RE: Scaling for pediatric study planning

From: Masoud Jamei Date: September 19, 2008 technical Source: mail-archive.com
I can't agree more with Jeff's comments that we should "pursue more physiologic expressions" and this is a "place where "bottom-up" approaches" are advantageous. The allometric scaling may be useful for children older than 2 years but for younger subjects surely the developmental factors should be considered as explained in: Johnson TN, Rostami-Hodjegan A and Tucker GT (2006) Prediction of the clearance of eleven drugs and associated variability in neonates, infants and children. Clin Pharmacokinet 45:931-956. Regards Masoud
Quoted reply history
> -----Original Message----- > From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:owner- > [EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Barrett > Sent: 19 September 2008 16:54 > To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]; [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Cc: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [NMusers] Scaling for pediatric study planning > > Leonid / Joachim, > > I think we're pushing the envelope on empiricism here. Two facts of > reality prevail here: > > 1) we seldom collect enough data during the absorption phase to assess > any meaningful age/developmental dependencies across the age continuum. > The fisrt-order assumption is always bad even in adults but we live > with it because we seldom have absorption as a primary phase of > interest. > > 2) a physiologic approach, in addition to a more fundamental > approximation of reality also has more options with respect to > functional expressions that can accomodate developmental factors such > as changes in pH dependency, the surface area of the GI tract, or the > site and expression of presystemic P450 enzymes all of which factor > into the size surrogacy issue. > > Hence, I'm not sure that I would consider the allometric > characterization of absorption in the same manner as one would treat CL > or V considerations as it is indeed a hybrid process. I will defer to > Nick's wisdom on this but if I am pressed for a guess, I would not > scale but pursue more physiologic expressions. In actuality, this is a > place where "bottom-up" approaches would seem to have a decided > advantage. > > Jeff > > > > Jeffrey S. Barrett, Ph.D., FCP > Research Associate Professor, Pediatrics Director, Pediatric > Pharmacology Research Unit, Laboratory for Applied PK/PD Clinical > Pharmacology & Therapeutics Abramson Research Center, Rm 916H The > Children's Hospital of Philadelphia > 3615 Civic Center Blvd. > Philadelphia, PA 19104 > > KMAS (Kinetic Modeling & Simulation) > Institute for Translational Medicine > University of Pennsylvania > email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Ph: (267) 426-5479 > > >>> Leonid Gibiansky <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 9/19/2008 11:20 AM > >>> > Just to add: > > c) how do we allometrically scale a VM rate constant of the Michaelis- > Menten elimination model: > > C1=A(1)/V1 > DADT(1)= ... -A(1)*VM/(KM+C1) > > d) do we need to allometrically scale a KM constant of the Michaelis- > Menten elimination model ? > > any experience with these quantities (for example, if they were > estimated, what were the estimates, with the precision)? > > > My suggestion would be NOT to scale a), b) and d), and scale VM as the > > rate constant (~ WT**(-0.25)) but I do not have "rock-solid" data to > support those suggestions. > > Leonid > -------------------------------------- > Leonid Gibiansky, Ph.D. > President, QuantPharm LLC > web: www.quantpharm.com > e-mail: LGibiansky at quantpharm.com > tel: (301) 767 5566 > > > > > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > > > > Dear NM_Users, > > > > we have all been good students and listened to Nick when he told us > > again and again the rock-solid truths of allometry: > > > > Volume: *(WT/70) > > > > CL: *(WT/70)**0.75 > > > > any rate constant related to distribution or elimination: > *(WT/70)**(-0.25) > > > > Here my questions: > > a) how do we allometrically scale a first-order rate constant of > > absorption after oral dosing? > > > > b) how do we allometrically scale a first-order rate constant of > > absorption from a subcutaneous injection site? > > > > Thank you for your thoughts, > > > > Joachim > > > > __________________________________________ > > Joachim GREVEL, Ph.D. > > MERCK SERONO International S.A. > > Exploratory Medicine > > 1202 Geneva > > Tel: +41.22.414.4751 > > Fax: +41.22.414.3059 > > Email: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > > ----------------------------------------------------------------------- > - > > > > This message and any attachment are confidential, may be privileged > or > > otherwise protected from disclosure and are intended only for use by > the > > addressee(s) named herein. If you are not the intended recipient, you > > > must not copy this message or attachment or disclose the contents to > any > > other person. If you have received this transmission in error, please > > > notify the sender immediately and delete the message and any > attachment > > from your system.
Sep 19, 2008 Joachim Grevel Scaling for pediatric study planning
Sep 19, 2008 Joachim . Grevel Scaling for pediatric study planning
Sep 19, 2008 Leonid Gibiansky Re: Scaling for pediatric study planning
Sep 19, 2008 Jeffrey Barrett Re: Scaling for pediatric study planning
Sep 19, 2008 Joseph Standing RE: Scaling for pediatric study planning
Sep 19, 2008 Paul Hutson Re: Scaling for pediatric study planning
Sep 19, 2008 Masoud Jamei RE: Scaling for pediatric study planning
Sep 19, 2008 Diane Mould RE: Scaling for pediatric study planning
Sep 19, 2008 Nick Holford Re: Scaling for pediatric study planning
Sep 20, 2008 Masoud Jamei RE: Scaling for pediatric study planning
Sep 20, 2008 Nick Holford Re: Scaling for pediatric study planning
Sep 21, 2008 Nick Holford Re: Scaling for pediatric study planning
Sep 23, 2008 Xiaofeng Wang RE: Scaling for pediatric study planning
Sep 23, 2008 Xiaofeng . Wang RE: Scaling for pediatric study planning