{"title":"Leave-one-out procedure in the validation of elimination rate constant analysis.","authors":"T Grabowski, J J Jaroszewski, M Sasinowska-Motyl","doi":"10.1055/s-0032-1331194","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Many registration agencies and other organizations define how to calculate the elimination rate constant (kel) value. No validation procedures have been introduced to verify the correct selection of the concentration-time (C-T) points used for the kel calculation. The purpose of this paper is to discover whether kel analysis can be subjected to the condensed validation procedure and what acceptance criteria should be adopted for such a procedure. For the analysis, data collected during bioequivalence studies of 4 drugs were selected, including 2 highly lipophilic drugs (itraconazole, atorvastatin) and 2 weakly lipophilic drugs (trimetazidine, perindopril). Pharmacokinetic calculations were performed with the use of WinNonlin Professional v 5.3. Internal validation of the kel analysis using leave-one-out cross-validation was performed. The present analysis proves that the C-T selection process for the kel calculations cannot be automated. In each of the analysed data series there were such C-T sequences that did not meet even one of the validation criteria. This paper proposes 3 validation criteria which need to be met in order to confirm the optimal selection of C-T data to calculate kel: Q 2≥0.6, R2≥ 0.85, Q 2-R2<0.3, were Q 2 - squared cross-validated correlation coefficient, R2 - coefficient of determination). Application of the validation procedure for the kel analysis under discussion proves the accuracy of the calculations, even if repeated kel analysis is based on a different sequence of points in the elimination phase.</p>","PeriodicalId":56084,"journal":{"name":"Arzneimittel-Forschung-Drug Research","volume":"62 12","pages":"682-9"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2012-12-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1055/s-0032-1331194","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Arzneimittel-Forschung-Drug Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0032-1331194","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2012/11/30 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5
Abstract
Many registration agencies and other organizations define how to calculate the elimination rate constant (kel) value. No validation procedures have been introduced to verify the correct selection of the concentration-time (C-T) points used for the kel calculation. The purpose of this paper is to discover whether kel analysis can be subjected to the condensed validation procedure and what acceptance criteria should be adopted for such a procedure. For the analysis, data collected during bioequivalence studies of 4 drugs were selected, including 2 highly lipophilic drugs (itraconazole, atorvastatin) and 2 weakly lipophilic drugs (trimetazidine, perindopril). Pharmacokinetic calculations were performed with the use of WinNonlin Professional v 5.3. Internal validation of the kel analysis using leave-one-out cross-validation was performed. The present analysis proves that the C-T selection process for the kel calculations cannot be automated. In each of the analysed data series there were such C-T sequences that did not meet even one of the validation criteria. This paper proposes 3 validation criteria which need to be met in order to confirm the optimal selection of C-T data to calculate kel: Q 2≥0.6, R2≥ 0.85, Q 2-R2<0.3, were Q 2 - squared cross-validated correlation coefficient, R2 - coefficient of determination). Application of the validation procedure for the kel analysis under discussion proves the accuracy of the calculations, even if repeated kel analysis is based on a different sequence of points in the elimination phase.
许多登记机构和其他组织定义了如何计算消除率常数(kel)值。没有引入验证程序来验证用于kel计算的浓度-时间(C-T)点的正确选择。本文的目的是探索kel分析是否可以采用浓缩验证程序,以及该程序应采用何种验收标准。选取4种药物的生物等效性研究数据进行分析,包括2种高亲脂性药物(伊曲康唑、阿托伐他汀)和2种弱亲脂性药物(曲美他嗪、培哚普利)。使用WinNonlin Professional v5.3进行药代动力学计算。使用留一交叉验证对kel分析进行内部验证。目前的分析证明,碳- t选择过程的kel计算不能自动化。在每个分析的数据序列中,都存在这样的C-T序列,甚至不符合一个验证标准。本文提出了确定C-T数据计算kel的最佳选择需要满足的3个验证标准:q2≥0.6,R2≥0.85,q2 -R2