Abstract
Based on toxicokinetic studies of a destructive sampling design, this work was aimed at selecting the number of time points, their locations, and the number of replicates per time point in order to obtain the most accurate and precise noncompartmental estimate of the area under the concentration-time curve (AUC). From a prior population pharmacokinetic model, the design is selected to minimize the scaled mean squared error of AUC. Designs are found for various sample sizes, number of time points, and a distribution of animals across time points from being very unbalanced to balanced. Their efficiencies are compared both theoretically and based on simulations. An algorithm has been implemented for this purpose using the symbolic resolution and numerical minimization capabilities of Mathematica TM and an example of its use is provided. This method provides efficient tools for constructing, validating, and comparing optimal sampling designs for destructive sampled toxicokinetic studies.
Similar content being viewed by others
REFERENCES
ICH. Guideline on the assessment of systemic exposure in toxicity studies. Fed. Register 60:11263-11268 (1995).
A. J. Bailer and W. W. Piegorsch. Estimating integrals using quadrature methods with an application in pharmacokinetics. Biometrics 46:1201-1211 (1990).
A. J. Bailer. Testing for the equality of area under the curves when using destructive measurement techniques. J. Pharmacokin. Biopharm. 16:303-309 (1988).
K. C. Yeh and K. C. Kwan. A comparison of numerical integrating algorithms by trapezoidal, Lagrange and spline approximation. J. Pharmacokin. Biopharm. 6:79-98 (1978).
R. D. Purves. Optimum numerical integration methods for estimation of area-under-the curve (AUC) and area-under-the moment-curve (AUMC). J. Pharmacokin. Biopharm. 20:211-226 (1992).
D. Z. D'Argenio. Optimal sampling times for pharmacokinetic experiments. J. Pharmacokin. Biopharm. 9:739-756 (1981).
F. Mentré, P. Burtin, Y. Merlé, J. Van Bree, A. Mallet, and J. L. Steimer. Sparse-sampling optimal designs in pharmacokinetics and toxicokinetics. Drug Inform. J. 29:997-1019 (1995).
F. Mentré, A. Mallet, and D. Baccar. Optimal design in random-effects regression models. Biometrika 84:429-442 (1997).
A. C. Atkinson and A. N. Donev. Optimum Experimental Design, Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK, 1992.
D. A. Beatty and W. W. Piegorsch. Optimal statistical design for toxicokinetic studies. Statist. Meth. Med. Res. 6:359-376 (1997).
A. J. Bailer and W. W. Piegorsch. MSE considerations when using quadrature rules. ASA Proceedings of the Biopharmaceutical Section, pp. 177-182 (1990).
D. Katz and D. Z. D'Argenio. Experimental design for estimating intervals by numerical quadrature, with applications to pharmacokinetic studies. Biometrics 39:621-628 (1983).
W. W. Piegorsch and A. J. Bailer. Optimal design allocations for estimating area under curves for studies employing destructive sampling. J. Pharmacokin. Biopharm. 17:493-507 (1989).
G. C. G. Wei. Experimental design for estimating area under the curve by trapezoidal approximation in destructive sampling. Drug Inform. J. 31:1237-1242 (1997).
R. P. Brent. Algorithms for Minimization Without Derivatives, Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs. NJ, 1973.
J. R. Nedelman and E. Gibiansky. The variance of a better AUC estimator for sparse, destructive sampling in toxicokinetics. J. Pharm. Sci. 85:884-886 (1996).
V. Brun. A generalization of the formula of Simpson for non-equidistant ordinates. Nord. Mat. Tidskr. 1:10-15 (1953).
M. M. Bishop, S. E. Fienberg, and P. W. Holland. Discrete Multivariate Analysis, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1975.
K. C. Yeh. Estimation and significance tests for area under the curve derived from incomplete blood sampling. ASA Proceedings of the Biopharmaceutical Section, pp. 74-81 (1990).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Vandenhende, F., Comblain, M., Delsemme, MH. et al. Construction of an Optimal Destructive Sampling Design for Noncompartmental AUC Estimation. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 27, 191–212 (1999). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020606006936
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1020606006936