Analysis of animal pharmacokinetic data: Performance of the one point per animal design
Tóm tắt
A simulation study was carried out to determine the impact of various design factors on the accuracy and precision with which population pharmacokinetic parameters are estimated in preclinical pharmacokinetic studies. A drug given by intravenous bolus injection and having monoexponential disposition characteristics was assumed. The factors investigated were (i) number of animals sampled at specified times with one observation taken per animal, (ii) error in observed concentration measurements, and (iii) doubling the number of observations per animal while varying the number of animals. Data were analyzed with the NONMEM program, and the least number of animals per time point (where each animal supplied one concentration-time point) required for accurate and precise parameter estimation was determined. The one observation per animal design yielded biased and imprecise estimates of variability, and residual variability could not be estimated. Increasing the error in the concentration measurement led to a significant deterioration in the accuracy and precision with which variability was estimated. Obtaining a second sample from each animal practically eliminated bias and facilitated the partitioning of interanimal variability and residual intraanimal variability, by introducing information about the latter. Doubling the total number of observations per animal required using half (i.e., 50) the total number of animals required for accurate and precise parameter estimation with the one sample per animal design.
Tài liệu tham khảo
B. Gabard. Distribution and excretion of the mercury chelating agent sodium 2,3-dimercaptopropane-1-sulfonate in the rat.Arch. Toxicol. 39:289–298 (1978).
W. Loscher and H. Esenwein. Pharmacokinetics of sodium valporate in dog and mouse.Arzneim. Forsch. 28:782–787 (1978).
A. B. Pritchard, P. A. Holmes, and J. C. Kirschman. The fate of FD & C Red No. 2 and its metabolites, naphthionic acid, after different routes of administration in the rat.Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 35:1–10 (1976).
E. Martin, W. Moll, P. Schmid, and L. Dettli. Problems and pitfalls in estimating average pharmacokinetic parameters.Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 26:595–602 (1984).
S. L. Beal and L. B. Sheiner.NONMEM Users Guide, Parts I–VI, Division of Clinical Pharmacology, University of California, San Francisco, 1979–1992.
J. P. McGovern, M. G. Williams, and J. C. Stewart. Inter species comparison avicin pharmacokinetics.Drug Metab. Dispos. 16:18–22 (1988).
D. B. White, C. A. Walawander, Y. Tung, and T. H. Grasela. An evaluation of point and interval estimates in population pharmacokinetics using NONMEM analysis.J. Pharmacokin. Biopharm. 19:87–112 (1991).
E. I. Ette, A. W. Kelman, C. A. Howie, and B. Whitting. Interpretation of simulation studies for efficient estimation of population pharmacokinetic parameters.Ann. Pharmacother. 27:1034–1039, and Correction27:1548 (1993).
E. I. Ette. Efficient parameter estimation in animal pharmacokinetic studies.Ph.D. thesis. Department of Medicine and Therapeutics, University of Glasgow, 1991.
D. A. Graves, C. S. Locke, Jr., K. T. Muir, and R. P. Miller. The influence of assay variability on pharmacokinetic parameter estimation.J. Pharmacokin. Biopharm. 17:571–592 (1989).
B. H. Migdalof. Methods for obtaining drug time course from individual small laboratory animals: serial microblood sampling and assay.Drug Metab. Rev. 5:295–310 (1976).