Entering the era of computationally driven drug development

References

• Aarons L. 2005. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic modelling: a sound mechanistic basis is needed. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 60:581–583.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Abelo A, Eriksson UG, Karisson MO, Larsson H, Gabrielsson J. 2000. A turnover model of irreversible inhibition of gastric acid secretion by omeprazole in the dog. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 295:662–669.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Asin-Prieto E, Rodriguez-Gascon A, Isla A. 2015. Applications of the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) analysis of antimicrobial agents. J Infect Chemother. 21:319–329.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bailey J, Taylor K. 2016. Non-human primates in neuroscience research: the case against its scientific necessity. Altern Lab Anim. 44:43–69.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bassingthwaighte JB, Butterworth E, Jardine B, Raymond GM. 2012. Compartmental modeling in the analysis of biological systems. Methods Mol Biol. 929:391–438.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bhhatarai B, Walters WP, Hop CE. C. A, Lanza G, Ekins S. 2019. Opportunities and challenges using artificial intelligence in ADME/Tox. Nat Mater. 18:418–422.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boelsterli UA. 2003. Animal models of human disease in drug safety assessment. J Toxicol Sci. 28:109–121.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Bracken MB. 2009. Why animal studies are often poor predictors of human reactions to exposure. J R Soc Med. 102:120–122.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bulitta JB, Holford NHG. 2014. Non-compartmental analysis. In: Balakrishnan N, Colton T, Everitt B, Piegorsch W, Ruggeri F, Teugels JL, editors. Wiley StatsRef: statistics reference online. Hoboken (NJ): John Wiley & Sons.
   Google Scholar
• Chen Y, Mao J, Hop CE. 2015. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling to predict drug-drug interactions involving inhibitory metabolite: a case study of amiodarone. Drug Metab Dispos. 43:182–189.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen Y, Samineni D, Mukadam S, Wong H, Shen B-Q, Lu D, Girish S, Hop C, Jin JY, Li C, et al. 2015. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling as a tool to predict drug interactions for antibody-drug conjugates. Clin Pharmacokinet. 54:81–93.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cherkasov A, Muratov EN, Fourches D, Varnek A, Baskin II, Cronin M, Dearden J, Gramatica P, Martin YC, Todeschini R, et al. 2014. QSAR modeling: where have you been? Where are you going to? J Med Chem. 57:4977–5010.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Collins AT, Lang SH. 2018. A systematic review of the validity of patient derived xenograft (PDX) models: the implications for translational research and personalised medicine. PeerJ. 6:e5981.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Cordes H, Thiel C, Baier V, Blank LM, Kuepfer L. 2018. Integration of genome-scale metabolic networks into whole-body PBPK models shows phenotype-specific cases of drug-induced metabolic perturbation. NPJ Syst Biol Appl. 4:10.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Danhof M, Delange E, Dellapasqua O, Ploeger B, Voskuyl R. 2008. Mechanism-based pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) modeling in translational drug research. Trends Pharmacol Sci. 29:186–191.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Dayneka NL, Garg V, Jusko WJ. 1993. Comparison of four basic models of indirect pharmacodynamic responses. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 21:457–478.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Deisboeck TS, Wang Z, Macklin P, Cristini V. 2011. Multiscale cancer modeling. Annu Rev Biomed Eng. 13:127–155.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• DiMasi JA, Grabowski HG, Hansen RW. 2016. Innovation in the pharmaceutical industry: new estimates of R&D costs. J Health Econ. 47:20–33.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Felmlee MA, Morris ME, Mager DE. 2012. Mechanism-based pharmacodynamic modeling. Methods Mol Biol. 929:583–600.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gabrielsson J, Weiner D. 2012. Non-compartmental analysis. Methods Mol Biol. 929:377–389.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gailani D, Cheng Q, Ivanov IS. 2015. Murine models in the evaluation of heparan sulfate-based anticoagulants. Methods Mol Biol. 1229:483–496.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Gillespie WR. 1991. Noncompartmental versus compartmental modelling in clinical pharmacokinetics. Clin Pharmacokinet. 20:253–262.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Golbraikh A, Wang XS, Zhu H, Tropsha A. 2017. Predictive QSAR modeling: methods and applications in drug discovery and chemical risk assessment. In: Leszczynski J, Kaczmarek-Kedziera A, Puzyn T, Papadopoulos MG, Reis H, Shukla MK, editors. Handbook of computational chemistry. Cham: Springer International Publishing; p. 2303–2340.
   Google Scholar
• Gozalbes R, Pineda-Lucena A. 2010. QSAR-based solubility model for drug-like compounds. Bioorg Med Chem. 18:7078–7084.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hay M, Thomas DW, Craighead JL, Economides C, Rosenthal J. 2014. Clinical development success rates for investigational drugs. Nat Biotechnol. 32:40–51.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Holford NH. 1986. Clinical pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of warfarin. Understanding the dose-effect relationship. Clin Pharmacokinet. 11:483–504.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hsieh N-H, Reisfeld B, Bois FY, Chiu WA. 2018. Applying a global sensitivity analysis workflow to improve the computational efficiencies in physiologically-based pharmacokinetic modeling. Front Pharmacol. 9:588.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hunter PJ, Crampin EJ, Nielsen PM. 2008. Bioinformatics, multiscale modeling and the IUPS Physiome Project. Brief Bioinform. 9:333–343.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Institute of Medicine. 2013. Improving the utility and translation of animal models for nervous system disorders. Workshop Summary. Washington (DC): The National Academies Press.
   Google Scholar
• Jain L, Mehrotra N, Wenning L, Sinha V. 2019. PDUFA VI: it is time to unleash the full potential of model-informed drug development. CPT Pharmacometr Syst Pharmacol. 8:5–8.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Jusko WJ. 1971. Pharmacodynamics of chemotherapeutic effects: dose-time-response relationships for phase-nonspecific agents. J Pharm Sci. 60:892–895.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jusko WJ. 1973. A pharmacodynamic model for cell-cycle-specific chemotherapeutic agents. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1:175–200.
   Google Scholar
• Jusko WJ. 2013. Moving from basic toward systems pharmacodynamic models. J Pharm Sci. 102:2930–2940.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Jusko WJ, Ko HC, Ebling WF. 1995. Convergence of direct and indirect pharmacodynamic response models. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 23:5–8.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kaushik G, Ponnusamy MP, Batra SK. 2018. Concise review: current status of three-dimensional organoids as preclinical models. Stem Cells. 36:1329–1340.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Kim TH, Shin S, Shin BS. 2018. Model-based drug development: application of modeling and simulation in drug development. J Pharm Investig. 48:431–441.
   Google Scholar
• Krauss M, Burghaus R, Lippert J, Niemi M, Neuvonen P, Schuppert A, Willmann S, Kuepfer L, Görlitz L. 2013. Using Bayesian-PBPK modeling for assessment of inter-individual variability and subgroup stratification. In Silico Pharmacol. 1:6.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kuepfer L, Niederalt C, Wendl T, Schlender J-F, Willmann S, Lippert J, Block M, Eissing T, Teutonico D. 2016. Applied concepts in PBPK modeling: how to build a PBPK/PD model. CPT Pharmacometr Syst Pharmacol. 5:516–531.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Lai Y, Wei X, Lin S, Qin L, Cheng L, Li P. 2017. Current status and perspectives of patient-derived xenograft models in cancer research. J Hematol Oncol. 10:106.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Levi M, Dörffle-Melly J, Johnson GJ, Drouet L, Badimon L; Subcommittee on Animal, Cellular, and Molecular Models of Thrombosis and Haemostasis of the Scientific and Standardization Committee of the International Society on Thrombosis and Haemostasis. 2001. Usefulness and limitations of animal models of venous thrombosis. Thromb Haemost. 86:1331–1333.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Loisios-Konstantintinidis I, Paraiso RLM, Fotaki N, McAllister M, Cristofoletti R, Dressman J. 2019. Application of the relationship between pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics in drug development and therapeutic equivalence: a PEARRL review. J Pharm Pharmacol. 71:699–7223.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lombardo F, Desai PV, Arimoto R, Desino KE, Fischer H, Keefer CE, Petersson C, Winiwarter S, Broccatelli F. 2017. In silico absorption, distribution, metabolism, excretion and pharmacokinetics (ADME-PK): utility and best practices. An industry perspective from the international consortium for innovation through quality in pharmaceutical development. J Med Chem. 60:9097–9113.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lombardo F, Obach RS, DiCapua FM, Bakken GA, Lu J, Potter DM, Gao F, Miller MD, Zhang Y. 2006. A hybrid mixture discriminant analysis-random forest computational model for the prediction of volume of distribution of drugs in human. J Med Chem. 49:2262–2267.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mager DE, Wyska E, Jusko WJ. 2003. Diversity of mechanism-based pharmacodynamic models. Drug Metab Dispos. 31:510–518.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maggiora GM. 2006. On outliers and activity cliffs–why QSAR often disappoints. J Chem Inf Model. 46:1535–1535.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Mahajan R, Gupta K. 2010. Food and drug administration’s critical path initiative and innovations in drug development paradigm: challenges, progress, and controversies. J Pharm Bioall Sci. 2:307–313.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Maharao NV, Joshi AA, Gerk PM. 2017. Inhibition of glucuronidation and oxidative metabolism of buprenorphine using GRAS compounds or dietary constituents/supplements: in vitro proof of concept. Biopharm Drug Dispos. 38:139–154.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Maharao N, Venitz J, Gerk PM. 2019. Use of generally recognized as safe or dietary compounds to inhibit buprenorphine metabolism: potential to improve buprenorphine oral bioavailability. Biopharm Drug Dispos. 40:18–31.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Monroe DM, Hoffman M. 2014. A mouse bleeding model to study oral anticoagulants. Thromb Res. 133:S6–S8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Montes-Olivas S, Marucci L, Homer M. 2019. Mathematical models of organoid cultures. Front Genet. 10:873.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Netzeva TI, Worth AP, Aldenberg T, Benigni R, Cronin MTD, Gramatica P, Jaworska JS, Kahn S, Klopman G, Marchant CA, et al. 2005. Current status of methods for defining the applicability domain of (quantitative) structure-activity relationships. The report and recommendations of ECVAM Workshop 52. Altern Lab Anim. 33:155–173.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Obach RS, Baxter JG, Liston TE, Silber BM, Jones BC, MacIntyre F, Rance DJ, Wastall P. 1997. The prediction of human pharmacokinetic parameters from preclinical and in vitro metabolsim data. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 243:45–58.
   Google Scholar
• Park K. 2017. A review of modeling approaches to predict drug response in clinical oncology. Yonsei Med J. 58:1–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Perryman AL, Stratton TP, Ekins S, Freundlich JS. 2016. Predicting mouse liver microsomal stability with “Pruned” machine learning models and public data. Pharm Res. 33:433–449.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pound P, Ritskes-Hoitinga M. 2018. Is it possible to overcome issues of external validity in preclinical animal research? Why most animal models are bound to fail. J Transl Med. 16:304.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ransohoff RM. 2018. All (animal) models (of neurodegeneration) are wrong. Are they also useful? J Exp Med. 215:2955–2958.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Safdar N, Andes D, Craig WA. 2004. In vivo pharmacodynamic activity of daptomycin. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 48:63–68.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sager JE, Yu J, Ragueneau-Majlessi I, Isoherranen N. 2015. Physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modeling and simulation approaches: a systematic review of published models, applications, and model verification. Drug Metab Dispos. 43:1823–1837.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sharma A, Ebling WF, Jusko WJ. 1998. Precursor-dependent indirect pharmacodynamic response model for tolerance and rebound phenomena. J Pharm Sci. 87:1577–1584.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheiner LB, Stanski DR, Vozeh S, Miller RD, Ham J. 1979. Simultaneous modeling of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics: application to d-tubocurarine. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 25:358–371.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sheridan RP. 2013. Time-split cross-validation as a method for estimating the goodness of prospective prediction. J Chem Inf Model. 53:783–790.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Singh AP, Shah DK. 2017. Application of a PK-PD modeling and simulation-based strategy for clinical translation of antibody-drug conjugates: a case study with trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1). Aaps J. 19:1054–1070.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sjoberg EA. 2017. Logical fallacies in animal model research. Behav Brain Funct. 13:3.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sprous DG, Palmer RK, Swanson JT, Lawless M. 2010. QSAR in the pharmaceutical research setting: QSAR models for broad, large problems. CTMC. 10:619–637.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sun YN, Jusko WJ. 1998. Transit compartments versus gamma distribution function to model signal transduction processes in pharmacodynamics. J Pharm Sci. 87:732–737.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Toutain PL, Lefebvre HP, King JN. 2000. Benazeprilat disposition and effect in dogs revisited with a pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling approach. J Pharmacol Exp Ther. 292:1087–1093.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tropsha A. 2010. Best practices for QSAR model development, validation, and exploitation. Mol Inf. 29:476–488.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tropsha A, Golbraikh A. 2007. Predictive QSAR modeling workflow, model applicability domains, and virtual screening. Curr Pharm Design. 13:3494–3504.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Tuveson D, Clevers H. 2019. Cancer modeling meets human organoid technology. Science. 364:952–955.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• U.S. Food & Drug Administration. 2003. FDA guidance for industry: exposure-response relationships—study design, data analysis, and regulatory applications. Rockville (MD): FDA.
   Google Scholar
• van der Worp HB, Howells DW, Sena ES, Porritt MJ, Rewell S, O'Collins V, Macleod MR. 2010. Can animal models of disease reliably inform human studies? PLoS Med. 7:e1000245.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wade KC, Wu D, Kaufman DA, Ward RM, Benjamin DK, Sullivan JE, Ramey N, Jayaraman B, Hoppu K, Adamson PC, et al. on behalf of the NICHD Pediatric Pharmacology Research Unit Network. 2008. Population pharmacokinetics of fluconazole in young infants. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 52:4043–4049.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagar LE, DiFazio RM, Davis MM. 2018. Advanced model systems and tools for basic and translational human immunology. Genome Med. 10:73.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wagner JG. 1968. Kinetics of pharmacologic response. I. Proposed relationships between response and drug concentration in the intact animal and man. J Theor Biol. 20:173–201.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Waring MJ, Arrowsmith J, Leach AR, Leeson PD, Mandrell S, Owen RM, Pairaudeau G, Pennie WD, Pickett SD, Wang J, et al. 2015. An analysis of the attrition of drug candidates from four major pharmaceutical companies. Nat Rev Drug Discov. 14:475–486.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright DF, Winter HR, Duffull SB. 2011. Understanding the time course of pharmacological effect: a PKPD approach. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 71:815–823.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wu B, Joshi A, Ren S, Ng C. 2006. The application of mechanism-based PK/PD modeling in pharmacodynamic-based dose selection of muM17, a surrogate monoclonal antibody for efalizumab. J Pharm Sci. 95:1258–1268.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yassen A, Olofsen E, Romberg R, Sarton E, Teppema L, Danhof M, Dahan A. 2007. Mechanism-based PK/PD modeling of the respiratory depressant effect of buprenorphine and fentanyl in healthy volunteers. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 81:50–58.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yoshida K, Budha N, Jin JY. 2017. Impact of physiologically based pharmacokinetic models on regulatory reviews and product labels: frequent utilization in the field of oncology. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 101:597–602.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhang X, Lionberger RA, Davit BM, Yu LX. 2011. Utility of physiologically based absorption modeling in implementing quality by design in drug development. Aaps J. 13:59–71.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhao M, Lepak AJ, Andes DR. 2016. Animal models in the pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic evaluation of antimicrobial agents. Bioorg Med Chem. 24:6390–6400.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zheng X, Wise SM, Cristini V. 2005. Nonlinear simulation of tumor necrosis, neo-vascularization and tissue invasion via an adaptive finite-element/level-set method. Bull Math Biol. 67:211–259.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhou S, Meng J, Liu B. 2017. Investigation into the pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic model of Zingiberis Rhizoma/Zingiberis Rhizoma Carbonisata and contribution to their therapeutic material basis using artificial neural networks. RSC Adv. 7:25488–25496.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zhuang X, Lu C. 2016. PBPK modeling and simulation in drug research and development. Acta Pharm Sin B. 6:430–440.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Zion Market Research. 2019. Biosimulation Market by Product (Software and Services), by Application (Drug Development, Drug Discovery, and Others), and by End-User (Pharmaceutical & Biotechnology Companies, Contract Research Organizations, Regulatory Authorities, and Academic Research Institutions): Global Industry Perspective, Comprehensive Analysis, and Forecast, 2018–2025.
   Google Scholar