消除率常数分析验证中的留一法。

Arzneimittel-Forschung-Drug Research Pub Date : 2012-12-01 Epub Date: 2012-11-30 DOI:10.1055/s-0032-1331194
T Grabowski, J J Jaroszewski, M Sasinowska-Motyl
{"title":"消除率常数分析验证中的留一法。","authors":"T Grabowski,&nbsp;J J Jaroszewski,&nbsp;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":"{\"title\":\"Leave-one-out procedure in the validation of elimination rate constant analysis.\",\"authors\":\"T Grabowski,&nbsp;J J Jaroszewski,&nbsp;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}","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

摘要

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
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
Leave-one-out procedure in the validation of elimination rate constant analysis.

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.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
4-8 weeks
期刊最新文献
[Vitamin B12]. Ibudilast, a phosphodiesterase inhibitor, in combination with low-dose aspirin potently inhibits guinea pig carotid artery thrombosis without extending bleeding time and causing gastric mucosal injury. Virtual screening and synthesis of new chemical scaffolds as VEGFR-2 kinase inhibitors. Pharmacokinetics and safety of eszopiclone in healthy Chinese volunteers. Pharmacokinetics and bioequivalence evaluation of two brands of ciprofloxacin 500 mg tablets in Iranian healthy volunteers.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1