Literature DB >> 8004879

Estimating bioavailability when clearance varies with time.

M O Karlsson1, L B Sheiner.   

Abstract

The influence of interoccasion variability in clearance on bioavailability estimates from a traditional two-period crossover design is reported for five methods of analysis: (1) the standard crossover analysis, (2) a groupwise, parallel, analysis, (3) and (4) two correction procedures suggested by J.G. Wagner and by P.S. Collier and S. Riegelman, and (5) a pharmacokinetic nonlinear mixed-effects model analysis. Three bioavailability parameters are considered the population mean bioavailability (F), the interindividual variance of bioavailability (omega 2F) and the correlation of bioavailability with clearance [cor (CL,F)]. Data are simulated with different degrees of interoccasion variability and/or non-zero cor(CL,F). With the standard crossover analysis of these data, estimates of F, omega F, and cor(CL,F) are all biased in the presence of interoccasion variability in clearance. Estimates of F and omega 2F obtained from the parallel-group analysis are not reliable because the approach relies on the assumption that cor(CL,F) is zero. The two correction procedures are very sensitive to random error in the estimates of terminal half-life. The mixed-effect model approach produces unbiased estimates of all three bioavailability parameters. These results from simulations are supported by a real data example.

Mesh:

Year:  1994        PMID: 8004879     DOI: 10.1038/clpt.1994.79

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther        ISSN: 0009-9236            Impact factor:   6.875


  8 in total

1.  Comparison of different methods to evaluate population dose-response and relative potency: importance of interoccasion variability.

Authors:  R L Lalonde; D Ouellet; E K Kimanani; D Potvin; L M Vaughan; M R Hill
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Biopharm       Date:  1999-02

2.  Importance of within subject variation in levodopa pharmacokinetics: a 4 year cohort study in Parkinson's disease.

Authors:  Phylinda L S Chan; John G Nutt; Nicholas H G Holford
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2005-08       Impact factor: 2.745

3.  Bioequivalence: individual and population compartmental modeling compared to the noncompartmental approach.

Authors:  H S Pentikis; J D Henderson; N L Tran; T M Ludden
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  1996-07       Impact factor: 4.200

4.  A nonparametric subject-specific population method for deconvolution: I. Description, internal validation, and real data examples.

Authors:  K E Fattinger; D Verotta
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Biopharm       Date:  1995-12

5.  Analysis of the pharmacokinetic interaction between cephalexin and quinapril by a nonlinear mixed-effect model.

Authors:  C Padoin; M Tod; G Perret; O Petitjean
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  1998-06       Impact factor: 5.191

6.  Pharmacokinetic analysis of mizolastine in healthy young volunteers after single oral and intravenous doses: noncompartmental approach and compartmental modeling.

Authors:  F Mesnil; C Dubruc; F Mentre; S Huet; A Mallet; J P Thenot
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Biopharm       Date:  1997-04

7.  Do we need full compliance data for population pharmacokinetic analysis?

Authors:  P Girard; L B Sheiner; H Kastrissios; T F Blaschke
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Biopharm       Date:  1996-06

8.  Population pharmacodynamic model of the longitudinal FEV1 response to an inhaled long-acting anti-muscarinic in COPD patients.

Authors:  Kai Wu; Michael Looby; Goonaseelan Pillai; Gregory Pinault; Anton Franz Drollman; Steve Pascoe
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2010-11-20       Impact factor: 2.745

  8 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.