Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of sampling spacing in pharmacokinetic studies using six sigma method

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Key elements of pharmacokinetics (PK) studies include both, the number of sampling points (NSP) as well as the spacing between the sampling points (SSP). Optimization of the SSP is discussed in guidelines of all key regulatory agencies (RA). Those however, provide only very general rules on how to properly distribute the NSPs in proposed PK studies. Here we demonstrate that the six sigma (SX) method can be effectively used to assess the quality of SSPs. We have tested a modified SX method analyzing 466 PK profiles from 16 studies including a total of 368 healthy volunteers. Non-compartmental modeling was used to estimate PK parameters. The arithmetic means of minimum and maximum values of SX obtained for each subject in all studies were 1.97 and 3.83, respectively. The method described here allows comparing quality of studies performed at different centers, even if they cover different chemical entities. We propose that the SX values can be used to assess quality of PK studies, what is consistent with recommendations of the RAs.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. EMA (2010) Guideline on the investigation of bioequivalence. 1–27

  2. FDA (2003a) Guidance for industry bioavailability and bioequivalence studies for orally administered drug products-general considerations. 1–26

  3. HC (2012) Conduct and analysis of comparative bioavailability studies. 1–46

  4. Bioequivalence Studies-Part B: oral modified release formulations. 1–136

  5. FDA (2000) Guidance for industry and other stakeholders toxicological principles for the safety assessment of food ingredients. Redbook, pp 1–286

  6. Sokovic M, Pavletic D, Fakin S (2005) Application of Six Sigma methodology for process design. J Mat Proces Tech 162–163:777–783

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Elder BL (2008) Six Sigma in the Microbiology Laboratory. Clin Microb Newsl 30:143–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. De Vore D (2008) A six-sigma approach to stability testing. J Pharm Biomed Anal 47:413–421

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Christian DR, Drilling S (2009) Implementing quality in laboratory policies and processes: using templates, project management, and six sigma, CRC Press, 1 edn. 1–1432

  10. Llopis MA, Trujillo G, Llovet MI, Tarrés E, Ibarz M, Biosca C, Ruiz R, Kirchner MJ, Alvarez V, Busquets G, Doménech MV, Figueres C, Minchinela J, Pastor RM, Perich C, Ricós C, Sansalvador M, Palmada MS (2011) Quality indicators and specifications for key analytical-extranalytical processes in the clinical laboratory, Five years’ experience using the Six Sigma concept. Clin Chem Lab Med 49:463–470

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Johnstone C, Pairaudeau G, Pettersson JA (2011) Creativity, innovation and lean sigma: a controversial combination? Drug Discov Today 16:50–57

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Junker B, Maheshwari G, Ranheim T, Altaras N, Stankevicz M, Harmon L, Rios S, D’anjou M (2011) Design-for-Six-Sigma To Develop a Bioprocess Knowledge Management Framework. PDA J Pharm Sci Technol 65:140–165

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. Chopra V, Bairagi M, Trivedi P, Nagar M (2012) A case study: application of statistical process control tool for determining process capability and sigma level. PDA J Pharm Sci Technol 66:98–115

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Egan S, Murphy PG, Fennell JP, Kelly S, Hickey M, McLean C, Pate M, Kirke C, Whiriskey A, Wall N, McCullagh E, Murphy J, Delaney T (2012) Using Six Sigma to improve once daily gentamicin dosing and therapeutic drug monitoring performance. BMJ Qual Saf 21:1042–1051

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Nevalainen D, Berte L, Kraft C, Leigh E, Picaso L, Morgan T (2000) Evaluating laboratory performance on quality indicators with the six sigma scale. Arch Pathol Lab Med 124:516–519

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Taghizadegan S (2006) Essentials of lean six sigma, Butterworth-Heinemann, 1st edn. pp 7–304

  17. Henderson GR (2011) Six Sigma Quality Improvement with Minitab, 2nd edn. Willey, pp 1–528

  18. HC (1996) Guidance for industry: conduct and analysis of bioavailability and bioequivalence studies-part B: oral modified release formulations. pp 1–136

  19. Grabowski T, Jaroszewski JJ, Sasinowska-Motyl M, Bujalska-Zadrożny M (2013) Sampling Intervals Verification in Pharmacokinetics Studies. Drug Res (Stuttg). doi:10.1055/s-0033-1361143

    Google Scholar 

  20. WHO (2006) Annex 7 Multisource (generic) pharmaceutical products: guidelines on registration requirements to establish interchangeability, WHO Technical report series, No. 937. 347–390

  21. FDA (2003b) Guidance for industry source animal, product, preclinical, and clinical issues concerning the use of xenotransplantation products in humans. pp 1–63

  22. FDA (2005) guidance for industry nonclinical studies for the safety evaluation of pharmaceutical excipients. pp 1–12

  23. EMA (2006) Guideline on the role of pharmacokinetics in the development of medicinal products in the paediatric population. pp 1–8

  24. EMA (2011) Guideline on the role of pharmacokinetics in the development of medicinal products in the paediatric population. pp 1–30

Download references

Acknowledgments

Authors thank Terry O’Reilly for valuable comments and the critical reading of the manuscript. Authors thank Ms. Karolina Flejszman for correcting grammar and language of the manuscript.

Conflict of interest

Authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Polpharma Biologics, Trzy lipy 3, 80-172, Gdańsk, Poland

    Tomasz Grabowski

  2. Polfa Warszawa S.A., Karolkowa 22/24, 01-207, Warsaw, Poland

    Anna Raczyńska-Pawelec & Marcin Starościak

  3. Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, University of Warmia and Mazury in Olsztyn, Oczapowskiego 13, 10-718, Olsztyn, Poland

    Jerzy Jan Jaroszewski

Authors
  1. Tomasz Grabowski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Anna Raczyńska-Pawelec
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Marcin Starościak
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Jerzy Jan Jaroszewski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tomasz Grabowski.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Grabowski, T., Raczyńska-Pawelec, A., Starościak, M. et al. Evaluation of sampling spacing in pharmacokinetic studies using six sigma method. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 41, 251–260 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10928-014-9361-5

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10928-014-9361-5

Keywords

Search

Navigation