Oral Bioavailability: Difference between revisions

From ACD Percepta
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
 
(15 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
==Overview==
==Overview==
<br />


This module predicts human oral bioavailability for new compounds using a combination of two methods - probabilistic and "mechanistic". First, the "mechanistic" part of the module tries to evaluate the query compound with regard to several crucial bioavailability limiting factors: solubility in stomach or intestine, stability in acidic media, intestinal membrane permeability by passive or active transport, P-gp efflux, and first pass metabolism in liver. All of these properties are predicted using independent algorithms, and experimental data sets. Results of the "mechanistic" evaluation of the human oral bioavailability are presented as easily interpretable "traffic-lights". In addition, this color-coded profile is converted to the probabilities for the compound's oral bioavailability to exceed 30% and 70% respectively with the help of multiple Recursive Partitioning trees. The final compound classification with regards to its oral bioavailability at clinically relevant doses is based on the cumulative result of those two statistical models.<br />
Oral Bioavailability module predicts the fraction of the specified drug dose that reaches systemic circulation after oral administration (''%F''). For calculation of quantitative ''%F'' values and exploring the dose-dependence of bioavailability, Oral bioavailability module uses the same kind of absorption simulation that is implemented in [[PK_Explorer|ACD/PK Explorer]].  
<br/>
<br/>


===Features===
===Features===
* ...
<br />


== Interface ==
 
<br />
* Predicts ''%F'' after oral administration with the possibility to explore dose-dependence of bioavailability
* Predicts a number of endpoints that affect oral bioavailability:
** Solubility (dose/solubility ratio)
** Stability in acidic media
** Intestinal membrane permeability by passive or active transport
** Likelihood of P-gp efflux
** First pass metabolism in the liver
* Visualizes the contributions of underlying properties with traffic-lights (green = good, red = problematic) for easy interpretation
* Displays experimental ''%F'' values for up to 5 similar structures from Bioavailability DB along with literature references.
<br/>
 
==Interface==


[[Image:Oral_bioavailability.png|center]]
[[Image:Oral_bioavailability.png|center]]
<br />
<br>
 
<ol>
<ol>
# Dose... [[Image:Oral_bioavailability_simulation.png|right]]<br>a. Click the "Undo" button to restore the automatically calculated property value for a compound and recalculate %F using default parameter values<br>b. Click to recalculate the %F using the currently specified dose
<li>50 mg is the default oral drug dose used in calculations. Enter any desired value to explore the effect of dose on oral bioavailability.<br> [[Image:Oral_bioavailability_simulation.png|right]]
# Classification of compounds based on predicted oral bioavailability (poor <30%, moderate 30-70%, good >70%). Probabilities that %F is greater than standard cut-off values are also presented.
:a. Click the "Undo" button to reset the specified drug dose and to recalculate ''%F'' using the default settings.
# Click to see more details regarding the calculation of the particular property
:b. Click to recalculate ''%F'' using the currently specified dose.</li><br>
# Factors affecting oral bioavailability (see below for details)
<li>Predicted ''%F'' (Oral) value.<br/>[[Image:Oral_Bioavailability_Ranges.png]]</li><br>
# Hover over a title to view a screentip with a short description
<li>Click to see more details regarding the calculation of the particular property.</li><br>
# Up to 5 similar structures in the %F (oral) DB with experimental values and references
<li>Factors affecting oral bioavailability (see below for details).</li><br>
<br />
<li>Hover over a title to view a screentip with a short description.</li><br>
<li>Up to 5 similar structures in the Bioavailability DB with experimental values and references.</li>
</ol>
<br/>


====Traffic-lights system explanation====
====Traffic-lights system explanation====


#''<b>Solubility in unbuffered water:</b>''
:''<b>Solubility in gastrointestinal tract:</b>''
#* <b><font color="limegreen">Green</font></b> – good solubility in unbuffered water, Log S<sub>w</sub> > -4 for electrolytes and Log S<sub>w</sub> > -3 for non-electrolytes.
:* <b><font color="limegreen">Green</font></b> – good – dose/solubility ratio < 1.
#* <b><font color="red">Red</font></b> – very poor solubility in unbuffered water (25&deg;C), Log S<sub>w</sub> < -6 for electrolytes and Log S<sub>w</sub> < -4.5 for non-electrolytes.
:* <b><font color="orange">Yellow</font></b> – moderate – dose/solubility ratio between 1 and 10.
#* <b><font color="orange">Yellow</font></b> – moderate solubility.
:* <b><font color="red">Red</font></b> – poor – dose/solubility ratio > 10.
#''<b>Stability</b> – susceptibility to acid hydrolysis in stomach:''
:''<b>Stability</b> – susceptibility to acid hydrolysis in stomach:''
#* <b><font color="red">Red</font></b> – only assigned to highly reactive compounds that decompose in stomach very quickly. Red light means that F (oral) <10%, overriding any probabilistic prediction (i.e., do not pay attention to predicted probabilities in this particular case).
:* <b><font color="red">Red</font></b> – only assigned to highly reactive compounds that decompose in stomach very quickly. Red light means that ''%F'' (oral) <10%, overriding all other predictions (''i.e.'', do not pay attention to predicted values in this particular case).
#''<b>Passive absorption</b> – ability to cross human intestinal membrane by passive diffusion:''
:''<b>Passive absorption</b> – ability to cross human intestinal membrane by passive diffusion:''
#* <b><font color="red">Red</font></b> – intestinal passive absorption <30%. %F (oral) is always less than passive absorption.
:* <b><font color="red">Red</font></b> – intestinal passive absorption <30%. Poor bioavailability, as ''%F'' (oral) cannot exceed the extent of passive absorption.
#* <b><font color="limegreen">Green</font></b> – good (>70%) passive absorption across intestinal barrier. Passive absorption does not effect %F.
:* <b><font color="limegreen">Green</font></b> – good (>70%) passive absorption across intestinal barrier. Passive absorption does not affect ''%F''.
#''<b>First-pass metabolism</b> – susceptibility to metabolic transformations catalyzed by enzymes in liver and intestine:''
:''<b>First-pass metabolism</b> – susceptibility to metabolic transformations catalyzed by enzymes in liver and intestine:''
#*<b><font color="red">Red</font></b> – high probability that first-pass metabolism is >50%. In this case %F (oral) is likely to be dose dependent and not to exceed 40%.
:*<b><font color="red">Red</font></b> – high probability that first-pass metabolism is >50%. In this case ''%F'' (oral) is likely to be dose dependent and not to exceed 40%.
#*<b><font color="limegreen">Green</font></b> – compound probably does not undergo significant first-pass metabolism.
:*<b><font color="limegreen">Green</font></b> – compound probably does not undergo significant first-pass metabolism.
#''<b>P-gp efflux</b> – susceptibility to backward transport through intestinal membrane:''
:''<b>P-gp efflux</b> – susceptibility to backward transport through intestinal membrane:''
#*<b><font color="red">Red</font></b> – compound is P-glycoprotein substrate. This effect is mostly important when compound is metabolized by CYP3A4
:*<b><font color="red">Red</font></b> – compound is P-glycoprotein substrate. This effect is mostly important when compound is metabolized by CYP3A4
#''<b>Active transport</b> – susceptibility to active transport through intestinal membrane:''
:''<b>Active transport</b> – susceptibility to active transport through intestinal membrane:''
#*<b><font color="limegreen">Green</font></b> – compound is actively transported by PepT1, ASBT or other enzymes.  
:*<b><font color="limegreen">Green</font></b> – compound is actively transported by PepT1, ASBT or other enzymes.  
#*<b><font color="red">Red</font></b> light never appears, as this factor can only increase %F (oral).
:*<b><font color="red">Red</font></b> light never appears, as this factor can only increase ''%F'' (oral).
 
<br/>
<br>
<br />
 


<div class="mw-collapsible mw-collapsed">
<div class="mw-collapsible">


==Technical information==
==Technical information==
<br />
<br/>


<div class="mw-collapsible-content">
<div class="mw-collapsible-content">


'''Training set size:''' 788<br>
===Bioavailability DB===
'''Internal validation set size:''' N/A*<br>
'''Number of compounds:''' 788<br>
<span style="font-size:8pt">
<nowiki>*</nowiki> - Since the formal basis for the probabilistic prediction still are "mechanistic" considerations, there was no particular emphasis on external model validation - similarly to the knowledge based "expert-like". As result, the statistical results obtained for the training set compounds are the only available quantitative characteristics for the ACD/Oral Bioavailability model.
</span>
 
'''Main sources of experimental data:'''
'''Main sources of experimental data:'''
* Reference books:
* Reference books:
** <i>Therapeutic Drugs</i>, Dolery, C., Ed. 2nd Edition, Churchill Livingstone, New York, NY, 1999
** <i>Therapeutic Drugs</i>, Dolery, C., Ed. 2nd Edition, Churchill Livingstone, New York, NY, 1999
** <i>Clarke's Isolation and Identification of Drugs</i>, Moffat, A.C., Jackson, J.V., Moss, M.S., Widdop, B., Eds. 2nd Edition, The Pharmaceutical Press, London, 1986
** <i>Clarke's Isolation and Identification of Drugs</i>, Moffat, A.C., Jackson, J.V., Moss, M.S., Widdop, B., Eds. 2nd Edition, The Pharmaceutical Press, London, 1986
* Various articles from peer-reviewed scientific journals*
* Various articles from peer-reviewed scientific journals, including both detailed pharmacokinetic characterization studies (''i.e.'', usually only several compounds per article), and larger data compilations
 
<br>
 
===Simulation model===
 
The mathematical model that is used for simulations performed by PK Explorer and Oral Bioavailability modules is based on differential equations that consider solubility in the gastrointestinal tract, passive-absorption in jejunum, elimination (total body clearance), and volume of distribution. Note that simulations performed in Oral Bioavailability module ignore first-pass metabolism in liver and gut. To include the first-pass effect in simulations consider using PK Explorer module.


<span style="font-size:8pt">
Quantitative ''%F'' values are calculated as a ratio of AUCs after oral and intravenous administration. Also, the employed simulation model allows evaluating the dose dependence of bioavailability.
<nowiki>*</nowiki> - Both articles reporting oral bioavailability models by other authors (i.e. with larger collections of experimental data per article) and dealing with detailed experimental pharmacokinetic characterization (i.e. usually only several compounds per article) were available for the training set construction.
</span>


<br>
<br>


===Validation===
====Validation Set & Assessment Procedure====


====Training set statistics====
Since the predictions are based on a mechanistic simulation model rather that formal statistical fitting to a set of data points, the validation procedure was not based on a conventional training/test set approach. Instead, a set of clinical fraction absorbed (''f<sub>a</sub>'') data together with dosage information for 28 drugs reported by Parrott & Lavé [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12356420] (originating mainly from a compilation by Zhao et al. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11357178]) was used for validation purposes.
 
The model performance was assessed in several ways:
* Qualitatively, by evaluating the accuracy of three-class classification, where the compounds were categorized by their calculated extent of absorption in the following manner:
** Low: ''f<sub>a</sub>'' ≤ 33%
** Moderate: 33% < ''f<sub>a</sub>'' < 66%
** High: ''f<sub>a</sub>'' ≥ 66%
* Quantitatively, using the Residual Mean Square Error (RMSE) statistic and visual inspection of the correlation between observed and predicted ''f<sub>a</sub>'' values of the considered drugs.
<br>
<br>
<!-- TABLE 1 -->
 
{| cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" style="border-top:2px solid black"  
====Validation results====
|+ <b>Table 1.</b> Classification performance of the lower threshold (%F (oral) > 30%) probabilistic bioavailability model on the training set compounds.
 
The model performance for validation set compounds is demonstrated in the Table below. Notably, the software did not produce any two-class misclassification errors (when a molecule having low ''f<sub>a</sub>'' is predicted to be well-absorbed or vice versa) except pirenzepine (exp. ''f<sub>a</sub>'' = 27% at 50 mg) which is known as P-glycoprotein substrate [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12438524] and its bioavailability is significantly limited by P-gp efflux.
{| cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" align="center" style="border-top:1px solid black"  
|+ <b>Table.</b> Qualitative and quantitative fraction absorbed predictions for the validation set of 28 drugs.
|-
! style="border-bottom:1px solid black; background:#EAEAEA" width="200" | Compound name
! style="border-bottom:1px solid black; background:#EAEAEA" width="175" | Dose, mg
! style="border-bottom:1px solid black; background:#EAEAEA" width="175" | Experimental ''f<sub>a</sub>'' (%)
! style="border-bottom:1px solid black; background:#EAEAEA" width="175" | Predicted ''f<sub>a</sub>'' (%)
! style="border-bottom:1px solid black; background:#EAEAEA" width="175" | Experimental class
! style="border-bottom:1px solid black; background:#EAEAEA" width="175" | Predicted class
|-
| Acyclovir
| align="center" | 350
| align="center" | 23
| align="center" | 17.9
| align="center" style="background:#FFCCCC" | Low
| align="center" style="background:#FFCCCC" | Low
|-
| Amiloride
| align="center" | 10
| align="center" | 50
| align="center" | 9.1
| align="center" style="background:#FFFFCC" | Moderate
| align="center" style="background:#FFCCCC" | Low
|-
| Antipyrine
| align="center" | 600
| align="center" | 97
| align="center" | 99.5
| align="center" style="background:#CCFFCC" | High
| align="center" style="background:#CCFFCC" | High
|-
| Atenolol
| align="center" | 50
| align="center" | 50
| align="center" | 13.9
| align="center" style="background:#FFFFCC" | Moderate
| align="center" style="background:#FFCCCC" | Low
|-
| Carbamazepine
| align="center" | 200
| align="center" | 70
| align="center" | 78
| align="center" style="background:#CCFFCC" | High
| align="center" style="background:#CCFFCC" | High
|-
| Chloramphenicol
| align="center" | 250
| align="center" | 90
| align="center" | 98.9
| align="center" style="background:#CCFFCC" | High
| align="center" style="background:#CCFFCC" | High
|-
| Desipramine
| align="center" | 150
| align="center" | 100
| align="center" | 99.2
| align="center" style="background:#CCFFCC" | High
| align="center" style="background:#CCFFCC" | High
|-
| Diazepam
| align="center" | 5
| align="center" | 100
| align="center" | 99
| align="center" style="background:#CCFFCC" | High
| align="center" style="background:#CCFFCC" | High
|-
| Diltiazem
| align="center" | 90
| align="center" | 90
| align="center" | 99.7
| align="center" style="background:#CCFFCC" | High
| align="center" style="background:#CCFFCC" | High
|-
| Etoposide
| align="center" | 350
| style="color: red;" align="center" | ''50''
| align="center" | 95.8
| align="center" style="background:#FFFFCC" | Moderate
| align="center" style="background:#CCFFCC" | High
|-
| Furosemide
| align="center" | 80
| align="center" | 61
| align="center" | 30.6
| align="center" style="background:#FFFFCC" | Moderate
| align="center" style="background:#FFCCCC" | Low
|-
| Ganciclovir
| align="center" | 75
| align="center" | 3
| align="center" | 8.9
| align="center" style="background:#FFCCCC" | Low
| align="center" style="background:#FFCCCC" | Low
|-
| Hydrochlorothiazide
| align="center" | 50
| align="center" | 69
| align="center" | 63.1
| align="center" style="background:#CCFFCC" | High
| align="center" style="background:#FFFFCC" | Moderate
|-
| Ketoprofen
| align="center" | 75
| align="center" | 92
| align="center" | 99.4
| align="center" style="background:#CCFFCC" | High
| align="center" style="background:#CCFFCC" | High
|-
| Metoprolol
| align="center" | 100
| align="center" | 95
| align="center" | 96.9
| align="center" style="background:#CCFFCC" | High
| align="center" style="background:#CCFFCC" | High
|-
| Naproxen
| align="center" | 500
| align="center" | 99
| align="center" | 99.5
| align="center" style="background:#CCFFCC" | High
| align="center" style="background:#CCFFCC" | High
|-
| Penicillin V
| align="center" | 200
| align="center" | 38
| align="center" | 65
| align="center" style="background:#FFFFCC" | Moderate
| align="center" style="background:#FFFFCC" | Moderate
|-
|-
! style="border-bottom:1px solid black; background:#EAEAEA" width="250" rowspan="2" | Subset
| Pirenzepine
! style="border-bottom:1px solid black; background:#EAEAEA" width="150" rowspan="2" | Observed
| align="center" | 50
! style="border-bottom:1px solid black; background:#EAEAEA" width="300" colspan="2" | Calculated probability (<i>p</i>)
| style="color: red;" align="center" | ''27''
| align="center" | 94
| align="center" style="background:#FFCCCC" | Low
| align="center" style="background:#CCFFCC" | High
|-
|-
! style="border-bottom:1px solid black; background:#EAEAEA" width="150" | >0.5
| Piroxicam
! style="border-bottom:1px solid black; background:#EAEAEA" width="150" | <0.5
| align="center" | 20
| align="center" | 100
| align="center" | 94.5
| align="center" style="background:#CCFFCC" | High
| align="center" style="background:#CCFFCC" | High
|-
|-
| style="border-bottom:2px solid black" align="center" rowspan="2" | Entire training set<br>N = 788*
| Progesterone
| style="border-bottom:1px solid black" | True || align="center" style="border-bottom:1px solid black; background:#E1FFE1" | <b>415</b> <br> <span style="font-size:8pt">(52.7%)</span> || align="center" style="border-bottom:1px solid black; background:#FFE1E1" | 114 <br> <span style="font-size:8pt">(14.5%)</span>
| align="center" | 2.5
| align="center" | 100
| align="center" | 93.6
| align="center" style="background:#CCFFCC" | High
| align="center" style="background:#CCFFCC" | High
|-
|-
| style="border-bottom:2px solid black" | False || align="center" style="border-bottom:2px solid black; background:#FFE1E1" | 81 <br> <span style="font-size:8pt">(10.3%)</span> || align="center" style="border-bottom:2px solid black; background:#E1FFE1" | <b>178</b> <br> <span style="font-size:8pt">(22.6%)</span>
| Propranolol
| align="center" | 240
| align="center" | 99
| align="center" | 99.3
| align="center" style="background:#CCFFCC" | High
| align="center" style="background:#CCFFCC" | High
|-
|-
| style="height:30px" | &nbsp; || Accuracy
| Ranitidine
| colspan="2" align="center" |
| align="center" | 60
{| cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width:80%; height:20px"
| align="center" | 63
| style="color:white; background:#B9CDE5" align="right" width="75.2%" | <b>75.2%&nbsp;</b> || style="background:#EDF2F9" width="24.8%" | &nbsp;
| align="center" | 51.1
|}
| align="center" style="background:#FFFFCC" | Moderate
 
| align="center" style="background:#FFFFCC" | Moderate
|-
| Saquinavir
| align="center" | 600
| style="color: red;" align="center" | ''30''
| align="center" | 48.4
| align="center" style="background:#FFCCCC" | Low
| align="center" style="background:#FFFFCC" | Moderate
|-
|-
| style="height:30px" | &nbsp; || Sensitivity
| Sulpiride
| colspan="2" align="center" |
| align="center" | 200
{| cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width:80%; height:20px"
| align="center" | 44
| style="color:white; background:#B9CDE5" align="right" width="78.4%" | <b>78.4%&nbsp;</b> || style="background:#EDF2F9" width="21.6%" | &nbsp;
| align="center" | 41.9
|}
| align="center" style="background:#FFFFCC" | Moderate
 
| align="center" style="background:#FFFFCC" | Moderate
|-
|-
| style="height:30px" | &nbsp; || Specificity
| Terbutaline
| colspan="2" align="center" |
| align="center" | 10
{| cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width:80%; height:20px"
| align="center" | 62
| style="color:white; background:#B9CDE5" align="right" width="68.7%" | <b>68.7%&nbsp;</b> || style="background:#EDF2F9" width="31.3%" | &nbsp;
| align="center" | 19.5
|}
| align="center" style="background:#FFFFCC" | Moderate
 
| align="center" style="background:#FFCCCC" | Low
|}
<span style="font-size:8pt">* - Since ACD/Bioavailability model does not utilize GALAS modeling methodology, no additional parameters (i.e., <i>RI</i>) are available to enable additional filtering of more reliable predictions.</span>
 
 
<!-- TABLE 2 -->
{| cellpadding="2" cellspacing="0" style="border-top:2px solid black"  
|+ <b>Table 2.</b> Classification performance of the upper threshold (%F (oral) > 70%) probabilistic bioavailability model on the training set compounds.
|-
|-
! style="border-bottom:1px solid black; background:#EAEAEA" width="250" rowspan="2" | Subset
| Theophylline
! style="border-bottom:1px solid black; background:#EAEAEA" width="150" rowspan="2" | Observed
| align="center" | 200
! style="border-bottom:1px solid black; background:#EAEAEA" width="300" colspan="2" | Calculated probability (<i>p</i>)
| align="center" | 100
| align="center" | 99.5
| align="center" style="background:#CCFFCC" | High
| align="center" style="background:#CCFFCC" | High
|-
|-
! style="border-bottom:1px solid black; background:#EAEAEA" width="150" | >0.5
| Verapamil
! style="border-bottom:1px solid black; background:#EAEAEA" width="150" | <0.5
| align="center" | 120
| align="center" | 100
| align="center" | 99.1
| align="center" style="background:#CCFFCC" | High
| align="center" style="background:#CCFFCC" | High
|-
|-
| style="border-bottom:2px solid black" align="center" rowspan="2" | Entire training set<br>N = 788*
| Warfarin
| style="border-bottom:1px solid black" | True || align="center" style="border-bottom:1px solid black; background:#E1FFE1" | <b>172</b> <br> <span style="font-size:8pt">(21.8%)</span> || align="center" style="border-bottom:1px solid black; background:#FFE1E1" | 126 <br> <span style="font-size:8pt">(16.0%)</span>
| align="center" | 5
| align="center" | 98
| align="center" | 99.1
| align="center" style="background:#CCFFCC" | High
| align="center" style="background:#CCFFCC" | High
|-
|-
| style="border-bottom:2px solid black" | False || align="center" style="border-bottom:2px solid black; background:#FFE1E1" | 44 <br> <span style="font-size:8pt">(5.6%)</span> || align="center" style="border-bottom:2px solid black; background:#E1FFE1" | <b>446</b> <br> <span style="font-size:8pt">(56.6%)</span>
| style="border-bottom:1px solid black; border-top:1px solid black;" | '''Statistics'''
| style="border-bottom:1px solid black; border-top:1px solid black;" align="center" | '''No. of compounds: 28'''
| style="border-bottom:1px solid black; border-top:1px solid black;" align="center" | '''RMSE: <span style="color: red;">''22%''</span><sup>*</sup>'''
| style="border-bottom:1px solid black; border-top:1px solid black;" align="center" | '''RMSE: 17%<sup>**</sup>'''
| style="border-bottom:1px solid black; border-top:1px solid black;" align="center" | '''Correct: 20/28 (<span style="color: red;">''71%''</span>)<sup>*</sup>'''
| style="border-bottom:1px solid black; border-top:1px solid black;" align="center" | '''Correct: 20/25 (80%)<sup>**</sup>'''
|-
|-
| style="height:30px" | &nbsp; || Accuracy
| colspan="2" align="center" |
{| cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width:80%; height:20px"
| style="color:white; background:#B9CDE5" align="right" width="78.4%" | <b>78.4%&nbsp;</b> || style="background:#EDF2F9" width="21.6%" | &nbsp;
|}
|}


|-
<span style="font-size:8pt">
| style="height:30px" | &nbsp; || Sensitivity
<nowiki>*</nowiki> - P-gp substrates included<br>
| colspan="2" align="center" |
<nowiki>**</nowiki> - P-gp substrates excluded
{| cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width:80%; height:20px"
</span>
| style="color:white; background:#B9CDE5" align="right" width="57.7%" | <b>57.7%&nbsp;</b> || style="background:#EDF2F9" width="42.3%" | &nbsp;
 
|}
Qualitative evaluation does not reveal the full picture, since compounds with ''f<sub>a</sub>'' values near the class boundaries would often be misclassified, even though the actual prediction would not be far off the experimental value. Therefore, quantitative predictions were also visualized in the scatter plot below:


|-
[[Image:Oral_Bioavailability_Validation_Plot.png|center|frame|'''Figure.''' Correlation between observed and predicted ''f<sub>a</sub>'' for the validation set of 28 drugs.]]
| style="height:30px" | &nbsp; || Specificity
| colspan="2" align="center" |
{| cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" style="width:80%; height:20px"
| style="color:white; background:#B9CDE5" align="right" width="91.0%" | <b>91.0%&nbsp;</b> || style="background:#EDF2F9" width="9.0%" | &nbsp;
|}


|}
Since carrier-mediated transport effects can be reliably accounted in the simulation only if experimentally measured permeabilities are used, Pinrenzepine and two other compounds clearly affected by P-gp efflux (Saquinavir and Etoposide) were excluded from quantitative analysis - these are marked by red crosses in the scatter plot and the respective experimental values are highlighted in red in the data table. For the majority of remaining drugs, calculated values are in good agreement with clinical data, except several basic molecules (such as terbutaline, amiloride) underpredicted by more than 30%. However, one cannot disregard the possible contribution of carrier-mediated influx for these small cationic compounds. Once again, the overall RMSE of 17% was obtained with the software operating in 'pure' ''in silico'' mode, ''i.e.'', the predictions were performed using only the compounds' structure as input. On the other hand, ACD/PK Explorer module provides the potential for further improvement of prediction accuracy by offering full ''in combo'' simulation possibilities with a wide range of accepted input parameters including basic physicochemical properties (LogP and pKa), solubility, permeability, elimination rate constant, and volume of distribution.
<span style="font-size:8pt">* - Since ACD/Bioavailability model does not utilize GALAS modeling methodology, no additional parameters (i.e., <i>RI</i>) are available to enable additional filtering of more reliable predictions.</span>
</div>
</div>
</div>
</div>

Latest revision as of 10:04, 15 June 2017

Overview

Oral Bioavailability module predicts the fraction of the specified drug dose that reaches systemic circulation after oral administration (%F). For calculation of quantitative %F values and exploring the dose-dependence of bioavailability, Oral bioavailability module uses the same kind of absorption simulation that is implemented in ACD/PK Explorer.

Features

  • Predicts %F after oral administration with the possibility to explore dose-dependence of bioavailability
  • Predicts a number of endpoints that affect oral bioavailability:
    • Solubility (dose/solubility ratio)
    • Stability in acidic media
    • Intestinal membrane permeability by passive or active transport
    • Likelihood of P-gp efflux
    • First pass metabolism in the liver
  • Visualizes the contributions of underlying properties with traffic-lights (green = good, red = problematic) for easy interpretation
  • Displays experimental %F values for up to 5 similar structures from Bioavailability DB along with literature references.


Interface

Oral bioavailability.png


  1. 50 mg is the default oral drug dose used in calculations. Enter any desired value to explore the effect of dose on oral bioavailability.
    Oral bioavailability simulation.png
    a. Click the "Undo" button to reset the specified drug dose and to recalculate %F using the default settings.
    b. Click to recalculate %F using the currently specified dose.

  2. Predicted %F (Oral) value.
    Oral Bioavailability Ranges.png

  3. Click to see more details regarding the calculation of the particular property.

  4. Factors affecting oral bioavailability (see below for details).

  5. Hover over a title to view a screentip with a short description.

  6. Up to 5 similar structures in the Bioavailability DB with experimental values and references.


Traffic-lights system explanation

Solubility in gastrointestinal tract:
  • Green – good – dose/solubility ratio < 1.
  • Yellow – moderate – dose/solubility ratio between 1 and 10.
  • Red – poor – dose/solubility ratio > 10.
Stability – susceptibility to acid hydrolysis in stomach:
  • Red – only assigned to highly reactive compounds that decompose in stomach very quickly. Red light means that %F (oral) <10%, overriding all other predictions (i.e., do not pay attention to predicted values in this particular case).
Passive absorption – ability to cross human intestinal membrane by passive diffusion:
  • Red – intestinal passive absorption <30%. Poor bioavailability, as %F (oral) cannot exceed the extent of passive absorption.
  • Green – good (>70%) passive absorption across intestinal barrier. Passive absorption does not affect %F.
First-pass metabolism – susceptibility to metabolic transformations catalyzed by enzymes in liver and intestine:
  • Red – high probability that first-pass metabolism is >50%. In this case %F (oral) is likely to be dose dependent and not to exceed 40%.
  • Green – compound probably does not undergo significant first-pass metabolism.
P-gp efflux – susceptibility to backward transport through intestinal membrane:
  • Red – compound is P-glycoprotein substrate. This effect is mostly important when compound is metabolized by CYP3A4
Active transport – susceptibility to active transport through intestinal membrane:
  • Green – compound is actively transported by PepT1, ASBT or other enzymes.
  • Red light never appears, as this factor can only increase %F (oral).


Technical information


Bioavailability DB

Number of compounds: 788
Main sources of experimental data:

  • Reference books:
    • Therapeutic Drugs, Dolery, C., Ed. 2nd Edition, Churchill Livingstone, New York, NY, 1999
    • Clarke's Isolation and Identification of Drugs, Moffat, A.C., Jackson, J.V., Moss, M.S., Widdop, B., Eds. 2nd Edition, The Pharmaceutical Press, London, 1986
  • Various articles from peer-reviewed scientific journals, including both detailed pharmacokinetic characterization studies (i.e., usually only several compounds per article), and larger data compilations


Simulation model

The mathematical model that is used for simulations performed by PK Explorer and Oral Bioavailability modules is based on differential equations that consider solubility in the gastrointestinal tract, passive-absorption in jejunum, elimination (total body clearance), and volume of distribution. Note that simulations performed in Oral Bioavailability module ignore first-pass metabolism in liver and gut. To include the first-pass effect in simulations consider using PK Explorer module.

Quantitative %F values are calculated as a ratio of AUCs after oral and intravenous administration. Also, the employed simulation model allows evaluating the dose dependence of bioavailability.


Validation

Validation Set & Assessment Procedure

Since the predictions are based on a mechanistic simulation model rather that formal statistical fitting to a set of data points, the validation procedure was not based on a conventional training/test set approach. Instead, a set of clinical fraction absorbed (fa) data together with dosage information for 28 drugs reported by Parrott & Lavé [1] (originating mainly from a compilation by Zhao et al. [2]) was used for validation purposes.

The model performance was assessed in several ways:

  • Qualitatively, by evaluating the accuracy of three-class classification, where the compounds were categorized by their calculated extent of absorption in the following manner:
    • Low: fa ≤ 33%
    • Moderate: 33% < fa < 66%
    • High: fa ≥ 66%
  • Quantitatively, using the Residual Mean Square Error (RMSE) statistic and visual inspection of the correlation between observed and predicted fa values of the considered drugs.


Validation results

The model performance for validation set compounds is demonstrated in the Table below. Notably, the software did not produce any two-class misclassification errors (when a molecule having low fa is predicted to be well-absorbed or vice versa) except pirenzepine (exp. fa = 27% at 50 mg) which is known as P-glycoprotein substrate [3] and its bioavailability is significantly limited by P-gp efflux.

Table. Qualitative and quantitative fraction absorbed predictions for the validation set of 28 drugs.
Compound name Dose, mg Experimental fa (%) Predicted fa (%) Experimental class Predicted class
Acyclovir 350 23 17.9 Low Low
Amiloride 10 50 9.1 Moderate Low
Antipyrine 600 97 99.5 High High
Atenolol 50 50 13.9 Moderate Low
Carbamazepine 200 70 78 High High
Chloramphenicol 250 90 98.9 High High
Desipramine 150 100 99.2 High High
Diazepam 5 100 99 High High
Diltiazem 90 90 99.7 High High
Etoposide 350 50 95.8 Moderate High
Furosemide 80 61 30.6 Moderate Low
Ganciclovir 75 3 8.9 Low Low
Hydrochlorothiazide 50 69 63.1 High Moderate
Ketoprofen 75 92 99.4 High High
Metoprolol 100 95 96.9 High High
Naproxen 500 99 99.5 High High
Penicillin V 200 38 65 Moderate Moderate
Pirenzepine 50 27 94 Low High
Piroxicam 20 100 94.5 High High
Progesterone 2.5 100 93.6 High High
Propranolol 240 99 99.3 High High
Ranitidine 60 63 51.1 Moderate Moderate
Saquinavir 600 30 48.4 Low Moderate
Sulpiride 200 44 41.9 Moderate Moderate
Terbutaline 10 62 19.5 Moderate Low
Theophylline 200 100 99.5 High High
Verapamil 120 100 99.1 High High
Warfarin 5 98 99.1 High High
Statistics No. of compounds: 28 RMSE: 22%* RMSE: 17%** Correct: 20/28 (71%)* Correct: 20/25 (80%)**

* - P-gp substrates included
** - P-gp substrates excluded

Qualitative evaluation does not reveal the full picture, since compounds with fa values near the class boundaries would often be misclassified, even though the actual prediction would not be far off the experimental value. Therefore, quantitative predictions were also visualized in the scatter plot below:

Figure. Correlation between observed and predicted fa for the validation set of 28 drugs.

Since carrier-mediated transport effects can be reliably accounted in the simulation only if experimentally measured permeabilities are used, Pinrenzepine and two other compounds clearly affected by P-gp efflux (Saquinavir and Etoposide) were excluded from quantitative analysis - these are marked by red crosses in the scatter plot and the respective experimental values are highlighted in red in the data table. For the majority of remaining drugs, calculated values are in good agreement with clinical data, except several basic molecules (such as terbutaline, amiloride) underpredicted by more than 30%. However, one cannot disregard the possible contribution of carrier-mediated influx for these small cationic compounds. Once again, the overall RMSE of 17% was obtained with the software operating in 'pure' in silico mode, i.e., the predictions were performed using only the compounds' structure as input. On the other hand, ACD/PK Explorer module provides the potential for further improvement of prediction accuracy by offering full in combo simulation possibilities with a wide range of accepted input parameters including basic physicochemical properties (LogP and pKa), solubility, permeability, elimination rate constant, and volume of distribution.