USC Laboratory of Applied Pharmacokinetics and Bioinformatics, University of Southern California School of Medicine, Children's Hospital of Los Angeles, 4650 Sunset Boulevard, #51, Los Angeles, CA, 90027, USA.
AAPS J. 2018 Feb 26;20(2):36. doi: 10.1208/s12248-018-0185-x.
The healing professions have only about four main therapeutic tools at their disposal-surgery, drugs, physical therapy, and psychotherapy. For the general profession of internal medicine, drug therapy is its primary tool. Providing an understanding of the state-of-the-art in therapeutic methods, grounded in solid scientific and mathematical rigor, is therefore of the utmost clinical importance for both physicians and clinical pharmacists. This is particularly true where rapidly evolving scientific changes require an up-to-date education upon which students can rely. Unfortunately, relatively little attention has been paid to training clinical pharmacokineticists and physicians to manage drug therapy optimally for patients under their care in their everyday practice. In this paper, we discuss one of these basic deficiencies from the perspective of the longstanding controversy in pharmacokinetic modeling: whether the volume and clearance approach or the volume and rate constant approach is somehow "better". We examine this controversy using the mathematical principle of invariance, which to our knowledge has not been done before. The conclusion of this analysis is that both approaches are rigorously proven mathematically to be equally valid. We also discuss some implications of these equally valid approaches from the framework of mechanistic and non-compartmental models. Ultimately, the conclusion is that the choice of one parameterization over the other is based on preference or usefulness for research or clinical practice, but no longer, because of this analysis, on science.
治疗专业人员只有大约四种主要的治疗工具可供使用-手术、药物、物理治疗和心理治疗。对于内科的一般专业来说,药物治疗是其主要工具。因此,为医生和临床药师提供对治疗方法的最新理解,基于坚实的科学和数学严谨性,对于临床至关重要。在科学迅速发展需要更新教育的情况下,这一点尤其重要,学生可以依靠这些教育。不幸的是,在日常实践中,相对较少关注培训临床药代动力学专家和医生,以最佳方式为其护理下的患者管理药物治疗。在本文中,我们从药代动力学建模中长期存在的争议的角度讨论了其中一个基本缺陷:体积和清除率方法或体积和速率常数方法是否在某种程度上“更好”。我们使用不变性的数学原理来检验这一争议,据我们所知,以前没有人这样做过。该分析的结论是,这两种方法都经过严格的数学证明是同样有效的。我们还从机械和非隔室模型的框架讨论了这些同样有效的方法的一些含义。最终,结论是,选择一个参数化而不是另一个参数化的原因是基于研究或临床实践的偏好或有用性,而不再是基于分析的科学性。