The Use of ROC Analysis for the Qualitative Prediction of Human Oral Bioavailability from Animal Data

Overview

Journal Pharm Res

Specialties Pharmacology
Pharmacy

Date 2013 Sep 28

PMID 24072264

Citations 15

Authors

Andres Olivares-Morales

Oliver J D Hatley

David Turner

Aleksandra Galetin

Leon Aarons

Amin Rostami-Hodjegan

Affiliations

Soon will be listed here.

Abstract

Purpose: To develop and evaluate a tool for the qualitative prediction of human oral bioavailability (Fhuman) from animal oral bioavailability (Fanimal) data employing ROC analysis and to identify the optimal thresholds for such predictions.

Methods: A dataset of 184 compounds with known Fhuman and Fanimal in at least one species (mouse, rat, dog and non-human primates (NHP)) was employed. A binary classification model for Fhuman was built by setting a threshold for high/low Fhuman at 50%. The thresholds for high/low Fanimal were varied from 0 to 100 to generate the ROC curves. Optimal thresholds were derived from 'cost analysis' and the outcomes with respect to false negative and false positive predictions were analyzed against the BDDCS class distributions.

Results: We successfully built ROC curves for the combined dataset and per individual species. Optimal Fanimal thresholds were found to be 67% (mouse), 22% (rat), 58% (dog), 35% (NHP) and 47% (combined dataset). No significant trends were observed when sub-categorizing the outcomes by the BDDCS.

Conclusions: Fanimal can predict high/low Fhuman with adequate sensitivity and specificity. This methodology and associated thresholds can be employed as part of decisions related to planning necessary studies during development of new drug candidates and lead selection.

Citing Articles

Unraveling the Omega-3 Puzzle: Navigating Challenges and Innovations for Bone Health and Healthy Aging.

Ali Z, Al-Ghouti M, Abou-Saleh H, Rahman M Mar Drugs. 2024; 22(10).

PMID: 39452854 PMC: 11509197. DOI: 10.3390/md22100446.

Therapeutic, and pharmacological prospects of nutmeg seed: A comprehensive review for novel drug potential insights.

Al-Rawi S, Ibrahim A, Ahmed H, Khudhur Z Saudi Pharm J. 2024; 32(6):102067.

PMID: 38690209 PMC: 11059288. DOI: 10.1016/j.jsps.2024.102067.

Use of ROC curve analysis for prediction gives fallacious results: Use predictivity-based indices.

Indrayan A, Malhotra R, Pawar M J Postgrad Med. 2024; 70(2):91-96.

PMID: 38668827 PMC: 11160993. DOI: 10.4103/jpgm.jpgm_753_23.

Molecular docking-based virtual screening, drug-likeness, and pharmacokinetic profiling of some anti- cephalosporin derivatives.

Ameji P, Uzairu A, Shallangwa G, Uba S J Taibah Univ Med Sci. 2024; 18(6):1417-1431.

PMID: 38162870 PMC: 10757315. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtumed.2023.05.021.

The Bioavailability of Drugs-The Current State of Knowledge.

Stielow M, Witczynska A, Kubryn N, Fijalkowski L, Nowaczyk J, Nowaczyk A Molecules. 2023; 28(24).

PMID: 38138529 PMC: 10745386. DOI: 10.3390/molecules28248038.

References

Chiou W, Barve A . Linear correlation of the fraction of oral dose absorbed of 64 drugs between humans and rats. Pharm Res. 1998; 15(11):1792-5. DOI: 10.1023/a:1011981317451. View

Grass G, Sinko P . Physiologically-based pharmacokinetic simulation modelling. Adv Drug Deliv Rev. 2002; 54(3):433-51. DOI: 10.1016/s0169-409x(02)00013-3. View

Metz C . Basic principles of ROC analysis. Semin Nucl Med. 1978; 8(4):283-98. DOI: 10.1016/s0001-2998(78)80014-2. View

Broccatelli F, Cruciani G, Benet L, Oprea T . BDDCS class prediction for new molecular entities. Mol Pharm. 2012; 9(3):570-80. PMC: 3295927. DOI: 10.1021/mp2004302. View

Zhao Y, Abraham M, Le J, Hersey A, Luscombe C, Beck G . Evaluation of rat intestinal absorption data and correlation with human intestinal absorption. Eur J Med Chem. 2003; 38(3):233-43. DOI: 10.1016/s0223-5234(03)00015-1. View

Caldwell G, Ritchie D, Masucci J, Hageman W, Yan Z . The new pre-preclinical paradigm: compound optimization in early and late phase drug discovery. Curr Top Med Chem. 2002; 1(5):353-66. DOI: 10.2174/1568026013394949. View

Musther H, Olivares-Morales A, Hatley O, Liu B, Hodjegan A . Animal versus human oral drug bioavailability: do they correlate?. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2013; 57:280-91. PMC: 4107270. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejps.2013.08.018. View

Akabane T, Tabata K, Kadono K, Sakuda S, Terashita S, Teramura T . A comparison of pharmacokinetics between humans and monkeys. Drug Metab Dispos. 2009; 38(2):308-16. DOI: 10.1124/dmd.109.028829. View

Hanley J, McNeil B . The meaning and use of the area under a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve. Radiology. 1982; 143(1):29-36. DOI: 10.1148/radiology.143.1.7063747. View

10.

Bueters T, Juric S, Sohlenius-Sternbeck A, Hu Y, Bylund J . Rat poorly predicts the combined non-absorbed and presystemically metabolized fractions in the human. Xenobiotica. 2013; 43(7):607-16. DOI: 10.3109/00498254.2012.752117. View

11.

Chiou W, Jeong H, Chung S, Wu T . Evaluation of using dog as an animal model to study the fraction of oral dose absorbed of 43 drugs in humans. Pharm Res. 2000; 17(2):135-40. DOI: 10.1023/a:1007552927404. View

12.

Zamek-Gliszczynski M, Lee C, Poirier A, Bentz J, Chu X, Ellens H . ITC recommendations for transporter kinetic parameter estimation and translational modeling of transport-mediated PK and DDIs in humans. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2013; 94(1):64-79. PMC: 3898877. DOI: 10.1038/clpt.2013.45. View

13.

Perez-Garrido A, Morales Helguera A, Borges F, Cordeiro M, Rivero V, Escudero A . Two new parameters based on distances in a receiver operating characteristic chart for the selection of classification models. J Chem Inf Model. 2011; 51(10):2746-59. DOI: 10.1021/ci2003076. View

14.

Ward K, Nagilla R, Jolivette L . Comparative evaluation of oral systemic exposure of 56 xenobiotics in rat, dog, monkey and human. Xenobiotica. 2005; 35(2):191-210. DOI: 10.1080/00498250400028197. View

15.

Chhabra R, Pohl R, Fouts J . A comparative study of xenobiotic-metabolizing enzymes in liver and intestine of various animal species. Drug Metab Dispos. 1974; 2(5):443-7. View

16.

Chiou W, Buehler P . Comparison of oral absorption and bioavailablity of drugs between monkey and human. Pharm Res. 2002; 19(6):868-74. DOI: 10.1023/a:1016169202830. View

17.

Hellriegel E, Bjornsson T, Hauck W . Interpatient variability in bioavailability is related to the extent of absorption: implications for bioavailability and bioequivalence studies. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1996; 60(6):601-7. DOI: 10.1016/S0009-9236(96)90208-8. View

18.

Sietsema W . The absolute oral bioavailability of selected drugs. Int J Clin Pharmacol Ther Toxicol. 1989; 27(4):179-211. View

19.

Nishimuta H, Sato K, Mizuki Y, Yabuki M, Komuro S . Species differences in intestinal metabolic activities of cytochrome P450 isoforms between cynomolgus monkeys and humans. Drug Metab Pharmacokinet. 2011; 26(3):300-6. DOI: 10.2133/dmpk.DMPK-10-SH-119. View

20.

Amidon G, Lennernas H, Shah V, Crison J . A theoretical basis for a biopharmaceutic drug classification: the correlation of in vitro drug product dissolution and in vivo bioavailability. Pharm Res. 1995; 12(3):413-20. DOI: 10.1023/a:1016212804288. View