Skip to main content
Pharmaceutics logoLink to Pharmaceutics
. 2021 Dec 2;13(12):2059. doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics13122059

Correction: Mudie et al. In Vitro-In Silico Tools for Streamlined Development of Acalabrutinib Amorphous Solid Dispersion Tablets. Pharmaceutics 2021, 13, 1257

Deanna M Mudie 1,*, Aaron M Stewart 1, Jesus A Rosales 1,, Molly S Adam 1, Michael M Morgen 1, David T Vodak 1
PMCID: PMC8704377  PMID: 34959483

The authors wish to make the following corrections to this paper [1].

There was an error in the original article in the Abstract section, where it was stated that the absolute average fold error (AAFE) of the in silico predictions for AUC0-inf for Calquence + famotidine was ≈3. A correction has been made to the abstract section: “In silico simulations of the HPMCAS-H ASD tablet and Calquence capsule provided good in vivo study prediction accuracy using a bottom–up approach (absolute average fold error of AUC0-inf < 2)”.

There was an error in the original article in the Results section (Section 3.6, paragraph 1), where it was stated that AAFE of the in silico predictions for AUC0-inf for the Calquence capsule + famotidine treatment was not <2. A correction has been made in the original article in the Results section (Section 3.6, paragraph 1): “The AAFE of the in silico predictions for AUC0-inf, Cmax, Tmax, and Cp versus time for all formulation treatments were <2-fold (ideal value = 1) with the exception of Cp versus time for the Calquence capsule + famotidine treatment, indicating that the in silico prediction framework is sufficient for simulating acalabrutinib blood plasma concentrations within this in vivo study”.

In the original article, there were mistakes in Table 4 as published, where AAFE for AUC0-inf for the Calquence capsule + pentagastrin was listed as 1.2 and AAFE for AUC0-inf for Calquence capsule + famotidine was listed as 3.6. The corrected Table 4 appears below.

Table 4.

Noncompartmental analysis comparing simulated (sim) versus observed (obs) data for all formulation treatments in the dog study. Absolute average fold error (AAFE) was calculated for AUC0-inf, Cmax, Tmax, and Cp versus time to determine the accuracy of the in silico prediction exercise (ideal value = 1).

Formulation AUC0-inf
(ng h/mL)
Cmax (ng/mL) Tmax (h) AAFE
Obs Sim Obs Sim Obs Sim AUC0-inf Cmax Tmax Cp vs. Time
ASD tablet,
pentagastrin
8161 9766 3332 3727 0.9 0.9 1.2 1.2 1.6 1.3
ASD tablet,
famotidine
7579 9555 3443 3508 0.9 1.6 1.3 1.2 1.8 1.6
Calquence
capsule,
pentagastrin
8365 8607 4480 3110 0.8 0.9 1.1 1.4 1.3 1.3
Calquence
capsule,
famotidine
3112 3096 355 648 1.6 1.2 1.6 1.9 1.7 3.0

The authors apologize for any inconvenience caused and state that the scientific conclusions are unaffected. The original publication has also been updated.

Footnotes

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Reference

  • 1.Mudie D.M., Stewart A.M., Rosales J.A., Adam M.S., Morgen M.M., Vodak D.T. In Vitro-In Silico Tools for Streamlined Development of Acalabrutinib Amorphous Solid Dispersion Tablets. Pharmaceutics. 2021;13:1257. doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics13081257. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Articles from Pharmaceutics are provided here courtesy of Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)

RESOURCES