http://chineseinput.net/에서 pinyin(병음)방식으로 중국어를 변환할 수 있습니다.
변환된 중국어를 복사하여 사용하시면 됩니다.
장일효,범진필,최준식,Chang, Il-Hyo,Burm, Jin-Pil,Choi, Jun-Shik 한국약제학회 1994 Journal of Pharmaceutical Investigation Vol.24 No.2
Bioequivalence test of commercially available rifampicin capsules was performed. Sixteen volunteers were divided into 2 groups and the reference and test drug were given orally (450 mg) by cross-over design. Statistical evaluation of AUC, $C_{max}\;and\;T_{max}$ involved an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The differences of mean value in AUC, $C_{max}\;and\;T_{max}$ between the reference and test drug were within 20% with reference drug. ANOVA showed no significant differences for ‘between group’, ‘drug’ and ‘period’, but not for ‘between subjects’. The power of test $(1-{\beta})\;of\;AUC\;and\;$C_{max}$ was larger than 0.8 and the confidence of bioavailability was $within\;{\pm}20%$. From these results, it was concluded that the two preparations were bioequivalent for AUC and $C_{max}$, but was not for $T_{max}$.
장일효(Il Hyo Chang),최준식(Jun Shik Choi),이진환(Jin Hwan Lee) 대한약학회 1992 약학회지 Vol.36 No.4
Pharmacokinetic interaction of theophylline with pefloxacin following iv. administrations was investigated in rabbits. Pefloxacin was coadministrated at doses of 10 and 20mg/kg or previously administered for 6 days 10 and 20mg/kg. Plasma concentration and AUC of theophylline were increased significantly (p<0.05) and the renal clearance (CLr), total body clearance (CLt) and the volume of distribution (Vdss) were decreased significantly (p<0.005) by the pretreatment. It demonstrates that adjustment of dosage regimen of theophylline should be considered when concomitant administration of pefloxacin is prescribed.
최준식,장일효,범진필,Choi, Jun-Shik,Chang, Il-Hyo,Burm, Jin-Pil 대한약학회 1997 약학회지 Vol.41 No.2
The purpose of this study was to determine pharmacokinetic parameters of vancomycin using two point calculation(TPC) and Bayesian methods in 16 Korean normal volunteers and 15 g astric cancer patients. Nonparametric expected maximum(NPEM) algorithm for calculation of population pharmacokinetic parameter was used, and these parameters were applied for clinical pharmacokinetic parameters by Bayesian analysis. Vancomycin was administered 1.0g every 12 hrs for 3 days by IV infusion over 60 minutes. The volume of distribution(Vd), elimination rate constant(Kel) and total body clearance(CLt) of vancomycin in normal volunteers using TPC method were $0.34{\pm}0.06 L/kg,\; 0.19{\pm}0.01 hr^{-1}$ and $4.08 {\pm} 0.93 L/hr$, respectively, The Vd, Kel and CLt of vancomycin in gastric cancer patients using TPC method were $0.46 {\pm} 0.06 L/kg, 0.17{\pm}0.02 hr^{-1}$ and $4.84 {\pm} 0.57 L/hr$ respectively. There were significant differences(p<0.05) in Vd. Kel and CLt between normal volunteers and gastric cancer patients. Polpulation pharmacokinetic parameter, the slope(KS) of the relationship beetween Kel versus creatinine Clearance, and the Vd were $0.00157{\pm}0.00029(hr{\cdot}mL/min/1.73m^2)^{-1},\; 0.631 {\pm} 0.0036 L/kg$ in gastric cancer patients using NPEM algorithm respectively. The Vd and Kel were $0.63{\pm}0.005 L/kg, 0.15 {\pm}0.027 hr^{-1}$ for gastric cancer patients using Bayesian method. There were significant differences(p<0.05) in vancomycin pharmacokinetics between Bayesian and TPC methods. It is considered that the population parameter in the patient population is necessary for effective Bayesian method in clinical pharmacy practise.
최준식,장일효,범진필 朝鮮大學校 1998 藥學硏究誌 Vol.19 No.2
The purpose of this study was to determine pharmacokinetic parameters of vancomycin using two point calculation(TPC) and Bayesian methods in 16 Korean normal volunteers and 15 gastric cancer patients. Nonparametric expected maximum(NPEM) algorithm for calculation of population pharmacokinetic parameter was used, and these parameters were applied for clinical pharmacokinetic parameters by Bayesian analysis. Vancomycin was administered 1.0g every 12 hrs for 3 days by Ⅳ infusion over 60 minutes. The volume of distribution(Vd), elimination rate constant(Kel) and total body clearance(CLt) of vancomycin in normal volunteers using TPC method were 0.34±0.06L/㎏, 0.19±0.01 hr^(-1) and 4.08±0.93L/hr, respectively. The Vd. Kel and CLt of vancomycin in gastric cancer patients using TPC method were 0.46±0.06L/㎏, 0.17±0.02hr^(-1) and 4.84±0.57L/hr respectively. There were significant differences(p<0.05) in Vd, Kel and CLt between normal volunteers and gastric cancer patients. Polpulation pharmacokinetic parameter, the slope(KS) of the relationship between Kel versus creatinine clearance, and the Vd were 0.00157±0.00029(hr·mL/min/1.73㎡)^(-1). 0.631±0.0036L/㎏ in gastric cancer patients using NPEM algorithm respectively. The Vd and Kel were 0.63±0.005L/㎏. 0.15±0.027 hr^(-1) for gastric cancer patients using Bayesian method. There were significant diffierences(p<0.05) in vancomycin pharmacokinetics between Bayesian and TPC methods. It is considered that the population parameter in the patient population is necessary for effective Bayesian method in clinical pharmacy practise.
최준식,장일효 한국약제학회 1993 Journal of Pharmaceutical Investigation Vol.23 No.1
Pharmacokinetic drug interaction between phenytoin and diltiazem was investigated following i.v. administration concomitantly to rabbits. Diltiazem was coadministered at doses of 1, 2 and 3 ㎎/㎏, respectively, with phenytoin (5 ㎎/㎏) to rabbits. Plasma concentration and AUC of phenytoin were increased significantly, but volume of distribution and total body clearance were decreased significantly (p<0.05) at doses of 2 ㎎ and 3 ㎎/㎏ of diltiazem. From the results of this experiment, it is desirable that dosage regimen of phenytoin should be adjusted and that therapeutic drug monitoring should be practiced for reduction of side or toxic effect when phenytoin should be administered with diltiazem in clinical practice.
최준식,범진필,장일효 한국약제학회 1994 Journal of Pharmaceutical Investigation Vol.24 No.2
Bioequivalence test of commercially available rifampicin capsules was performed. Sixteen volunteers were divided into 2 groups and the reference and test drug were given orally (450 ㎎) by cross-over design. Statistical evaluation of AUC, C_(max) and T_(max) involved an analysis of variance (ANOVA). The differences of mean value in AUC, C_(max), and T_(max) between the reference and test drug were within 20% with reference drug. ANOVA showed no significant differences for "between group", "drug" and "period", but not for "between subjects". The power of test (1-β) of AUC and C_(max) was larger than 0.8 and the confidence of bioavailability was within ±20%. From these results, it was concluded that the two preparations were bioequivalent for AUC and C_(max), but was not for T_(max).