Kodama Y, Kuranari M, Kodama H, Zaizen T, Yukawa E, Fujii I, Takeyama M
Department of Clinical Pharmacy, Oita Medical University, Japan.
J Pharm Pharmacol. 1996 Oct;48(10):1068-72. doi: 10.1111/j.2042-7158.1996.tb05901.x.
Because binding of valproic acid to plasma proteins affects the efficacy of the drug in the treatment of epilepsy (only the unbound fraction of the drug is effective) we have compared two methods which use different binding parameters to predict the in-vivo concentration of unbound valproic acid in serum. The study was performed on 46 serum samples from 29 polytherapy adult patients with epilepsy. Mean prediction error, mean absolute prediction error and root mean squared error were calculated for each method; these values served as a measure of prediction bias and precision. The mean absolute prediction errors and root mean squared errors for the two methods were similar in magnitude (Method 1, mean absolute prediction error = 10.0 microM, root mean squared error = 15.0 microM; Method 2, mean absolute prediction error = 10.3 microM, root mean squared error = 13.5 microM). Method 2 had a general tendency to over-predict unbound valproic acid; both methods had a tendency to over-prediction for total concentrations above 500 microM. Method 1 had a tendency to under-prediction at total concentrations below 250 microM. Within the total concentration range of valproic acid investigated, Method 1 was superior to Method 2 for prediction of unbound serum valproic acid. Our approach using Method 1 may be useful for prediction of unbound serum valproic acid concentration in patients with total valproic acid concentrations ranging from 250 to 500 microM; Method 2 may be useful for patients with total valproic acid below 500 microM. Our results suggest that there is wide and unpredictable variability in valproic acid binding to serum proteins among study populations.
由于丙戊酸与血浆蛋白的结合会影响该药物治疗癫痫的疗效(只有药物的未结合部分才有效),我们比较了两种使用不同结合参数来预测血清中未结合丙戊酸体内浓度的方法。该研究对29名接受联合治疗的成年癫痫患者的46份血清样本进行。计算了每种方法的平均预测误差、平均绝对预测误差和均方根误差;这些值用作预测偏差和精度的度量。两种方法的平均绝对预测误差和均方根误差在大小上相似(方法1,平均绝对预测误差 = 10.0微摩尔/升,均方根误差 = 15.0微摩尔/升;方法2,平均绝对预测误差 = 10.3微摩尔/升,均方根误差 = 13.5微摩尔/升)。方法2总体上倾向于高估未结合的丙戊酸;两种方法对于总浓度高于500微摩尔/升的情况都有高估的趋势。方法1在总浓度低于250微摩尔/升时有低估的趋势。在研究的丙戊酸总浓度范围内,方法1在预测未结合血清丙戊酸方面优于方法2。我们使用方法1的方法可能有助于预测总丙戊酸浓度在250至500微摩尔/升之间的患者未结合血清丙戊酸的浓度;方法2可能有助于总丙戊酸浓度低于500微摩尔/升的患者。我们的结果表明,研究人群中丙戊酸与血清蛋白的结合存在广泛且不可预测的变异性。