A Mechanistic Physiologically-Based Biopharmaceutics Modeling (PBBM) Approach to Assess the In Vivo Performance of an Orally Administered Drug Product: From IVIVC to IVIVP
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The application of in silico modeling to predict the in vivo outcome of an oral drug product is gaining a lot of interest. Fully relying on these models as a surrogate tool requires continuous optimization and validation. To do so, intraluminal and systemic data are desirable to judge the predicted outcomes. The aim of this study was to predict the systemic concentrations of ibuprofen after oral administration of an 800 mg immediate-release (IR) tablet to healthy subjects in fasted-state conditions. A mechanistic oral absorption model coupled with a two-compartmental pharmacokinetic (PK) model was built in Phoenix WinNonlinWinNonlin® software and in the GastroPlus™ simulator. It should be noted that all simulations were performed in an ideal framework as we were in possession of a plethora of in vivo data (e.g., motility, pH, luminal and systemic concentrations) in order to evaluate and optimize these models. All this work refers to the fact that important, yet crucial, gastrointestinal (GI) variables should be integrated into biopredictive dissolution testing (low buffer capacity media, considering phosphate versus bicarbonate buffer, hydrodynamics) to account for a valuable input for physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) platform programs. While simulations can be performed and mechanistic insights can be gained from such simulations from current software, we need to move from correlations to predictions (IVIVC → IVIVP) and, moreover, we need to further determine the dynamics of the GI variables controlling the dosage form transit, disintegration, dissolution, absorption and metabolism along the human GI tract. Establishing the link between biopredictive in vitro dissolution testing and mechanistic oral absorption modeling (i.e., physiologically-based biopharmaceutics modeling (PBBM)) creates an opportunity to potentially request biowaivers in the near future for orally administered drug products, regardless of its classification according to the Biopharmaceutics Classification System (BCS).
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".