ABCG2-Stratified PBPK Modeling of Rosuvastatin–Ticagrelor Exposure
A whole-body PBPK workflow evaluates a transporter-mediated drug interaction across age and ABCG2 genotype strata, then compares simulated rosuvastatin exposure with a monotherapy reference.
Multiple OrgansComputational Models
A building at Mahidol University’s Siriraj campus in Bangkok, photographed in 2024. (Reversemos.sapanaht, CC BY 4.0)
Research Applications
Research assessment of how ticagrelor-related BCRP inhibition, older age and the ABCG2 c.421C>A homozygous variant could change rosuvastatin exposure.
Model & Design
Separate rosuvastatin and ticagrelor PBPK models were developed and combined with competitive BCRP inhibition. The workflow includes genotype-specific transporter activity and an age-related 40% reduction in CYP2C9 activity for the older group.
Experimental Format
Four virtual groups of 100 people: younger and 65–85-year-old adults, each wild type or homozygous for ABCG2 c.421C>A. Simulations compare rosuvastatin alone with coadministration at full, half or quarter doses; the stated exposure-matching AUC ratio interval is 0.80–1.25.
Model Components
Component
Model inputs
Description
Clinical concentration–time and exposure data for both drugs, available interaction data, ABCG2 genotype, age-related physiology, transporter expression and enzyme activity.
Component
Software and scenarios
Description
PK-Sim version 12.0; observed-study characteristics were aligned with virtual populations where available. Study-specific rosuvastatin and ticagrelor regimens were simulated over two weeks.
Measurements & Endpoints
Predicted and observed plasma concentration–time profiles
Rosuvastatin AUC and Cmax, including interaction ratios
AUC relative to rosuvastatin monotherapy after simulated dose changes
Analysis
Assess model fit using mean relative deviation, geometric mean fold error, AUC and Cmax; compare simulated and observed drug-interaction ratios; report each age–genotype group against the 0.80–1.25 exposure-matching target.
Published Evidence
Study Design
Component models compared with available clinical pharmacokinetic data; interaction model compared with observed coadministration data; separate age–genotype dose scenarios simulated afterward.
Study Sample
Four simulated groups of 100 virtual subjects each; older group aged 65–85 years. The relevant elderly, variant and coadministration clinical scenarios relied on a single study and did not provide an independent scenario validation.
Comparison
Observed versus simulated interaction exposure ratios; simulated coadministration AUC versus monotherapy AUC.
Finding
Interaction AUC ratio 2.25 simulated versus 2.47 observed; Cmax ratio 1.92 versus 2.58. The exposure-matching scenarios yielded AUC ratios 1.44 and 0.78 for younger wild-type and homozygous-variant groups at half dose, 1.06 for older wild-type at quarter dose, and 1.12 for older homozygous-variant at half dose.
Interpretation & Limits
The 1.44 and 0.78 younger-group ratios fall outside the study’s stated 0.80–1.25 target.
Proposed age–genotype dose scenarios were not prospectively tested in patients.
Development and evaluation relied mainly on Caucasian-population data.
The source is a preprint, not peer-reviewed clinical dosing guidance.
A medRxiv preprint simulated rosuvastatin exposure during ticagrelor coadministration in four age–ABCG2 genotype groups. Exposure-matching results differed by group, but the proposed dose scenarios were not clinically tested.