Predicting transdermal fentanyl delivery using physics-based simulations for tailored therapy based on the age

References

• Algera MH, Kamp J, van der Schrier R, et al. (2019). Opioid-induced respiratory depression in humans: a review of pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modelling of reversal. Br J Anaesth 122:e168–e179.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Andresen T, Upton RN, Foster DJR, et al. (2011). Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic relationships of transdermal buprenorphine and fentanyl in experimental human pain models. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 108:274–84.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Anissimov YG, Jepps OG, Dancik Y, Roberts MS. (2013). Mathematical and pharmacokinetic modelling of epidermal and dermal transport processes. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 65:169–90.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Berner B, John VA. (1994). Pharmacokinetic characterisation of transdermal delivery systems. Clin Pharmacokinet 26:121–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Bjorkman S, Wada RD, Stanski D. (1998). Application of physiologic models to predict the influence of changes in body composition and blood flows on the pharmacokinetics of fentanyl and alfentanil in patients. Anesthesiology 88:657–67.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Björkman S. (2003). Reduction and lumping of physiologically based pharmacokinetic models: prediction of the disposition of fentanyl and pethidine in humans by successively simplified models. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 30:285–307.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Boireau-Adamezyk E, Baillet-Guffroy A, Stamatas GN. (2014). Age-dependent changes in stratum corneum barrier function. Skin Res Technol 20:409–15.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Breitbart W, Chandler S, Eagel B. (2000). An alternative algorithm for dosing transdermal fentanyl for cancer-related pain. Oncology 14:695–705.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Caraceni A, Hanks G, Kaasa S. (2012). Use of opioid analgesics in the treatment of cancer pain: evidence-based recommendations from the EAPC. Lancet Oncol 13:58–68.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Casey M, Wintergerste T. (2000). Special interst group on “quality and trust in industrial CFD” best practice guidelines, First edit. ercoftac: European Research Community on Flow Turbulence and Combustion 2000.
   Google Scholar
• Chaves C, Remiao F, Cisternino S, Decleves X. (2017). Opioids and the blood-brain barrier: a dynamic interaction with consequences on drug disposition in brain. Curr Neuropharmacol 15:1156–73.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chen J, Jiang QD, Chai YP, et al. (2016). Natural terpenes as penetration enhancers for transdermal drug delivery. Molecules 21:1709–22.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Chien YW, Lin S. (2007). Drug delivery: controlled release. In Encyclopedia of Pharmaceutical Technology, Third Edit., J. Swarbrick, Ed. New York: Informa Healthcare, p. 2092.
   Google Scholar
• Corral-Acero J, Margara F, Marciniak M, et al. (2020). The 'Digital Twin' to enable the vision of precision cardiology. Eur Heart J 41:4556–64.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Defraeye T, Shrivastava C, Berry T, et al. (2021). Digital twins are coming: Will we need them in supply chains of fresh horticultural produce? Trends in Food Science & Technology 109:245–58.
   Google Scholar
• Defraeye T, Bahrami F, Ding L, et al. (2020). Predicting transdermal fentanyl delivery using mechanistic simulations for tailored therapy. Front Pharmacol 11:1487.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Defraeye T, Bahrami F, Rossi RM. (2021). Inverse mechanistic modeling of transdermal drug delivery for fast identification of optimal model parameters. Front Pharmacol 12:442.
   Google Scholar
• Dequidt J, Courtecuisse H, Comas O, et al. (2013). Computer-based training system for cataract surgery. Simulation 89:1421–35.
   Google Scholar
• Encinas E, Calvo R, Lukas JC, et al. (2013). A predictive pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model of fentanyl for analgesia/sedation in neonates based on a semi-physiologic approach. Paediatr Drugs 15:247–57.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• FDA. (2016). Reporting of Computational Modeling Studies in Medical Device Submissions – Guidance for Industry and Food and Drug Administration Staff.
   Google Scholar
• Feng Y, Chen X, Zhao J. (2018). Create the individualized digital twin for noninvasive precise pulmonary healthcare. Significances Bioeng Biosci 1.
   Google Scholar
• Feng Y, Zhao J, Kleinstreuer C, et al. (2018). An in silico inter-subject variability study of extra-thoracic morphology effects on inhaled particle transport and deposition. J Aerosol Sci 123:185–207.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Geist MJP, Ziesenitz VC, Bardenheuer HJ, et al. (2019). Minor contribution of cytochrome P450 3A activity on fentanyl exposure in palliative care cancer patients. Sci Rep 9:6–11.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Grond S, Radbruch L, Lehmann KA. (2000). Clinical pharmacokinetics of transdermal opioids: focus on transdermal fentanyl. Clin Pharmacokinet 38:59–89.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Gupta R, Rai B. (2018). In-silico design of nanoparticles for transdermal drug delivery application. Nanoscale 10:4940–51.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Heikkinen EM, Voipio H-M, Laaksonen S, et al. (2015). Fentanyl pharmacokinetics in pregnant sheep after intravenous and transdermal administration to the ewe. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol 117:156–63.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Hill R, Santhakumar R, Henderson G, et al. (2020). Fentanyl depression of respiration: comparison with heroin and morphine. Br J Pharmacol 177:254–65.
   Google Scholar
• Jeal W, Benfield P. (1997). Transdermal fentanyl. A review of its pharmacological properties and therapeutic efficacy in pain control. Drugs 53:109–38.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Karin Homber JH, Kong J, Lee S. (2008). The effects of applied local heat on transdermal drug delivery systems.
   Google Scholar
• Kuip EJM, Oldenmenger WH, Visser-Thijs MF, et al. (2018). Influence of aprepitant and localization of the patch on fentanyl exposure in patients with cancer using transdermal fentanyl. Oncotarget 9:18269–76.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Kuip EJM, Zandvliet ML, Koolen SLW, et al. (2017). A review of factors explaining variability in fentanyl pharmacokinetics; focus on implications for cancer patients. Br J Clin Pharmacol 83:294–313.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lennernäs B, Hedner T, Holmberg M, et al. (2005). Pharmacokinetics and tolerability of different doses of fentanyl following sublingual administration of a rapidly dissolving tablet to cancer patients: a new approach to treatment of incident pain. Br J Clin Pharmacol 59:249–53.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Li J, Yan K, Hou L, et al. (2017). An algorithm and R program for fitting and simulation of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic data. Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet 42:499–518.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Lundborg M, Wennberg CL, Narangifard A, et al. (2018). Predicting drug permeability through skin using molecular dynamics simulation. J Control Release 283:269–79.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Macintyre PE, Jarvis DA. (1996). Age is the best predictor of postoperative morphine requirements. Pain 64:357–64.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Madden JC, Pawar G, Cronin MTD, et al. (2019). In silico resources to assist in the development and evaluation of physiologically-based kinetic models. Comput. Toxicol 11:33–49.
   Google Scholar
• Manitz R, Lucht W, Strehmel K, et al. (1998). On mathematical modeling of dermal and transdermal drug delivery. J Pharm Sci 87:873–9.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Marier JF, Lor M, Potvin D, et al. (2006). Pharmacokinetics, tolerability, and performance of a novel matrix transdermal delivery system of fentanyl relative to the commercially available reservoir formulation in healthy subjects. J Clin Pharmacol 46:642–53.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Miller RS, Peterson GM, McLean S, Möller C. (1997). Effect of cardiopulmonary bypass on the plasma concentrations of fentanyl and alcuronium. J Clin Pharm Ther 22:197–205.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Muijsers RBR, Wagstaff AJ. (2001). Transdermal fentanyl: an updated review of its pharmacological properties and therapeutic efficacy in chronic cancer pain control. Drugs 61:2289–307.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Naegel A, Heisig M, Wittum G. (2013). Detailed modeling of skin penetration-an overview. Adv Drug Deliv Rev 65:191–207.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Nelson L, Schwaner R. (2009). Transdermal fentanyl: pharmacology and toxicology. J Med Toxicol 5:230–41.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Obara S, Egan TD. (2013). Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic principles for intravenous anesthetics. Second Edi. Elsevier Inc.
   Google Scholar
• Olkkola KT, Palkama VJ, Neuvonen PJ. (1999). Ritonavir’ s role in reducing fentanyl clearance and prolonging its half-life. The Journal of the American Society of Anesthesiologists 91:681–685.
   Google Scholar
• Orsini JA, Moate PJ, Kuersten K, et al. (2006). Pharmacokinetics of fentanyl delivered transdermally in healthy adult horses-variability among horses and its clinical implications. J Vet Pharmacol Ther 29:539–46.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Pan S, Duffull SB. (2019). Automated proper lumping for simplification of linear physiologically based pharmacokinetic systems. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 46:361–70.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Paut O, Camboulives J, Viard L, et al. (2000). Pharmacokinetics of transdermal fentanyl in the peri-operative period in young children. Anaesthesia 55:1202–7.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Ramos-Matos CF, Lopez-Ojeda W. (2017). Fentanyl. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing.
   Google Scholar
• Rees WD. (1990). clinical oncology opioid needs of terminal care patients: variations with age and primary site. Clin Oncol 2:79–83.
   PubMedGoogle Scholar
• Rim JE, Pinsky PM, Van Osdol WW. (2005). Finite element modeling of coupled diffusion with partitioning in transdermal drug delivery. Ann Biomed Eng 33:1422–38.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Robert L, Robert A. (2009). Physiologie du vieillissement cutane. Pathologie Biologie 57:336–341.
   Google Scholar
• Ruan J, Wan X, Quan P, et al. (2019). Investigation of effect of isopropyl palmitate on drug release from transdermal patch and molecular dynamics study. AAPS PharmSciTech 20:1–12.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sandler AN, Stringer D, Panos L, et al. (1992). A randomized, double-blind comparison of lumbar epidural and intravenous fentanyl infusions for postthoracotomy pain relief. Analgesic, pharmacokinetic, and respiratory effects. Anesthesiology 77:626–34.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Schulz M, Schmoldt A. (2003). Therapeutic and toxic blood concentrations of more than 800 drugs and other xenobiotics. Pharmazie 58:447–74.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Scott JC, Stanski DR. (1987). Decreased fentanyl and alfentanil dose requirements with age. A simultaneous pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic evaluation. J Pharmacol Exp Ther 240:159–66.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Serlin RC, Mendoza TR, Nakamura Y, et al. (1995). When is cancer pain mild, moderate or severe? Grading pain severity by its interference with function. Pain 61:277–84.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Sinisi S, Alimguzhin V, Mancini T.( 2020). “Systems biology Complete populations of virtual patients for in silico clinical trials,” vol. 36, pp. 5465–5472.
   Google Scholar
• Thompson JP, Bower S, Liddle AM, Rowbotham DJ. (1998). Perioperative pharmacokinetics of transdermal fentanyl in elderly and young adult patients. Br J Anaesth 81:152–4.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Upton RN, Foster DJR, Abuhelwa AY. (2016). An introduction to physiologically-based pharmacokinetic models. Paediatr Anaesth 26:1036–46.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• US Food and Drug Administration, “Duragesic Label”. (2005).
   Google Scholar
• Van der Paal J, Fridman G, Bogaerts A. (2019). Ceramide cross-linking leads to pore formation: potential mechanism behind CAP enhancement of transdermal drug delivery. Plasma Process. Polym 16:1–10.
   Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Walicka A, Iwanowska-Chomiak B. (2018). Drug diffusion transport through human skin. Int J Appl Mech Eng 23:977–88.
   Google Scholar
• Weiser JR, Saltzman WM. (2014). Controlled release for local delivery of drugs: barriers and models. J Control Release 190:664–73.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Woodhouse A, Mather LE. (1997). The influence of age upon opioid analgesic use in the patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) environment. Anaesthesia 52:949–55.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Wright DFB, Winter HR, Duffull SB. (2011). Understanding the time course of pharmacological effect: a PKPD approach. Br J Clin Pharmacol 71:815–23.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yang D, Wan X, Quan P, et al. (2018). The role of carboxyl group of pressure sensitive adhesive in controlled release of propranolol in transdermal patch: quantitative determination of ionic interaction and molecular mechanism characterization. Eur J Pharm Sci 115:330–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yassen A, Olofsen E, Kan J, et al. (2008). Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling of the effectiveness and safety of buprenorphine and fentanyl in rats. Pharm Res 25:183–93.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar
• Yassen A, Olofsen E, Romberg R, et al. (2007). Mechanism-based PK/PD modeling of the respiratory depressant effect of buprenorphine and fentanyl in healthy volunteers. Clin Pharmacol Ther 81:50–8.
   PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar