted Human Pharmacokinetics: Lessons Learned from the AstraZeneca Drug Pipeline Over Two Decades

Open access
Davies, Michael, Jones, Rhys D.O., Grime, Ken, Jansson-Löfmark, Rasmus, Fretland, Adrian J., Winiwarter, Susanne, Morgan, Paul, McGinnity, Dermot F.·2020·Trends in Pharmacological Sciences

Abstract

During drug discovery and prior to the first human dose of a novel candidate drug, the pharmacokinetic (PK) behavior of the drug in humans is predicted from preclinical data. This helps to inform the likelihood of achieving therapeutic exposures in early clinical development. Once clinical data are available, the observed human PK are compared with predictions, providing an opportunity to assess and refine prediction methods. Application of best practice in experimental data generation and predictive methodologies, and a focus on robust mechanistic understanding of the candidate drug disposition properties before nomination to clinical development, have led to maximizing the probability of successful PK predictions so that 83% of AstraZeneca drug development projects progress in the clinic with no PK issues; and 71% of key PK parameter predictions [64% of area under the curve (AUC) predictions; 78% of maximum concentration (C max ) predictions; and 70% of half-life predictions] are accurate to within twofold. Here, we discuss methods to predict human PK used by AstraZeneca, how these predictions are assessed and what can be learned from evaluating the predictions for 116 candidate drugs.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.tips.2020.03.004

Cites

77 of 77 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?

  • Recent lessons shared by scientists at AstraZeneca, Bayer, Merck and GSK highlight the complexities of ADMET property prediction.

    “Recent lessons shared by scientists at AstraZeneca (83), Bayer (84), Merck (85) and GSK (86) highlight the complexities of ADMET property prediction (87).”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 78 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Davies, M., Jones, R. D. O., Grime, K., Jansson-Löfmark, R., Fretland, A. J., Winiwarter, S., Morgan, P., & McGinnity, D. F.
Affiliations
  • AstraZeneca (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • AstraZeneca (Sweden) (SE)
  • AstraZeneca (United States) (US)
Corresponding author
Davies, Michael
Venue
Trends in Pharmacological Sciences
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-06
Volume
41
Issue
6
Pages
390-408
ISSN
0165-6147 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W3023096250
Cited by
123
References
78
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 24 · 2024: 22 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 17 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 7
FWCI
3.57
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Trends in Pharmacological Sciences (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pharmaceutical studies and practices
  • Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computational Theory and Mathematics › Computational Drug Discovery Methods
Keywords
human pharmacokinetics, drug development pipeline, AstraZeneca, area under the curve, maximum concentration, half-life
MeSH terms
Humans, Pharmacokinetics, Drug Discovery

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