Skip to main content
Log in

Characterization of AUCs from Sparsely Sampled Populations in Toxicology Studies

  • Published:
Pharmaceutical Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose. The objective of this work was to develop and validate blood sampling schemes for accurate AUC determination from a few samples (sparse sampling). This will enable AUC determination directly in toxicology studies, without the need to utilize a large number of animals.

Methods. Sparse sampling schemes were developed using plasma concentration-time (Cp-t) data in rats from toxicokinetic (TK) studies with the antiepileptic felbamate (F) and the antihistamine loratadine (L); Cp-t data at 13–16 time-points (N = 4 or 5 rats/time-point) were available for F, L and its active circulating metabolite descarboethoxyloratadine (DCL). AUCs were determined using the full profile and from 5 investigator designated time-points termed “critical” time-points. Using the bootstrap (re-sampling) technique, 1000 AUCs were computed by sampling (N = 2 rats/point, with replacement) from the 4 or 5 rats at each “critical” point. The data were subsequently modeled using PCNONLIN, and the parameters (ka, ke, and Vd) were perturbed by different degrees to simulate pharmacokinetic (PK) changes that may occur during a toxicology study due to enzyme induction/inhibition, etc. Finally, Monte Carlo simulations were performed with random noise (10 to 40%) applied to Cp-t and/or PK parameters to examine its impact on AUCs from sparse sampling.

Results. The 5 time-points with 2 rats/point accurately and precisely estimated the AUC for F, L and DCL; the deviation from the full profile was ~10%, with a precision (%CV) of ~15%. Further, altered kinetics and random noise had minimal impact on AUCs from sparse sampling.

Conclusions. Sparse sampling can accurately estimate AUCs and can be implemented in rodent toxicology studies to significantly reduce the number of animals for TK evaluations. The same principle is applicable to sparse sampling designs in other species used in safety assessments.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. J. Heykants and W. Meuldermans. Nonclinical kinetics and metabolism studies in the safety assessment of drugs. Drug Information Journal, 28:163–172 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  2. M. N. Cayen. Considerations in the design of toxicokinetic studies. Toxicologic Pathology, 23:148–157 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  3. ICH/EFPIA Safety Task Force on Toxicokinetics. Note for Guidance on Toxicokinetics. Draft No. 7 (1992).

  4. Unpublished data on file. Department of Drug Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics. Schering-Plough Research Institute, Kenilworth, NJ.

  5. Unpublished data on file. Department of Drug Metabolism and Pharmacokinetics. Schering-Plough Research Institute, Kenilworth, NJ.

  6. J. Hempenius, G. Hendriks, J. Hingstman, C. K. Mensink, J. H. G. Jonkman, and C. C. Lin. An automated analytical method for the determination of felbamate in human plasma by robotic sample preparation and reversed-phase high performance liquid chromatography. J. Pharm. Biomed. Anal. 12 (1994).

  7. R. Johnson, J. Christensen, and C. C. Lin. Sensitive gas-liquid chromatographic method for the determination of loratadine and its major active metabolite, descarboethoxyloratadine in human plasma using a nitrogen-phosphorus (N/P) detector. J. Chromatogr. B. 657:125–131 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

  8. M. Gibaldi and D. Perrier. Pharmacokinetics, 2nd edition, Marcel Dekker, New York, 1982, pp. 409–417, 445–449.

    Google Scholar 

  9. PCNONLIN, Version 4.0. Statistical Consultants Inc. Lexington, KY (1992).

  10. A. Akaike. Posterior probabilities for choosing a regression model, Annals of the Institute of Mathematical Statistics, 30(A):9–14 (1978).

    Google Scholar 

  11. SAS. Statistical Institute Inc., Cary, NC. SAS Language: Reference, version 6, 1st edition, pp. 589 (1990).

    Google Scholar 

  12. H. Boxenbaum and M. Battle. Effective half-life in clinical pharmacology. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 35:763–766 (1995).

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. M. Gibaldi and D. Perrier. Pharmacokinetics, 2nd Edition, Marcel Dekker, New York, 1982, pp. 451–457.

    Google Scholar 

  14. B. Efron and R. J. Tibshirani. An Introduction to the Bootstrap. Chapman & Hall, New York, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  15. H. Mager and G. Göller. Analysis of pseudo-profiles in organ pharmacokinetics and toxicokinetics. Statistics in Medicine. 14:1009–1024 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  16. T. M. Ludden. Population pharmacokinetics. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 28:1059–1063 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  17. B. Whiting, A. W. Kelman, and J. Grevel. Population pharmacokinetics: Theory and clinical applications. Clin. Pharmacokinet. 11:387–401 (1986).

    Google Scholar 

  18. F. Mentre, P. Burtin, Y. Merle, J. V. Bree, A. Mallet, and J-L. Steimer. Sparse-sampling optimal designs in pharmacokinetics and toxicokinetics. Drug Information Journal, 29:997–1019 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  19. J. V. Bree, J. Nedelman, J-L. Steimer, F. Tse, W. Robinson, and W. Niederberger. Application of sparse sampling approaches in rodent toxicokinetics: A prospective view. Drug Information Journal, 28:263–279 (1994).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pai, S.M., Fettner, S.H., Hajian, G. et al. Characterization of AUCs from Sparsely Sampled Populations in Toxicology Studies. Pharm Res 13, 1283–1290 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016097227603

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1016097227603

Navigation