A Comparison of Pharmacokinetics between Humans and Monkeys
Abstract
To verify the availability of pharmacokinetic parameters in cynomolgus monkeys, hepatic availability (Fh) and the fraction absorbed multiplied by intestinal availability (FaFg) were evaluated to determine their contributions to absolute bioavailability (F) after intravenous and oral administrations. These results were compared with those for humans using 13 commercial drugs for which human pharmacokinetic parameters have been reported. In addition, in vitro studies of these drugs, including membrane permeability, intrinsic clearance, and p-glycoprotein affinity, were performed to classify the drugs on the basis of their pharmacokinetic properties. In the present study, monkeys had a markedly lower F than humans for 8 of 13 drugs. Although there were no obvious differences in Fh between humans and monkeys, a remarkable species difference in FaFg was observed. Subsequently, we compared the FaFg values for monkeys with the in vitro pharmacokinetic properties of each drug. No obvious FaFg differences were observed between humans and monkeys for drugs that undergo almost no in vivo metabolism. In contrast, low FaFg were observed in monkeys for drugs that undergo relatively high metabolism in monkeys. These results suggest that first-pass intestinal metabolism is greater in cynomolgus monkeys than in humans, and that bioavailability in cynomolgus monkeys after oral administration is unsuitable for predicting pharmacokinetics in humans. In addition, a rough correlation was also observed between in vitro metabolic stability and Fg in humans, possibly indicating the potential for Fg prediction in humans using only in vitro parameters after slight modification of the evaluation system for in vitro intestinal metabolism.
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?
Intestinal metabolism due to CYP3A can be significant in the monkey, yet not relevant or less relevant to humans.
“Intestinal metabolism due to CYP3A can be significant in the monkey, yet not relevant or less relevant to humans [81, 82].”
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 44 · Cited by 97
- Authors
- Akabane, T., Tabata, K., Kadono, K., Sakuda, S., Terashita, S., & Teramura, T.
- Affiliations
- Astellas Pharma (Japan) (JP)
- Venue
- Drug Metabolism and Disposition
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2010-02
- Volume
- 38
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 308-316
- ISSN
- 0090-9556 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1968177654
- Cited by
- 97
- References
- 44
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 3 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 7 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 5.07
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- Drug Metabolism and Disposition (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics › Pharmacology › Pharmacogenetics and Drug Metabolism
- Health Sciences › Veterinary › Small Animals › Animal testing and alternatives
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › Drug Transport and Resistance Mechanisms
- Keywords
- pharmacokinetics, Macaca fascicularis, cross-species comparison, absolute bioavailability, intestinal absorption, first-pass metabolism, intestinal metabolism, membrane permeability, intrinsic clearance, in vitro-in vivo extrapolation, drug metabolism
- MeSH terms
- Administration, Oral, Animals, Biological Availability, Drug Evaluation, Preclinical, Pharmaceutical Preparations, Humans, Injections, Intravenous, Intestinal Mucosa, Liver, Macaca fascicularis, Male, Membranes, Artificial, Microsomes, Models, Biological, Permeability, Pharmacokinetics, Protein Binding, Species Specificity, Time Factors, ATP Binding Cassette Transporter, Subfamily B, Member 1
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