Towards a comprehensive assessment of QSP models: what would it take?

An industry perspective on current QSP trends in drug development

2023 marks the 10th anniversary of Natpara's submission to the US FDA, which led to the first recorded regulatory interaction where a decision was supported by Quantitative and Systems Pharmacology (QSP) simulations. It had taken about 5 years for the timid QSP discipline to emerge as an effective Model-Informed Drug Development (MIDD) tool with visible impact in the pharmaceutical industry. Since then, the presence of QSP in the regulatory environment has continued to increase, to the point that the Agency reported 60 QSP submissions in 2020 alone, representing ~ 4% of their annual IND submissions [1]. What sort of industry mindset has enabled QSP to reach this level of success? How does QSP fit within the MIDD paradigm? Does QSP mean the same to Discovery and to Clinical Development projects? How do 'platforms' compare to 'fit-for-purpose' QSP models in an industrial setting? Can QSP and empirical Pharmacokinetic-Pharmacodynamic (PKPD) modelling be complementary? What level of validation is required to inform drug development decisions? This article reflects on all these questions, in particular addressing those audiences with limited line-of-sight into the drug industry decision-making machinery.

Structural and practical identifiability analysis in bioengineering: a beginner's guide

Advancements in digital technology have brought modelling to the forefront in many disciplines from healthcare to architecture. Mathematical models, often represented using parametrised sets of ordinary differential equations, can be used to characterise different processes. To infer possible estimates for the unknown parameters, these models are usually calibrated using associated experimental data. Structural and practical identifiability analyses are a key component that should be assessed prior to parameter estimation. This is because identifiability analyses can provide insights as to whether or not a parameter can take on single, multiple, or even infinitely or countably many values which will ultimately have an impact on the reliability of the parameter estimates. Also, identifiability analyses can help to determine whether the data collected are sufficient or of good enough quality to truly estimate the parameters or if more data or even reparameterization of the model is necessary to proceed with the parameter estimation process. Thus, such analyses also provide an important role in terms of model design (structural identifiability analysis) and the collection of experimental data (practical identifiability analysis). Despite the popularity of using data to estimate the values of unknown parameters, structural and practical identifiability analyses of these models are often overlooked. Possible reasons for non-consideration of application of such analyses may be lack of awareness, accessibility, and usability issues, especially for more complicated models and methods of analysis. The aim of this study is to introduce and perform both structural and practical identifiability analyses in an accessible and informative manner via application to well established and commonly accepted bioengineering models. This will help to improve awareness of the importance of this stage of the modelling process and provide bioengineering researchers with an understanding of how to utilise the insights gained from such analyses in future model development.

Quantitative Systems Pharmacology and Machine Learning: A Match Made in Heaven or Hell?

As pharmaceutical development moves from early-stage in vitro experimentation to later in vivo and subsequent clinical trials, data and knowledge are acquired across multiple time and length scales, from the subcellular to whole patient cohort scale. Realizing the potential of this data for informing decision making in pharmaceutical development requires the individual and combined application of machine learning (ML) and mechanistic multiscale mathematical modeling approaches. Here we outline how these two approaches, both individually and in tandem, can be applied at different stages of the drug discovery and development pipeline to inform decision making compound development. The importance of discerning between knowledge and data are highlighted in informing the initial use of ML or mechanistic quantitative systems pharmacology (QSP) models. We discuss the application of sensitivity and structural identifiability analyses of QSP models in informing future experimental studies to which ML may be applied, as well as how ML approaches can be used to inform mechanistic model development. Relevant literature studies are highlighted and we close by discussing caveats regarding the application of each approach in an age of constant data acquisition. SIGNIFICANCE STATEMENT: We consider when best to apply machine learning (ML) and mechanistic quantitative systems pharmacology (QSP) approaches in the context of the drug discovery and development pipeline. We discuss the importance of prior knowledge and data available for the system of interest and how this informs the individual and combined application of ML and QSP approaches at each stage of the pipeline.

Teaching computational systems biology with an eye on quantitative systems pharmacology at the undergraduate level: Why do it, who would take it, and what should we teach?

Computational systems biology (CSB) is a field that emerged primarily as the product of research activities. As such, it grew in several directions in a distributed and uncoordinated manner making the area appealing and fascinating. The idea of not having to follow a specific path but instead creating one fueled innovation. As the field matured, several interdisciplinary graduate programs emerged attempting to educate future generations of computational systems biologists. These educational initiatives coordinated the dissemination of information across student populations that had already decided to specialize in this field. However, we are now entering an era where CSB, having established itself as a valuable research discipline, is attempting the next major step: Entering undergraduate curricula. As interesting as this endeavor may sound, it has several difficulties, mainly because the field is not uniformly defined. In this manuscript, we argue that this diversity is a significant advantage and that several incarnations of an undergraduate-level CSB biology course could, and should, be developed tailored to programmatic needs. In this manuscript, we share our experiences creating a course as part of a Biomedical Engineering program.