MIC: in vitro… [PK / PD]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2020-07-30 11:41 (264 d 14:14 ago) – Posting: # 21805
Views: 1,805

Hi Dshah,

of course, all what you wrote is correct. I performed studies for an originator (new formulation), where t≥MIC* was the only confirmatory PK metric (see also this post). Studies accepted.

[image]However, we must not forget one important point: The MIC is based on in vitro data. Generally we have more than one MIC (dependent on the bacteria / strain). Everybody (myself included) compared the in vivo concentrations of the PK study with the in vitro MIC. That’s not the same thing… Is there a 1:1 relationship? I strongly doubt it.
Can/should we really do that? Well, cough… :lookaround:

BTW, we have a similar mix-up of PK with PD in the so-called “Therapeutic Occupancy Time” based on the misconception that Cmax is directly (‼) related to safety (toxicity) and Cmin to a potential lack of efficacy. See also this post.



Dif-tor heh smusma 🖖
Helmut Schütz
[image]

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

Complete thread:

Activity
 Admin contact
21,419 posts in 4,475 threads, 1,510 registered users;
online 11 (0 registered, 11 guests [including 4 identified bots]).
Forum time: Wednesday 01:56 UTC (Europe/Vienna)

In the Middles Ages the lingua franca of science was Latin.
Nowadays the language of science is bad English.    Anonymous

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