Urban legend? [Regulatives / Guidelines]

posted by d_labes  – Berlin, Germany, 2008-11-24 16:06 (5993 d 19:23 ago) – Posting: # 2790
Views: 22,845

Dear Helmut!

❝ ❝ But you can do it on your own: Fire up some PK software (even M$-Excel would do the job) - define parameters of two hypothetical formulations in such a way that Cmax is let's say 10% apart - go into steady state - the difference should be smaller.


Really? Or just an Urban legend of the pharmacokinetolophystic (© ElMaestro) type?


Self-doubts are the essence of real scientific work! :-D

❝ ... ratio stays the same. Am I missing something?


Try to change not F in the model, but rather the absorption constant ka. Or both.

Using a one-compartment model and the rate constants

ke=0.06
ka(test)=2
ka(ref)=4

I obtained (F, dose and Vc identical for both formulations)
- single dose Cmax ratio=0.9565
- steady state Cmax ratio=0.9711 (tau=8 h)
(Hope I have implemented the formulas in M$-Excel in a hurry right).

To quote your link to Wikipedia:
"Like all folklore, urban legends are not necessarily false but they are often distorted, exaggerated, or sensationalized over time.." ;-) .
This one and a half percent increase is not so impressive to me. Me be two-compartment models do it better. Or both changes in F and ka.

Regards,

Detlew

Complete thread:

UA Flag
Activity
 Admin contact
23,424 posts in 4,927 threads, 1,671 registered users;
21 visitors (0 registered, 21 guests [including 0 identified bots]).
Forum time: 12:29 CEST (Europe/Vienna)

The difference between a surrogate and a true endpoint
is like the difference between a cheque and cash.
You can get the cheque earlier but then,
of course, it might bounce.    Stephen Senn

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