RE: Simultaneous drug and metabolite POPPK

From: Jun Shi Date: February 14, 2007 technical Source: mail-archive.com
Alan, I am afraid that you didn’t read my code carefully enough. Actually, Eqs 1-3 are talking about the SAME thing, ie, metabolite rate. I started out with the full data, i.e., with IV info available (Eq1), then, tried to illustrate the issue when IV data is not available (Eq2) and finally, show how this can be coded in NONMEM in view of the constraint in order to fit the data (Eq3). All I tried to say is that there are many other identifiability issues can NOT be addressed with this type of data by modeling (i.e., model P and Met when only P is administrated, and more than one metabs are formed). Given this fact, conversion to molar unit becomes less critical (although it is a good practice). One should be always cautious when interpret the parameter obtained on its physiological meaning (even if you have concerted to molar unit). Jun
Quoted reply history
-----Original Message----- From: Xiao, Alan [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tue 2/13/2007 5:22 PM To: Shi, Jun; [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Nmusers (E-mail); [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [NMusers] Simultaneous drug and metabolite POPPK Hmm, I wonder how you write the mass balance equation for the parent and how to define parameter KMP. If you use the same term KMP(iv)*A(2) in both equations for the parent [DADT(2)=...-KMP(iv)*A(2)] and the metabolite (DADT(3)=...], then this same term have different physical meaning in two equations if weight concentrations are used. I think you don't want to use the same term to represent two different things (and two different quantities) in your mass balance equations although you may still get fitting perfect. In addition, for simultaneously modeling parent/metabolite data, yes, if you don't have iv data for metabolite, you can not get a unique set of parameter estimates for metabolites because of overparameterization. However, if you have prior information about metabolic ratios, you can fix that into your model, such as Kel_met_parent / Kel_tot_parent=R (e.g. 0.5), where Kel_met_parent is elimination rate constant of the parent through metabolism of interest and Kel_tot_parent is the total elimination rate constant of the parent, so R is called metabolic ratio. Once this ratio is available, volume of distribution for metabolites are estimable if data is informative. They might be other options to handle the issue as well. Alan -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of Shi, Jun Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 10:50 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; Nmusers (E-mail); [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [NMusers] Simultaneous drug and metabolite POPPK Mike, This depends on the purpose of the modeling and the information available. Usually, we only have Parent and Met concentration data after oral administration, therefore, we can't estimate the true disposition parameters. We can get CL/F and V/F for parent, but we can get nothing more than apparent Production rate constant and Elimination rate constant for Met. In this case, converting the data to micromolar unit or not is not critical. e.g. Let's begin from the differential equation below: DADT(3)=KMP(iv)*A(2)-KME*A(3) Eq 1 where A(2) is the amount of parent (mg), A(3) is the amount of metabolite (mg). KmP is the production rate of the metabolite. Because the distribution volume of Met (V3) is unobtainable (no IV data of Met), we have to convert dA/dt to dC/dt and divide both sides of Eq 1 by V3 as follows: DADT(3)/V3=KMP(iv)*A(2)/V3-KME*A(3)/V3 Eq 2 In NONMEM, we coded this as follows: DADT(3)=KMP *A(2)/V2-KME*A(3) Eq 3 Please note that DADT(3) in Eq 3, actually, is dC3/dt (a rate of concentration instead of amount), and KMP in Eq 3 = KMP(iv) x V2/V3 in Eq 1. In other words, KMP is a composite parameter of both volumn ratio and molecular weight ratio. If there are IV data for both parent and metabolite after administrations of parent and metabolite seperately, the true disposition parameters can be estimated for both. By converting the concentration unit to molar, we can estimate formation fraction of parent to metabolite. Jun Shi Clinical Pharmacology and Drug Dynamics Forest Research Institute Rm18-35 Harborside Financial Center-Plaza V Jersey City, NJ 07311 Tel: 201-427-8044 Fax: 201-427-8498 Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] -----Original Message----- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2007 9:02 AM To: Nmusers (E-mail); [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [NMusers] Simultaneous drug and metabolite POPPK I have a question for those who submitted these two examples - Did you transform the data into micromolar quantities? It is not clear from the examples. I have not done much parent/metabolite modeling (just lucky I guess) but it seems to me that one would have to work in molar units for these models to be valid. Can someone comment on this? Mike ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Michael J. Fossler, Pharm. D., Ph. D., F.C.P. Director Clinical Pharmacokinetics, Modeling & Simulation GlaxoSmithKline (610) 270 - 4797 FAX: (610) 270-5962 Cell: (443) 350-1194 [EMAIL PROTECTED] ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Feb 12, 2007 Vijay V. Upreti Simultaneous drug and metabolite POPPK
Feb 13, 2007 Johan Rosenborg RE: Simultaneous drug and metabolite POPPK
Feb 13, 2007 Urien RE: Simultaneous drug and metabolite POPPK
Feb 13, 2007 Michael Fossler RE: Simultaneous drug and metabolite POPPK
Feb 13, 2007 Alan Xiao RE: Simultaneous drug and metabolite POPPK
Feb 13, 2007 Liping Zhang Re: Simultaneous drug and metabolite POPPK
Feb 13, 2007 Jun Shi RE: Simultaneous drug and metabolite POPPK
Feb 13, 2007 Stockis Armel RE: Simultaneous drug and metabolite POPPK
Feb 13, 2007 Serge Guzy RE: Simultaneous drug and metabolite POPPK
Feb 14, 2007 Jun Shi RE: Simultaneous drug and metabolite POPPK
Feb 14, 2007 Michael Fossler RE: Simultaneous drug and metabolite POPPK
Feb 14, 2007 Alan Xiao RE: Simultaneous drug and metabolite POPPK