Department of Bioengineering and Therapeutic Sciences, Schools of Pharmacy and Medicine, University of California San Francisco, 533 Parnassus Avenue, Room U-68, San Francisco, CA, 94103-0912, USA.
J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2010 Dec;37(6):529-39. doi: 10.1007/s10928-010-9187-8. Epub 2010 Nov 27.
A number of experimental observations in the late 1960s, early 1970s could not be explained by the pharmacokinetic theory available at that time. For example rats receiving phenobarbital as an enzyme inducing agent exhibited increased elimination of phenylbutazone in vitro in liver microsomes and in vivo in whole animals compared to that observed in non-induced animals. However, for desipramine, although phenobarbital increased elimination in microsomes, no change in plasma disappearance was noted in vivo for this drug between rats induced with phenobarbital and control rats. Similar in vitro-in vivo discordancies were seen with changes in protein binding. The introduction of clearance concepts in the early 1970s by Professor Rowland and others provided the scientific rationale for these apparently contradictory findings and the recognition that clearance, not half-life, was the measure of the body's ability to eliminate drugs and most importantly that changes in pathology and physiology could be correlated with measures of clearance. Up to that time half-life was well recognized in terms of basic chemical principles as an appropriate measure of the rate of elimination and reflective of changes in the rate of elimination. The difference between chemistry and pharmacokinetics, however, is that in chemistry the volume in which the reaction occurs does not change. In contrast, in pharmacokinetics, disease states and differences in physiology can change the space available in which the drug may distribute in the body. Thus, it was necessary to develop a pharmacokinetic measure of volume that was independent of elimination, i.e., V(ss). Now, the relationship between V(ss) and clearance led to a unique measure of time of drug in the body, the mean residence time. Although this parameter is calculated in all PK programs, very few pharmaceutical scientists know how it can be useful. Very recently, we have shown that the concepts of accumulation, prediction of which is the clinically relevant use for half-life and mean residence time, are flawed and that the appropriate time dependent parameter to predict accumulation has not been previously correctly identified. Finally, when clearance concepts were developed our understanding of the importance of drug transporters was nonexistent. A critical, and generally unrecognized assumption (which is only explicitly stated in Professor Rowland's seminal 1973 paper), in the development of the theory of clearance is that the unbound drug concentration in the organ of elimination is in a constant equilibrium with the unbound drug concentration in the systemic circulation, where drug concentration measurements are made. Transporter drug-drug and disease interactions may, in fact, change this equilibrium and potentially what we consider as intrinsic clearance, may not be independent of an eliminating organ volume parameter, contrary to what we have been teaching for the past 37 years.
20 世纪 60 年代末、70 年代初的一些实验观察结果无法用当时可用的药代动力学理论来解释。例如,接受苯巴比妥作为酶诱导剂的大鼠在肝微粒体中以及整体动物中表现出比非诱导动物更高的苯丁氮酮消除率。然而,对于去甲丙咪嗪,尽管苯巴比妥增加了微粒体中的消除,但在诱导和未诱导大鼠之间,药物在体内的血浆消失率没有变化。类似的体外-体内不一致也见于蛋白质结合的变化。20 世纪 70 年代初,Rowland 教授等人引入了清除率的概念,为这些明显矛盾的发现提供了科学依据,并认识到清除率而不是半衰期是衡量机体消除药物能力的指标,更重要的是,病理和生理学的变化可以与清除率的测量相关。在此之前,半衰期在基本化学原理方面被很好地认识为消除率的适当衡量标准,反映了消除率的变化。然而,化学和药代动力学之间的区别在于,在化学中,发生反应的体积不会改变。相比之下,在药代动力学中,疾病状态和生理学差异会改变药物在体内可能分布的空间。因此,有必要开发一种与消除无关的、独立的药代动力学容积测量方法,即 V(ss)。现在,V(ss)与清除率之间的关系导致了一种独特的药物在体内的时间度量,即平均驻留时间。尽管所有 PK 程序都计算了这个参数,但很少有制药科学家知道它有什么用。最近,我们已经表明,药物蓄积的概念,即半衰期和平均驻留时间的预测,是有缺陷的,以前并没有正确识别出预测蓄积的适当时间依赖参数。最后,当清除率概念被提出时,我们对药物转运体的重要性一无所知。在清除理论的发展过程中,有一个关键的、普遍未被认识到的假设(这在 Rowland 教授 1973 年的开创性论文中才明确指出),即消除器官中未结合药物浓度与系统循环中未结合药物浓度之间处于恒定平衡状态,而药物浓度的测量就是在这个系统循环中进行的。药物-药物转运体相互作用和疾病相互作用实际上可能改变这种平衡,我们认为的内在清除率可能不独立于消除器官容积参数,这与我们在过去 37 年中一直教授的内容相反。