1 / 22

Claude Beigel, PhD. Exposure Assessment Senior Scientist Research Triangle Park, USA

Practical session metabolites Part III: plenary discussion of results. Claude Beigel, PhD. Exposure Assessment Senior Scientist Research Triangle Park, USA. Results Example 1 Visual Evaluation of Goodness of fit (Parent + Metabolite1).

buzz
Download Presentation

Claude Beigel, PhD. Exposure Assessment Senior Scientist Research Triangle Park, USA

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Practical session metabolites Part III: plenary discussion of results Claude Beigel, PhD. Exposure Assessment Senior Scientist Research Triangle Park, USA

  2. Results Example 1Visual Evaluation of Goodness of fit (Parent + Metabolite1)

  3. Hands-on Example 1Visual Assessment (Parent + Metabolite1)

  4. Hands-on Example 1Statistical Indices (Parent + Metabolite1)

  5. Hands-on Example 1Conclusion and Endpoints (Parent + Metabolite1) • SFO model is considered appropriate for both parent and metabolite • Trigger endpoints for Metabolite 1: • DT50 = 6.8 d and DT90 = 22.6 d • Modeling endpoints: • kP = 0.0508 d-1 (equivalent to half-life of 13.7 d), ffM1= 0.5881 and kM1= 0.1018 d-1 (equivalent to half-life of 6.8 d) • kP_M = 0.0299 d-1 (equivalent to half-life of 23.2 d), kP_S = 0.0209 d-1 (equivalent to half-life of 33.1 d), and kM1= 0.1018 d-1 (equivalent to half-life of 6.8 d) or

  6. Hands-on Example 1Parent + Metabolite1+ Metabolite2 • Initial fit with flow from Metabolite 1 to sink results in formation fraction ffM2 of 0.98 (stepwise fit, parent and M1 parameters fixed) or >1 (simultaneous fit, all parameters free) • The question is: should we remove or keep this flow (does Metabolite 1 degrade exclusively to Metabolite 2, or does it form other metabolites and/or bound residues too)? • Let’s assume that additional information, e.g. a degradation study conducted with Metabolite 1 also suggests 100% formation of Metabolite 2, ffM2 is fixed to 1, i.e. the flow from Metabolite 1 to sink is removed 

  7. Results Example 1Visual Evaluation of Goodness of fit (Parent + Met1 +Met2)

  8. Hands-on Example 1Visual Assessment (Parent + Met1 +Met2)

  9. Hands-on Example 1Statistical Indices (Parent + Met1 +Met2)

  10. Hands-on Example 1Conclusion and Endpoints (Parent + Met1 +Met2) • SFO model is considered appropriate for parent and both metabolites • Trigger endpoints • Metabolite1 DT50 = 6.9 d and DT90 = 23.1 d • Metabolite2 DT50 = 61.0 d and DT90 = 203 d • Modeling endpoints: • kP = 0.0507 d-1 (equivalent to half-life of 13.7 d), ffM1= 0.5813 and kM1= 0.0999 d-1 (equivalent to half-life of 6.9 d), kM2= 0.0114 d-1 (equivalent to half-life of 61.0 d), • kP_S = 0.0212 d-1 (equivalent to half-life of 32.7 d), kP_M = 0.0295 d-1 (equivalent to half-life of 23.5 d), kM1_M2 = 0.0999 d-1 (equivalent to half-life of 6.9 d), and kM2_S = 0.0114 d-1 (equivalent to half-life of 61.0 d) or

  11. Results Example 2Visual Evaluation of Goodness of fit (Parent FOMC)

  12. Hands-on Example 2, parent FOMCVisual Assessment

  13. Hands-on Example 2, parent FOMCStatistical Indices

  14. Hands-on Example 2Conclusion and Trigger Endpoints (Parent FOMC) • SFO model is considered appropriate for metabolite in combination with FOMC model for parent • Trigger endpoints for Metabolite: • DT50 = 34.7 d and DT90 = 115 d • Endpoints for PEC soil calculations: • P = 0.9425, P = 4.436, ffM= 0.8018 and kM= 0.0200 d-1

  15. Results Example 2Visual Evaluation of Goodness of fit (Parent DFOP)

  16. Hands-on Example 2, Parent DFOPVisual Assessment

  17. Hands-on Example 2, Parent DFOPStatistical Indices

  18. Hands-on Example 2Conclusion and Modeling Endpoints (Parent DFOP) • SFO model is considered appropriate for metabolite in combination with DFOP model for parent • Modeling endpoints (higher Tier approach based on parent DFOP): • g = 0.5509, k1 = 0.3227 d-1 (equivalent to half-life of 2.15 d), k2 = 0.0340 d-1 (equivalent to half-life of 20.4 d), ffM= 0.8332 and kM= 0.0216 d-1 (equivalent to half-life of 32.0 d)

  19. Results Example 2Visual Evaluation of Goodness of Fit (Metabolite Decline)

  20. Hands-on Example 2, Metabolite DeclineVisual Assessment

  21. Hands-on Example 2, Metabolite DeclineStatistical Indices

  22. Hands-on Example 2Conclusion and Endpoints (Metabolite Decline) • SFO model is considered appropriate for metabolite decline • Metabolite decline rate may be used as worst-case estimate for trigger endpoints • Trigger endpoints: DT50 = 49.7 d and DT90 = 165 d (compared to DT50 = 34.7 d and DT90 = 115 d from actual degradation rate) • Decline rate may also be used as modeling endpoint for metabolite, if calculated from maximum observed • Modeling endpoint: kM= 0.0139 d-1 (equivalent to half-life of 49.7 d)

More Related