• Login
    Search 
    •   UMB Digital Archive
    • School, Graduate
    • Theses and Dissertations All Schools
    • Search
    •   UMB Digital Archive
    • School, Graduate
    • Theses and Dissertations All Schools
    • Search
    JavaScript is disabled for your browser. Some features of this site may not work without it.

    Browse

    All of UMB Digital ArchiveCommunitiesPublication DateAuthorsTitlesSubjectsThis CollectionPublication DateAuthorsTitlesSubjects

    My Account

    LoginRegister

    Filter by Category

    AuthorMarston, Sarah Anne (1)Polli, James E. (1)SubjectBiological Availability (1)Biology, Biostatistics (1)curve comparison metrics (1)
    Health Sciences, Pharmacology (1)
    Health Sciences, Pharmacy (1)
    Pharmaceutical Preparations (1)
    pharmacokinetic profiles (1)Pharmacokinetics (1)Therapeutic Equivalency (1)View MoreDate Issued1998 (1)

    Statistics

    Display statistics
     

    Search

    Show Advanced FiltersHide Advanced Filters

    Filters

    Now showing items 1-1 of 1

    • List view
    • Grid view
    • Sort Options:
    • Relevance
    • Title Asc
    • Title Desc
    • Issue Date Asc
    • Issue Date Desc
    • Results Per Page:
    • 5
    • 10
    • 20
    • 40
    • 60
    • 80
    • 100

    • 1CSV
    • 1RefMan
    • 1EndNote
    • 1BibTex
    • Selective Export
    • Select All
    • Help
    Thumbnail

    Evaluation of curve comparison metrics applied to pharmacokinetic profiles and relative bioavailability and bioequivalence

    Marston, Sarah Anne (1998)
    The goal of this dissertation was to investigate three new curve comparison metrics, the Rescigno Index, fl, and the Chinchilli Metric as tools to compare pharmacokinetic profiles for the assessment of assess relative bioavailability (BA) and bioequivalence (BE). The specific objectives were to (1) compare the relative sensitivity of the new metrics to detect differences in AUC and Cmax as a function of the pharmacokinetics of the drug products, and (2) to estimate relative bioavailability and bioequivalence. Methods. Retrospective analysis of experimental data and Monte Carlo simulations of bioequivalence trials were used to evaluate the relative sensitivity of the metrics to detect profile differences. The experimental data study involved determining the degree of discordance with typical criteria when judging individual profiles to be the same or different, and then examining the relationship between the degree of discordance and the pharmacokinetics of the drug product. The simulation studies involved determining the proportion of clinical studies failing bioequivalence under different pharmacokinetic models. Product bioequivalence was estimated using data from 35 typical 2 treatment-2 period bioequivalence study experimental datasets. Three different bioequivalence limits were applied to the curve metrics. Results. The new metrics more effectively detect differences in absorption time lags but less effectively detect differences in Cmax under some conditions. The relative sensitivity to Cmax depends on the shape of the curve, where increasing the ka(ref)/ke(ref) increases the disparity across the metrics. The curve metrics show increased sensitivity to variability in disposition, elimination, and random residual error, but comparable sensitivity to differences in bioavailability. Fourteen of the 35 studies failed typical criteria (AUC and Cmax). Applying bioequivalence limits of 25%, 21 and 26 studies failed the Chinchilli and fl criteria respectively. At the 30% limit, 14 and 20 studies failed the Chinchilli and fl criteria respectively. The specific studies failing each criterion varied. The within-subject variability of the Chinchilli Metric was higher than Cmax. Both the Chinchilli Metric and fl showed a tendency toward extreme values. Conclusions. The metrics differ in pharmacokinetic sensitivities and differ in statistical properties. There are advantages and disadvantages associated with these differences.
    DSpace software (copyright © 2002 - 2019)  DuraSpace
    Quick Guide | Policies | Contact Us
    Open Repository is a service operated by 
    Atmire NV
     

    Export search results

    The export option will allow you to export the current search results of the entered query to a file. Different formats are available for download. To export the items, click on the button corresponding with the preferred download format.

    By default, clicking on the export buttons will result in a download of the allowed maximum amount of items.

    To select a subset of the search results, click "Selective Export" button and make a selection of the items you want to export. The amount of items that can be exported at once is similarly restricted as the full export.

    After making a selection, click one of the export format buttons. The amount of items that will be exported is indicated in the bubble next to export format.