In Silico Modeling of Gastrointestinal Drug Absorption: Predictive Performance of Three Physiologically Based Absorption Models
Abstract
Gastrointestinal (GI) drug absorption is a complex process determined by formulation, physicochemical and biopharmaceutical factors, and GI physiology. Physiologically based in silico absorption models have emerged as a widely used and promising supplement to traditional in vitro assays and preclinical in vivo studies. However, there remains a lack of comparative studies between different models. The aim of this study was to explore the strengths and limitations of the in silico absorption models Simcyp 13.1, GastroPlus 8.0, and GI-Sim 4.1, with respect to their performance in predicting human intestinal drug absorption. This was achieved by adopting an a priori modeling approach and using well-defined input data for 12 drugs associated with incomplete GI absorption and related challenges in predicting the extent of absorption. This approach better mimics the real situation during formulation development where predictive in silico models would be beneficial. Plasma concentration-time profiles for 44 oral drug administrations were calculated by convolution of model-predicted absorption-time profiles and reported pharmacokinetic parameters. Model performance was evaluated by comparing the predicted plasma concentration-time profiles, Cmax, tmax, and exposure (AUC) with observations from clinical studies. The overall prediction accuracies for AUC, given as the absolute average fold error (AAFE) values, were 2.2, 1.6, and 1.3 for Simcyp, GastroPlus, and GI-Sim, respectively. The corresponding AAFE values for Cmax were 2.2, 1.6, and 1.3, respectively, and those for tmax were 1.7, 1.5, and 1.4, respectively. Simcyp was associated with underprediction of AUC and Cmax; the accuracy decreased with decreasing predicted fabs. A tendency for underprediction was also observed for GastroPlus, but there was no correlation with predicted fabs. There were no obvious trends for over- or underprediction for GI-Sim. The models performed similarly in capturing dependencies on dose and particle size. In conclusion, it was shown that all three software packages are useful to guide formulation development. However, as a consequence of the high fraction of inaccurate predictions (prediction error >2-fold) and the clear trend toward decreased accuracy with decreased predicted fabs observed with Simcyp, the results indicate that GI-Sim and GastroPlus perform better than Simcyp in predicting the intestinal absorption of the incompletely absorbed drugs when a higher degree of accuracy is needed. In addition, this study suggests that modeling and simulation research groups should perform systematic model evaluations using their own input data to maximize confidence in model performance and output.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
PBPK platforms have previously been compared from an oral biopharmaceutics and intestinal absorption perspective, but studies on the potential implications of platform differences for disposition-related applications, such as DDIs, are still lacking.
“PBPK platforms have previously been compared from an oral biopharmaceutics and intestinal absorption perspective, 15 , 16 , 17 but studies on the potential implications of platform differences for disposition related applications, such as DDIs, are still lacking.”
From Does the choice of applied physiologically‐based pharmacokinetics platform matter? A case study on simvastatin disposition and drug–drug interaction (2022) · cites this paper as [17]
Cites
Jones, H., Chen, Y., Gibson, C., Heimbach, T., Parrott, N., Peters, S., Snoeys, J., Upreti, V., Zheng, M., & Hall, S. (2015) · Clinical Pharmacology & Therapeutics · doi:10.1002/cpt.37 · Cited by 488 · see citing works
Jones, H. M., Gardner, I. B., Collard, W. T., Stanley, P. J., Oxley, P., Hosea, N. A., Plowchalk, D., Gernhardt, S., Lin, J., Dickins, M., et al. (2011) · Clinical Pharmacokinetics · doi:10.2165/11539680-000000000-00000 · Cited by 110 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Davies, M., Jones, R. D. O., Grime, K., Jansson-Löfmark, R., Fretland, A. J., Winiwarter, S., Morgan, P., & McGinnity, D. F. (2020) · Trends in Pharmacological Sciences · doi:10.1016/j.tips.2020.03.004 · Cited by 123 · see citing works
Yu, A., Jackson, T., Tsume, Y., Koenigsknecht, M., Wysocki, J., Marciani, L., Amidon, G. L., Frances, A., Baker, J. R., Hasler, W., et al. (2017) · The AAPS Journal · doi:10.1208/s12248-017-0145-x · Cited by 30 · see citing works
Prieto Garcia, L., Lundahl, A., Ahlström, C., Vildhede, A., Lennernäs, H., & Sjögren, E. (2022) · CPT: Pharmacometrics & Systems Pharmacology · doi:10.1002/psp4.12837 · Cited by 21 · see citing works
Self-citation
- Authors
- Sjögren, E., Thörn, H., & Tannergren, C.
- Affiliations
- Uppsala University (SE)
- AstraZeneca (Sweden) (SE)
- Corresponding author
- Tannergren, Christer
- Venue
- Molecular Pharmaceutics
- Publisher
- American Chemical Society (ACS)
- Published
- 2016-05-05
- Volume
- 13
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 1763-1778
- ISSN
- 1543-8384 (ISSN-L)
- 1543-8392
- OpenAlex
- W2288564155
- Cited by
- 98
- References
- 2
- Citations by year
- 2026: 3 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 11 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 9 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 10 · 2016: 6
- FWCI
- 5.89
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Molecular Pharmaceutics (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- AstraZeneca
- 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
- gastrointestinal drug absorption, physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling, SimCYP, GastroPlus, fraction absorbed, oral administration, plasma concentration-time curve, model comparison, drug formulation development, prediction accuracy, AUC prediction
- MeSH terms
- Administration, Oral, Chemistry, Pharmaceutical, Computer Simulation, Pharmaceutical Preparations, Gastrointestinal Agents, Humans, Intestinal Absorption, Models, Biological, Solubility
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