Search PubMed⌕ Search

PubMed · 9145382

A comparative computer simulation study of three different sparse-sampling methods for the estimation of steady-state area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) and maximum concentration (Cmax) in toxicokinetics.

Abstract

A limited-sampling method is proposed to estimate the area under the curve (AUC) of concentration versus time and maximum concentration (Cmax) following single or multiple oral doses of a hypothetical drug. The plasma concentration versus time data sets for 50 animals were generated by simulation. The limited-sampling model (LSM) was developed with samples from 10 animals at a single time point. The model was validated in another 40 animals who received either a 500-mg single dose or multiple doses orally. The model provided good population mean estimates of AUC and Cmax. The proposed method was compared with the existing two methods; they are, naive sampling (five time points) and optimal sampling (three time points). The method described here may be useful in estimating AUC and Cmax with one or two samples in toxicokinetic studies following single or multiple oral dosing without detailed pharmacokinetic studies.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

I Mahmood. 1997. A comparative computer simulation study of three different sparse-sampling methods for the estimation of steady-state area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) and maximum concentration (Cmax) in toxicokinetics.. https://doi.org/10.1021/js960450i

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Determination of disodium clodronate in human plasma and urine using gas-chromatography-nitrogen-phosphorous detections: validation and application in pharmacokinetic study.

We present a specific method for the determination of disodium clodronate in human plasma and urine using a gas-chromatographic system with nitrogen phosphorus detector (NPD). The compound was extracted from plasma and urine samples by an anion-exchange resin and derivatizated with bistrimethylsilyltrifluoroacetamide (BSTFA). Sodium bromobisphosphonate was used as internal standard. The calibration curves were linear in both plasma and urine, with a regression coefficient r > 0.9975 in plasma and r > 0.9977 in urine. The limit of quantitation was 0.3 microg/ml in plasma and 0.5 microg/ml in urine. The method was validated by intra-day assays at three concentration levels. During the study we carried out inter-day assays to confirm the feasibility of the method. The precision in plasma at 0.5, 15, and 45 microg/ml was 12.4, 0.2, and 6.5% (n = 40), respectively; in urine at 0.8, 8, and 40 microg/ml it was 8.6, 6.4, and 9.3% (n = 40), respectively. The method was accurate and reproducible, and was successfully applied to determine the pharmacokinetic parameters of clodronate in healthy volunteers after intravenous infusion and intramuscular injection of 200 mg of the compound. The Cmax after intravenous infusion and intramuscular injection was 16.1 and 12.8 microg/ml, respectively. AUC(0-48 h) after infusion administration and intramuscular injection was 44.2 +/- 18.0 and 47.5 +/- 12.4 h microg/ml, respectively. The elimination half-life in both administrations was 6.31 +/- 2.7 h.

Area Under Curve↗

A systematic review of test performance in screening for oral cancer and precancer.

Nine databases were searched for studies on test performance in screening for oral cancer and precancer in primary care. Of 481 papers, full texts of 47 were scrutinised by two reviewers. Only prospective investigations of population screening involving examination of the oral mucosa, with gold standard verification (examination by an expert of subjects screened positive and at least a proportion of negatives), were selected. Seven papers describing eight studies were finally included (kappa=0.83). The weighted pooled value of sensitivity, from random effects meta-analysis, was 0.848 (95% CI 0.730, 0.919). The corresponding value for specificity was 0.965 (95% CI 0.930, 0.982). Main sources of clinical heterogeneity occurred between large house-to-house case finding programmes from SE Asia, utilising primary health workers, and smaller studies from England and Japan. Meta-analysis regression showed no difference (P=0.99) in the generally high level of discriminatory ability of the test between these two groups.

Area Under Curve↗