Resampling Methods in Sparse Sampling Situations in Preclinical Pharmacokinetic Studies

□ 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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Journal of pharmaceutical sciences 1998-03, Vol.87 (3), p.372-378
Hauptverfasser: Mager, Harry, Göller, Gernot
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 378
container_issue 3
container_start_page 372
container_title Journal of pharmaceutical sciences
container_volume 87
creator Mager, Harry
Göller, Gernot
description □ 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|tko 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.
doi_str_mv 10.1021/js970114h
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>istex_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_crossref_primary_10_1021_js970114h</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><els_id>S0022354915505224</els_id><sourcerecordid>ark_67375_WNG_95Z5Q3L6_N</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4948-bdad9da0cf4eb3f9937256eac8802f17bcf35eb603da30a5c57d0c78150117c83</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kEFv0zAUxy00VLrBYR9gUg67TCLwbMdxfJymsYHKKAQ0iYvl2C_UW5tUdrqxb49LSk_j9CT_f_J7_x8hxxTeUWD0_V1UEigtFi_IlAoGeQlUHpApAGM5F4V6RQ5jvAOAEoSYkIkSjCvFpuT2G0azWi999yv7jMOidzHzXVavTYiY1f-i2g8bM_i--5vOA9r07K1ZZvOFCStj-3vf4eBtVg8b5zG-Ji9bs4z4ZjePyI8Pl98vrvPZl6uPF-ez3BaqqPLGGaecAdsW2PBWKS6ZKNHYqgLWUtnYlgtsSuDOcDDCCunAyoqKVFfaih-Rs_FfG_oYA7Z6HfzKhCdNQW_d6L2bxJ6M7HrTrNDtyZ2MlJ_uchNTtTaYzvq4xxitlCxUwt6O2KNf4tP_9-lP85puL8xH3McBf-9xE-51KbkU-vbmKp3wU3zls1LfJJ6PPCZtDx6DjtZjZ9H5pH3QrvfPdPsDV-WbXQ</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>Resampling Methods in Sparse Sampling Situations in Preclinical Pharmacokinetic Studies</title><source>MEDLINE</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>Mager, Harry ; Göller, Gernot</creator><creatorcontrib>Mager, Harry ; Göller, Gernot</creatorcontrib><description>□ 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|tko 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.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0022-3549</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1520-6017</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1021/js970114h</identifier><identifier>PMID: 9523992</identifier><identifier>CODEN: JPMSAE</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>New York: Elsevier Inc</publisher><subject>Area Under Curve ; Biological and medical sciences ; General pharmacology ; Medical sciences ; Models, Chemical ; Pharmacokinetics ; Pharmacokinetics. Pharmacogenetics. Drug-receptor interactions ; Pharmacology. Drug treatments</subject><ispartof>Journal of pharmaceutical sciences, 1998-03, Vol.87 (3), p.372-378</ispartof><rights>1998 Wiley Periodicals, Inc. and the American Pharmacists Association</rights><rights>Copyright © 1998 Wiley‐Liss, Inc. and the American Pharmaceutical Association</rights><rights>1998 INIST-CNRS</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4948-bdad9da0cf4eb3f9937256eac8802f17bcf35eb603da30a5c57d0c78150117c83</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4948-bdad9da0cf4eb3f9937256eac8802f17bcf35eb603da30a5c57d0c78150117c83</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1021%2Fjs970114h$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1021%2Fjs970114h$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>315,782,786,1419,27931,27932,45581,45582</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttp://pascal-francis.inist.fr/vibad/index.php?action=getRecordDetail&amp;idt=2189749$$DView record in Pascal Francis$$Hfree_for_read</backlink><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9523992$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Mager, Harry</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Göller, Gernot</creatorcontrib><title>Resampling Methods in Sparse Sampling Situations in Preclinical Pharmacokinetic Studies</title><title>Journal of pharmaceutical sciences</title><addtitle>J. Pharm. Sci</addtitle><description>□ 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|tko 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.</description><subject>Area Under Curve</subject><subject>Biological and medical sciences</subject><subject>General pharmacology</subject><subject>Medical sciences</subject><subject>Models, Chemical</subject><subject>Pharmacokinetics</subject><subject>Pharmacokinetics. Pharmacogenetics. Drug-receptor interactions</subject><subject>Pharmacology. Drug treatments</subject><issn>0022-3549</issn><issn>1520-6017</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>1998</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>EIF</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kEFv0zAUxy00VLrBYR9gUg67TCLwbMdxfJymsYHKKAQ0iYvl2C_UW5tUdrqxb49LSk_j9CT_f_J7_x8hxxTeUWD0_V1UEigtFi_IlAoGeQlUHpApAGM5F4V6RQ5jvAOAEoSYkIkSjCvFpuT2G0azWi999yv7jMOidzHzXVavTYiY1f-i2g8bM_i--5vOA9r07K1ZZvOFCStj-3vf4eBtVg8b5zG-Ji9bs4z4ZjePyI8Pl98vrvPZl6uPF-ez3BaqqPLGGaecAdsW2PBWKS6ZKNHYqgLWUtnYlgtsSuDOcDDCCunAyoqKVFfaih-Rs_FfG_oYA7Z6HfzKhCdNQW_d6L2bxJ6M7HrTrNDtyZ2MlJ_uchNTtTaYzvq4xxitlCxUwt6O2KNf4tP_9-lP85puL8xH3McBf-9xE-51KbkU-vbmKp3wU3zls1LfJJ6PPCZtDx6DjtZjZ9H5pH3QrvfPdPsDV-WbXQ</recordid><startdate>199803</startdate><enddate>199803</enddate><creator>Mager, Harry</creator><creator>Göller, Gernot</creator><general>Elsevier Inc</general><general>John Wiley &amp; Sons, Inc</general><general>Wiley</general><general>American Pharmaceutical Association</general><scope>BSCLL</scope><scope>IQODW</scope><scope>CGR</scope><scope>CUY</scope><scope>CVF</scope><scope>ECM</scope><scope>EIF</scope><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope></search><sort><creationdate>199803</creationdate><title>Resampling Methods in Sparse Sampling Situations in Preclinical Pharmacokinetic Studies</title><author>Mager, Harry ; Göller, Gernot</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4948-bdad9da0cf4eb3f9937256eac8802f17bcf35eb603da30a5c57d0c78150117c83</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>1998</creationdate><topic>Area Under Curve</topic><topic>Biological and medical sciences</topic><topic>General pharmacology</topic><topic>Medical sciences</topic><topic>Models, Chemical</topic><topic>Pharmacokinetics</topic><topic>Pharmacokinetics. Pharmacogenetics. Drug-receptor interactions</topic><topic>Pharmacology. Drug treatments</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Mager, Harry</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Göller, Gernot</creatorcontrib><collection>Istex</collection><collection>Pascal-Francis</collection><collection>Medline</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>MEDLINE</collection><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><jtitle>Journal of pharmaceutical sciences</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Mager, Harry</au><au>Göller, Gernot</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Resampling Methods in Sparse Sampling Situations in Preclinical Pharmacokinetic Studies</atitle><jtitle>Journal of pharmaceutical sciences</jtitle><addtitle>J. Pharm. Sci</addtitle><date>1998-03</date><risdate>1998</risdate><volume>87</volume><issue>3</issue><spage>372</spage><epage>378</epage><pages>372-378</pages><issn>0022-3549</issn><eissn>1520-6017</eissn><coden>JPMSAE</coden><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|tko 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.</abstract><cop>New York</cop><pub>Elsevier Inc</pub><pmid>9523992</pmid><doi>10.1021/js970114h</doi><tpages>7</tpages></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0022-3549
ispartof Journal of pharmaceutical sciences, 1998-03, Vol.87 (3), p.372-378
issn 0022-3549
1520-6017
language eng
recordid cdi_crossref_primary_10_1021_js970114h
source MEDLINE; Access via Wiley Online Library; Alma/SFX Local Collection
subjects Area Under Curve
Biological and medical sciences
General pharmacology
Medical sciences
Models, Chemical
Pharmacokinetics
Pharmacokinetics. Pharmacogenetics. Drug-receptor interactions
Pharmacology. Drug treatments
title Resampling Methods in Sparse Sampling Situations in Preclinical Pharmacokinetic Studies
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-05T00%3A58%3A59IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-istex_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Resampling%20Methods%20in%20Sparse%20Sampling%20Situations%20in%20Preclinical%20Pharmacokinetic%20Studies&rft.jtitle=Journal%20of%20pharmaceutical%20sciences&rft.au=Mager,%20Harry&rft.date=1998-03&rft.volume=87&rft.issue=3&rft.spage=372&rft.epage=378&rft.pages=372-378&rft.issn=0022-3549&rft.eissn=1520-6017&rft.coden=JPMSAE&rft_id=info:doi/10.1021/js970114h&rft_dat=%3Cistex_cross%3Eark_67375_WNG_95Z5Q3L6_N%3C/istex_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/9523992&rft_els_id=S0022354915505224&rfr_iscdi=true