Cargando…

Normal fat mass cannot be reliably estimated in typical pharmacokinetic studies

PURPOSE: An influential covariate for pharmacokinetics is (body) size. Recently, the method of estimation of normal fat mass (NFM) has been advocated. Here, the relative contribution of fat mass, estimated as a fraction fat (Ffat), is used to explain differences in pharmacokinetic parameters. This c...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Wasmann, Roeland E., Svensson, Elin M., Schalkwijk, Stein J., Brüggemann, Roger J., ter Heine, Rob
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2020
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8032617/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33205282
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00228-020-03042-4
_version_ 1783676244596883456
author Wasmann, Roeland E.
Svensson, Elin M.
Schalkwijk, Stein J.
Brüggemann, Roger J.
ter Heine, Rob
author_facet Wasmann, Roeland E.
Svensson, Elin M.
Schalkwijk, Stein J.
Brüggemann, Roger J.
ter Heine, Rob
author_sort Wasmann, Roeland E.
collection PubMed
description PURPOSE: An influential covariate for pharmacokinetics is (body) size. Recently, the method of estimation of normal fat mass (NFM) has been advocated. Here, the relative contribution of fat mass, estimated as a fraction fat (Ffat), is used to explain differences in pharmacokinetic parameters. This concept is more and more applied. However, it remains unclear whether NFM can be reliably estimated in these typical studies. METHODS: We performed an evaluation of the reliability of NFM estimation in a typical study size (n = 30), otherwise best-case scenario, by means of a pharmacokinetic simulation study. Several values of Ffat were investigated. RESULTS: In a typical pharmacokinetic study, high imprecision was observed for NFM parameter estimates over a range of scenarios. For example, in a scenario where the true value of Ffat on clearance was 0.5, we found a 95% confidence interval of − 0.1 to 2.1, demonstrating a low precision. The implications for practice are that one could conclude that fat-free mass best describes the relationship of the pharmacokinetics with body size, while the true relationship was between fat-free mass and total body weight. Consequently, this could lead to incorrect extrapolation of pharmacokinetics to extreme body sizes. CONCLUSION: In typical pharmacokinetic studies, NFM should be used with caution because the Ffat estimates have low precision. The estimation of Ffat should always be preceded by careful study design evaluation before planning a study, to ensure that the design and sample size is sufficient to apply this potentially useful methodology. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00228-020-03042-4.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-8032617
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2020
publisher Springer Berlin Heidelberg
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-80326172021-04-27 Normal fat mass cannot be reliably estimated in typical pharmacokinetic studies Wasmann, Roeland E. Svensson, Elin M. Schalkwijk, Stein J. Brüggemann, Roger J. ter Heine, Rob Eur J Clin Pharmacol Pharmacokinetics and Disposition PURPOSE: An influential covariate for pharmacokinetics is (body) size. Recently, the method of estimation of normal fat mass (NFM) has been advocated. Here, the relative contribution of fat mass, estimated as a fraction fat (Ffat), is used to explain differences in pharmacokinetic parameters. This concept is more and more applied. However, it remains unclear whether NFM can be reliably estimated in these typical studies. METHODS: We performed an evaluation of the reliability of NFM estimation in a typical study size (n = 30), otherwise best-case scenario, by means of a pharmacokinetic simulation study. Several values of Ffat were investigated. RESULTS: In a typical pharmacokinetic study, high imprecision was observed for NFM parameter estimates over a range of scenarios. For example, in a scenario where the true value of Ffat on clearance was 0.5, we found a 95% confidence interval of − 0.1 to 2.1, demonstrating a low precision. The implications for practice are that one could conclude that fat-free mass best describes the relationship of the pharmacokinetics with body size, while the true relationship was between fat-free mass and total body weight. Consequently, this could lead to incorrect extrapolation of pharmacokinetics to extreme body sizes. CONCLUSION: In typical pharmacokinetic studies, NFM should be used with caution because the Ffat estimates have low precision. The estimation of Ffat should always be preceded by careful study design evaluation before planning a study, to ensure that the design and sample size is sufficient to apply this potentially useful methodology. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1007/s00228-020-03042-4. Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2020-11-18 2021 /pmc/articles/PMC8032617/ /pubmed/33205282 http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00228-020-03042-4 Text en © The Author(s) 2020 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) .
spellingShingle Pharmacokinetics and Disposition
Wasmann, Roeland E.
Svensson, Elin M.
Schalkwijk, Stein J.
Brüggemann, Roger J.
ter Heine, Rob
Normal fat mass cannot be reliably estimated in typical pharmacokinetic studies
title Normal fat mass cannot be reliably estimated in typical pharmacokinetic studies
title_full Normal fat mass cannot be reliably estimated in typical pharmacokinetic studies
title_fullStr Normal fat mass cannot be reliably estimated in typical pharmacokinetic studies
title_full_unstemmed Normal fat mass cannot be reliably estimated in typical pharmacokinetic studies
title_short Normal fat mass cannot be reliably estimated in typical pharmacokinetic studies
title_sort normal fat mass cannot be reliably estimated in typical pharmacokinetic studies
topic Pharmacokinetics and Disposition
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8032617/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33205282
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00228-020-03042-4
work_keys_str_mv AT wasmannroelande normalfatmasscannotbereliablyestimatedintypicalpharmacokineticstudies
AT svenssonelinm normalfatmasscannotbereliablyestimatedintypicalpharmacokineticstudies
AT schalkwijksteinj normalfatmasscannotbereliablyestimatedintypicalpharmacokineticstudies
AT bruggemannrogerj normalfatmasscannotbereliablyestimatedintypicalpharmacokineticstudies
AT terheinerob normalfatmasscannotbereliablyestimatedintypicalpharmacokineticstudies