Development of monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) and their functional derivatives represents a growing segment of the development pipeline in the pharmaceutical industry. More than 25 mAbs and derivatives have been approved for a variety of therapeutic applications. In addition, around 500 mAbs and derivatives are currently in different stages of development. mAbs are considered to be large molecule therapeutics (in general, they are 2-3 orders of magnitude larger than small chemical molecule therapeutics), but they are not just big chemicals. These compounds demonstrate much more complex pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic behaviour than small molecules. Because of their large size and relatively poor membrane permeability and instability in the conditions of the gastrointestinal tract, parenteral administration is the most usual route of administration. The rate and extent of mAb distribution is very slow and depends on extravasation in tissue, distribution within the particular tissue, and degradation. Elimination primarily happens via catabolism to peptides and amino acids. Although not definitive, work has been published to define the human tissues mainly involved in the elimination of mAbs, and it seems that many cells throughout the body are involved. mAbs can be targeted against many soluble or membrane-bound targets, thus these compounds may act by a variety of mechanisms to achieve their pharmacological effect. mAbs targeting soluble antigen generally exhibit linear elimination, whereas those targeting membrane-bound antigen often exhibit non-linear elimination, mainly due to target-mediated drug disposition (TMDD). The high-affinity interaction of mAbs and their derivatives with the pharmacological target can often result in non-linear pharmacokinetics. Because of species differences (particularly due to differences in target affinity and abundance) in the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of mAbs, pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modelling of mAbs has been used routinely to expedite the development of mAbs and their derivatives and has been utilized to help in the selection of appropriate dose regimens. Although modelling approaches have helped to explain variability in both pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of these drugs, there is a clear need for more complex models to improve understanding of pharmacokinetic processes and pharmacodynamic interactions of mAbs with the immune system. There are different approaches applied to physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) modelling of mAbs and important differences between the models developed. Some key additional features that need to be accounted for in PBPK models of mAbs are neonatal Fc receptor (FcRn; an important salvage mechanism for antibodies) binding, TMDD and lymph flow. Several models have been described incorporating some or all of these features and the use of PBPK models are expected to expand over the next few years.

Typically, pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) models use plasma concentration as the input that drives the PD model. However, interindividual variability in uptake transporter activity can lead to variable drug concentrations in plasma without discernible impact on the effect site organ concentration. A physiologically based PK/PD model for rosuvastatin was developed that linked the predicted liver concentration to the PD response model. The model was then applied to predict the effect of genotype-dependent uptake by the organic anion-transporting polypeptide 1B1 (OATP1B1) transporter on the pharmacological response. The area under the plasma concentration–time curve (AUC0–∞) was increased by 63 and 111% for the c.521TC and c.521CC genotypes vs. the c.521TT genotype, while the PD response remained relatively unchanged (3.1 and 5.8% reduction). Using local concentration at the effect site to drive the PD response enabled us to explain the observed disconnect between the effect of the OATP1B1 c521T>C polymorphism on rosuvastatin plasma concentration and the cholesterol synthesis response.

Understanding inter-subject variability in drug pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics is important to ensure that all patients attain suitable drug exposure to achieve efficacy and avoid toxicity. Inter-subject variability in the pharmacokinetics of therapeutic monoclonal antibodies (mAbs) is generally moderate to high; however, the factors responsible for the high inter-subject variability have not been comprehensively reviewed. In this review, the extent of inter-subject variability for mAb pharmacokinetics is presented and potential factors contributing to this variability are explored and summarised. Disease status, age, sex, ethnicity, body size, genetic polymorphisms, concomitant medication, co-morbidities, immune status and multiple other patient-specific details have been considered. The inter-subject variability for mAb pharmacokinetics most likely depends on the complex interplay of multiple factors. However, studies aimed at investigating the reasons for the inter-subject variability are sparse. Population pharmacokinetic models and physiologically based pharmacokinetic models are useful tools to identify important covariates, aiding in the understanding of factors contributing to inter-subject variability. Further understanding of inter-subject variability in pharmacokinetics should aid in development of dosing regimens that are more appropriate.

This study aimed to demonstrate the added value of integrating prior in vitro data and knowledge-rich physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models with pharmacodynamics (PDs) models. Four distinct applications that were developed and tested are presented here. PBPK models were developed for metoprolol using different CYP2D6 genotypes based on in vitro data. Application of the models for prediction of phenotypic differences in the pharmacokinetics (PKs) and PD compared favorably with clinical data, demonstrating that these differences can be predicted prior to the availability of such data from clinical trials. In the second case, PK and PD data for an immediate release formulation of nifedipine together with in vitro dissolution data for a controlled release (CR) formulation were used to predict the PK and PD of the CR. This approach can be useful to pharmaceutical scientists during formulation development. The operational model of agonism was used in the third application to describe the hypnotic effects of triazolam, and this was successfully extrapolated to zolpidem by changing only the drug related parameters from in vitro experiments. This PBPK modeling approach can be useful to developmental scientists who which to compare several drug candidates in the same therapeutic class. Finally, differences in QTc prolongation due to quinidine in Caucasian and Korean females were successfully predicted by the model using free heart concentrations as an input to the PD models. This PBPK linked PD model was used to demonstrate a higher sensitivity to free heart concentrations of quinidine in Caucasian females, thereby providing a mechanistic understanding of a clinical observation. In general, permutations of certain conditions which potentially change PK and hence PD may not be amenable to the conduct of clinical studies but linking PBPK with PD provides an alternative method of investigating the potential impact of PK changes on PD.

Gender differences in drug concentrations, drug response and toxicity have been attributed to various distinct yet interrelated physiological and molecular mechanisms. Drug transporters and metabolising enzymes play an important role in the xenobiotic cascade and are important regulators of drug disposition at the molecular level. The proposal of a dynamic interplay between drug metabolism and efflux has positioned drug transporters as important mediators of gender disparity in respect to drug disposition and therapeutic response. In examining the effects of gender on drug disposition and response we will specifically direct our focus on the role of the predominant drug transporter, P-glycoprotein. This review focuses on the role of the P-glycoprotein as a molecular mediator of gender differences in both drug exposure and response. Differences in transporter expression and function will be discussed together with the molecular basis for the observed difference in drug exposure between the sexes. Gender differences affecting transporter expression and function at the effect compartment and the effect of this on drug response will also be discussed.