Literature DB >> 8893263

Characterization of AUCs from sparsely sampled populations in toxicology studies.

S M Pai1, S H Fettner, G Hajian, M N Cayen, V K Batra.   

Abstract

PURPOSE: The objective of this work was to develop and validate blood sampling schemes for accurate AUC determination from a few samples (sparse sampling). This will enable AUC determination directly in toxicology studies, without the need to utilize a large number of animals.
METHODS: Sparse sampling schemes were developed using plasma concentration-time (Cp-t) data in rats from toxicokinetic (TK) studies with the antiepileptic felbamate (F) and the antihistamine loratadine (L); Cp-t data at 13-16 time-points (N = 4 or 5 rats/time-point) were available for F, L and its active circulating metabolite descarboethoxyloratadine (DCL). AUCs were determined using the full profile and from 5 investigator designated time-points termed "critical" time-points. Using the bootstrap (re-sampling) technique, 1000 AUCs were computed by sampling (N = 2 rats/point, with replacement) from the 4 or 5 rats at each "critical" point. The data were subsequently modeled using PCNONLIN, and the parameters (ka, ke, and Vd) were perturbed by different degrees to simulate pharmacokinetic (PK) changes that may occur during a toxicology study due to enzyme induction/inhibition, etc. Finally Monte Carlo simulations were performed with random noise (10 to 40%) applied to Cp-t and/or PK parameters to examine its impact on AUCs from sparse sampling.
RESULTS: The 5 time-points with 2 rats/point accurately and precisely estimated the AUC for F, L and DCL; the deviation from the full profile was approximately 10%, with a precision (%CV) of approximately 15%. Further, altered kinetics and random noise had minimal impact on AUCs from sparse sampling.
CONCLUSIONS: Sparse sampling can accurately estimate AUCs and can be implemented in rodent toxicology studies to significantly reduce the number of animals for TK evaluations. The same principle is applicable to sparse sampling designs in other species used in safety assessments.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  1996        PMID: 8893263     DOI: 10.1023/a:1016097227603

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Pharm Res        ISSN: 0724-8741            Impact factor:   4.200


  7 in total

Review 1.  Population pharmacokinetics.

Authors:  T M Ludden
Journal:  J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  1988-12       Impact factor: 3.126

2.  Analysis of pseudo-profiles in organ pharmacokinetics and toxicokinetics.

Authors:  H Mager; G Göller
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  1995 May 15-30       Impact factor: 2.373

Review 3.  Considerations in the design of toxicokinetic programs.

Authors:  M N Cayen
Journal:  Toxicol Pathol       Date:  1995 Mar-Apr       Impact factor: 1.902

4.  Effective half-life in clinical pharmacology.

Authors:  H Boxenbaum; M Battle
Journal:  J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  1995-08       Impact factor: 3.126

5.  An automated analytical method for the determination of felbamate in human plasma by robotic sample preparation and reversed-phase high performance liquid chromatography.

Authors:  J Hempenius; G Hendriks; J Hingstman; C K Mensink; J H Jonkman; C C Lin
Journal:  J Pharm Biomed Anal       Date:  1994-11       Impact factor: 3.935

6.  Sensitive gas-liquid chromatographic method for the determination of loratadine and its major active metabolite, descarboethoxyloratadine, in human plasma using a nitrogen-phosphorus detector.

Authors:  R Johnson; J Christensen; C C Lin
Journal:  J Chromatogr B Biomed Appl       Date:  1994-07-01

Review 7.  Population pharmacokinetics. Theory and clinical application.

Authors:  B Whiting; A W Kelman; J Grevel
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  1986 Sep-Oct       Impact factor: 6.447

  7 in total
  6 in total

1.  A population approach to enzyme characterization and identification: application to phenacetin O-deethylation.

Authors:  D J Belle; B J Ring; S R Allerheiligen; M A Heathman; L M O'Brien; V Sinha; L K Roskos; S A Wrighton
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 4.200

2.  Is mixed effects modeling or naïve pooled data analysis preferred for the interpretation of single sample per subject toxicokinetic data?

Authors:  J P Hing; S G Woolfrey; D Greenslade; P M Wright
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2001-04       Impact factor: 2.745

3.  Coverage and precision of confidence intervals for area under the curve using parametric and non-parametric methods in a toxicokinetic experimental design.

Authors:  P L Bonate
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  1998-03       Impact factor: 4.200

4.  Comparison of tenofovir plasma and tissue exposure using a population pharmacokinetic model and bootstrap: a simulation study from observed data.

Authors:  Jon W Collins; J Heyward Hull; Julie B Dumond
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2017-11-08       Impact factor: 2.745

5.  Serial versus sparse sampling in toxicokinetic studies.

Authors:  F L Tse; J R Nedelman
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  1996-07       Impact factor: 4.200

6.  The impact of composite AUC estimates on the prediction of systemic exposure in toxicology experiments.

Authors:  Tarjinder Sahota; Meindert Danhof; Oscar Della Pasqua
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2015-04-14       Impact factor: 2.745

  6 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.