Literature DB >> 9523992

Resampling methods in sparse sampling situations in preclinical pharmacokinetic studies.

H Mager1, G Göller.   

Abstract

Toxicokinetic studies often require destructive sampling and the determination of drug concentrations in the various organs. Classically, the corresponding information is summarized in one mean concentration-time profile, which is regarded as representative for the animal population. On the basis of a mean profile, only estimates of the secondary pharmacokinetic parameters (for example AUC, t1/2) but no variability measures may be obtained. In this paper two resampling techniques are contrasted to Bailer's approach. The results obtained show that the resampling techniques can be considered a reliable alternative to Bailer's approach for the estimation of the standard error of the AUC t(k)0 in the case of normally distributed concentration data. They can be extended to the estimation of a variety of other secondary pharmacokinetic parameters and their respective standard deviations. One disadvantage with Bailer's method is its restriction to linear functions of the concentrations. On the other hand, using the population approach, prior knowledge of the underlying pharmacokinetic model is necessary. The resampling techniques discussed here, the "pseudoprofile-based bootstrap" (PpbB) and the "pooled data bootstrap" (PDB), are noncompartmental approaches. They are applicable under nonnormal data constellations and permit the estimation of the usual secondary pharmacokinetic parameters along with their standard deviations, standard errors, and other statistical measures. To assess the accuracy, precision, and robustness of the resampling estimators, theoretical data from three different pharmacokinetic models with different add-on errors (up to 100% variability) were analyzed. Even for the data sets with high variability, the parameters calculated with resampling techniques differ not more than 10% from the true values. Thus, in the case of data that are not normally distributed or when additional secondary pharmacokinetic parameters and their variability are to be estimated, the resampling methods are powerful tools in the safety assessment in preclinical pharmacokinetics and in toxicokinetics where generally sparse data situations are given.

Mesh:

Year:  1998        PMID: 9523992     DOI: 10.1021/js970114h

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Pharm Sci        ISSN: 0022-3549            Impact factor:   3.534


  17 in total

1.  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

2.  A random sampling approach for robust estimation of tissue-to-plasma ratio from extremely sparse data.

Authors:  Hui-May Chu; Ene I Ette
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2005-09-02       Impact factor: 4.009

3.  Nonparametric AUC estimation in population studies with incomplete sampling: a Bayesian approach.

Authors:  P Magni; R Bellazzi; G De Nicolao; I Poggesi; M Rocchetti
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 2.745

4.  Development and Characterization of a Dry Powder Formulation for Anti-Tuberculosis Drug Spectinamide 1599.

Authors:  Ian E Stewart; Pradeep B Lukka; Jiuyu Liu; Bernd Meibohm; Mercedes Gonzalez-Juarrero; Miriam S Braunstein; Richard E Lee; Anthony J Hickey
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2019-07-18       Impact factor: 4.200

5.  Nanoparticle-releasing nanofiber composites for enhanced in vivo vaginal retention.

Authors:  Emily A Krogstad; Renuka Ramanathan; Christina Nhan; John C Kraft; Anna K Blakney; Shijie Cao; Rodney J Y Ho; Kim A Woodrow
Journal:  Biomaterials       Date:  2017-08-01       Impact factor: 12.479

6.  Quantitative Assessment of Pulmonary Targeting of Inhaled Corticosteroids Using Ex Vivo Receptor Binding Studies.

Authors:  Jie Shao; James Talton; Yaning Wang; Lawrence Winner; Guenther Hochhaus
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2020-01-30       Impact factor: 4.009

7.  Assessment of pharmacologic area under the curve when baselines are variable.

Authors:  Jeremy D Scheff; Richard R Almon; Debra C Dubois; William J Jusko; Ioannis P Androulakis
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2011-01-14       Impact factor: 4.200

8.  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

9.  Cervicovaginal and Rectal Fluid as a Surrogate Marker of Antiretroviral Tissue Concentration: Implications for Clinical Trial Design.

Authors:  Mackenzie L Cottrell; Heather M A Prince; Andrew Allmon; Katie R Mollan; Michael G Hudgens; Craig Sykes; Nicole White; Stephanie Malone; Evan S Dellon; Ryan D Madanick; Nicholas J Shaheen; Kristine B Patterson; Angela D M Kashuba
Journal:  J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr       Date:  2016-08-15       Impact factor: 3.731

10.  Tissue 65Zinc translocation in a rat model of chronic aldosteronism.

Authors:  Yelena Selektor; Robert B Parker; Yao Sun; Wenyuan Zhao; Syamal K Bhattacharya; Karl T Weber
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Pharmacol       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 3.105

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.