NCA agrees with PK-modeling [Software]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2017-01-18 02:41 (2627 d 08:38 ago) – Posting: # 16969
Views: 11,112

Hi Bob,

❝ I am still curious about calculation of CL and MRT. As CL=Dose/AUC and MRT=(AUMC/AUC) - (Duration of Infusion/2). These parameters are dependent on AUC & AUMC.


Correct so far.

❝ And the problem with AUC & AUMC I see is that baseline being 10, the calculated AUC is sum of exposure due to second dose + exposure due to the baseline concentration of drug already present, which can contribute to as high as 10% of total AUC (200 at Cmax, 10 at 0h).


Maybe you were confused by the fact that you measured 10 both at the start and the end of the second infusion (sorry for drawing the red line in my first post). Due to the fact that you are close to the LLOQ that might be just a coincidence (random noise). Since this was not an endogenous compound, there is no „baseline”. You have residual concentrations of the first infusion which gradually are eliminated. In my simulation the residual concentration is 9.55 at four hours and just 0.45 at eight hours (note that 9.55+0.45=10). Below the model:

[image]


❝ In this situation do you think these parameters (CL and MRT) will still be good representative of Plasma PK for this drug?


NCA is fine as long as

❝ or there is way to analyze it better?


There is no free lunch. Of course modeling might be an alternative. Depends on your experience and the purpose of the study. Let’s compare NCA (lin-up log-down trapezoidal) with PK models (one compartment, parameterized in CL & V, duration of infusions five minutes):

                 NCA      1       2       3       4  
VSS  mL        508.98  507.12  507.13  507.13  484.40
CL   ml/h      388.88  387.89  387.87  387.88  370.49
AUC  h×µg/mL   257.15  257.81  257.82  257.81  269.91
AUMC h²×µg/mL  294.97  337.05  337.08  337.07  352.90
MRT  h         1.3088  1.3074  1.3075  1.3074  1.3075

  1. The data of the first infusion (which you don’t have).
  2. The data of the second infusion; both doses given in the setup.
  3. The data of both infusions.
  4. The data of the second infusion but only the second dose given in the setup.
Given that NCA works with the log-trapezoidal method and there was no noise in the data I’m fine with the results (agree with models 1–3; max. relative error 0.36%).
t½ was 0.90624 h. That means we reached 100(1–½4/0.90624)=95.31% of steady state at the start of the second infusion. Should be sufficient. Quick & dirty: 100×C4/C8=95.5%.
Since we didn’t give the first dose (classical user error) in model 4, Phoenix does its best to fit the data but the results are wrong. Rubbish in, rubbish out.
BTW, it is one of the mysteries of Phoenix/WinNonlin why the NCA’s MRT is correct though the AUMC isn’t. My pocket calculator gives 294.97/257.15=1.1471.
:PCchaos:

Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖🏼 Довге життя Україна! [image]
Helmut Schütz
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. 🚮
Science Quotes

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
22,957 posts in 4,819 threads, 1,636 registered users;
99 visitors (0 registered, 99 guests [including 5 identified bots]).
Forum time: 11:20 CET (Europe/Vienna)

With four parameters I can fit an elephant,
and with five I can make him wiggle his trunk.    John von Neumann

The Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
HTML5