MIC: in vitro… [PK / PD]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2020-07-30 15:41 (1363 d 13:55 ago) – Posting: # 21805
Views: 4,691

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 🖖🏼 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
22,993 posts in 4,828 threads, 1,657 registered users;
70 visitors (0 registered, 70 guests [including 5 identified bots]).
Forum time: 05:36 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

So far as I can remember,
there is not one word in the Gospels
in praise of intelligence.    Bertrand Russell

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