ArticleJournal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics2024
Comparison of monoclonal antibody disposition predictions using different physiologically based pharmacokinetic modelling platforms.
Article in Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
4 citing papers in PubMed.
- Differences in Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Predictions between Software Platforms Can Be Clinically Relevant: Cases of Levornestrogel and Ethinylestradiol Concentrations with SIMCYP versus PK-Sim from a User Perspective.European journal of drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics · 2026Article
- Article
- Physiologically Based Pharmacokinetic Models for Infliximab, Ipilimumab, and Nivolumab Developed with GastroPlus to Predict Hepatic Concentrations.Pharmaceutics · 2025Article
- A minimal physiologically based pharmacokinetic model to study the combined effect of antibody size, charge, and binding affinity to FcRn/antigen on antibody pharmacokinetics.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) models can be used to leverage physiological and in vitro data to predict monoclonal antibody (mAb) concentrations in serum and tissues. However, it is currently not known how consistent predictions of mAb disposition are across PBPK modelling platforms. In this work PBPK simulations of IgG, adalimumab and infliximab were compared between three platforms (Simcyp, PK-Sim, and GastroPlus). Accuracy of predicted serum and tissue concentrations was assessed using observed data collected from the literature. Physiological and mAb related input parameters were also compared and sensitivity analyses were carried out to evaluate model behavior when input values were altered. Differences in serum kinetics of IgG between platforms were minimal for a dose of 1 mg/kg, but became more noticeable at higher dosages (> 100 mg/kg) and when reference (healthy) physiological input values were altered. Predicted serum concentrations of both adalimumab and infliximab were comparable across platforms, but were noticeably higher than observed values. Tissue concentrations differed remarkably between the platforms, both for total- and interstitial fluid (ISF) concentrations. The accuracy of total tissue concentrations was within a three-fold of observed values for all tissues, except for brain tissue concentrations, which were overpredicted. Predictions of tissue ISF concentrations were less accurate and were best captured by GastroPlus. Overall, these simulations show that the different PBPK platforms generally predict similar mAb serum concentrations, but variable tissue concentrations. Caution is therefore warranted when PBPK models are used to simulate effect site tissue concentrations of mAbs without data to verify the predictions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
37952005What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.