Search

In PK/PD data analysis, statistical models involving random variables are developed. At times an analysis can be carried out by conditioning on certain random events involving these variables. This paper attempts to clarify issues regarding conditioning. In particular, conditioning is examined as it relates to a number of disparate practical matters: missing covariate values, dose titration, BQL data, "no change from baseline" data, and the use of a truncated intraindividual probability distribution for PK observations.

A model can be fit to joint PK/PD data (concentration and effect) either simultaneously or sequentially. The results of a companion paper suggested that when the data-analytic and true models agree, a particular sequential approach is computationally faster than the simultaneous one, yet produces hardly less precise PD parameter estimates, and for suitable designs, about as accurate PD standard error estimates. In this paper, we compare the performance of various methods for the case that the data-analytic model is misspecified. We illustrate these methods by applying them to a set of real data. Using NONMEM, population PK/PD observations were simulated under various study designs according to a one- or two-compartment PK model and direct Emax or sigmoid Emax model. A one-compartment PK model and Emax PD model were fit to the simulated observations by simultaneous and sequential methods. Predictive performance (interpolation and extrapolation) of PD and the type-I error rate of a likelihood ratio test are compared. The real data set consists of PK and (more frequent) PD observations after administration of the muscle relaxant vecuronium. When only the PK data-analytic model is misspecified, the simultaneous method has greater precision than the sequential methods. However a sequential method that uses a non-parametric PK model performs better than both other methods when PK model misspecification is severe. When the PD data-analytic model is misspecified, sequential and simultaneous methods perform similarly. The analysis of the real data shows that the PK fitted with the simultaneous method can be quite sensitive to PD model misspecification, yielding a possible diagnostic for this type of misspecification.

Dose [-concentration]-effect relationships can be obtained by fitting a predictive pharmacokinetic (PK)-pharmacodynamic (PD) model to both concentration and effect observations. Either a model can be fit simultaneously to all the data (“simultaneous” method), or first a model can be fit to the PK data and then a model can be fit to the PD data, conditioning in some way on the PK data or on the estimates of the PK parameters (“sequential” method). Using simulated data, we compare the performance of the simultaneous method with that of three sequential method variants with respect to computation time, estimation precision, and inference. Using NONMEM, under various study designs, observations of one type of PK and one type of PD response from different numbers of individuals were simulated according to a one-compartment PK model and direct Emax PD model, with parameters drawn from an appropriate population distribution. The same PK and PD models were fit to these observations using simultaneous and sequential methods. Performance measures include computation time, fraction of cases for which estimates are successfully obtained, precision of PD parameter estimates, precision of PD parameter standard error estimates, and type-I error rates of a likelihood ratio test. With the sequential method, computation time is less, and estimates are more likely to be obtained. Using the First Order Conditional Estimation (FOCE) method, a sequential approach that conditions on both population PK parameter estimates and PK data, estimates PD parameters and their standard errors about as well as the “gold standard” simultaneous method, and saves about 40% computation time. Type-I error rates of likelihood ratio test for both simultaneous and sequential approaches are close to the nominal rates.

When modeling new data with a complex population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model, there may not be sufficient information to obtain estimates of all parameters. In this case information from previous studies can also be used to help stabilize estimation. Using simulated data, we explored three different ways to do this. (i) Some parameter values were fixed to estimates obtained from earlier data. (ii) The earlier data were combined with the current data. (iii) The objective function based on the current data was augmented by a penalty function expressing summary information obtained from the earlier data. This last method is similar to the use of a Bayesian prior. It may be particularly useful when either the combined data set of method (ii) is very large and leads to large computation times or when the early data are not readily available. With this method, two different types of penalty functions were used. With our examples, the three methods all resulted in stabilized estimation. Methods (ii) and (iii) gave similar results for parameter and standard error estimation, especially with respect to fixed effects parameters. For hypothesis testing, results obtained with method (i) are very problematic. There are also problems with the results obtained with method (iii), but they are much less severe, and when the design for the earlier data is known, they can be corrected by using a computer-intensive simulation test procedure.

The posterior predictive check (PPC) is a model evaluation tool. It assigns a value (p PPC ) to the probability that the value of a given statistic computed from data arising under an analysis model is as or more extreme than the value computed from the real data themselves. If this probability is too small, the analysis model is regarded as invalid for the given statistic. Properties of the PPC for pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) model evaluation are examined herein for a particularly simple simulation setting: extensive sampling of a single individual's data arising from simple PK/PD and error models. To test the performance characteristics of the PPC, repeatedly, “real” data are simulated and for a variety of statistics, the PPC is applied to an analysis model, which may (null hypothesis) or may not (alternative hypothesis) be identical to the simulation model. Five models are used here: (PK1) mono-exponential with proportional error, (PK2) biexponential with proportional error, (PK2e) biexponential with additive error, (PD1) E max model with additive error under the logit transform, and (PD2) sigmoid E max model with additive error under the logit transform. Six simulation/analysis settings are studied. The first three, (PK1/PK1), (PK2/PK2), and (PD1/PD1) evaluate whether the PPC has appropriate type-I error level, whereas the second three (PK2/PK1), (PK2e/PK2), and (PD2/PD1) evaluate whether the PPC has adequate power. For a set of 100 data sets simulated/analyzed under each model pair according to a stipulated extensive sampling design, the p PPC is computed for a number of statistics in three different ways (each way uses a different approximation to the posterior distribution on the model parameters). We find that in general; (i) The PPC is conservative under the null in the sense that for many statistics, prob(p PPC ≤α)

Over the past 25 years sophisticated data analytic techniques have been developed which can lead to improved analyses, but at additional computational cost. In particular, this applies to the approach where interindividual random effects are included in a data analytic model for population pharmacokinetic data, which can often lead to substantially improved estimates of fixed-effect parameters. However, there are also commonly occurring situations, notably with some types of pharmacodynamic data, where such improvement is not realized. This study simulates some simple population dichotomous data, and secondarily, some related continuous data. These data are analyzed using both mixed-effect (ME) models that include interindividual random effects and naive (NA) models that do not include interindividual random effects, and it is seen that use of an ME model does not inevitably lead to gains over use of an NA model. In fact, using maximum likelihood estimation with both types of models, the root mean square estimation errors for fixed effect parameters can actually be larger with an ME model than with the corresponding NA model. Using a form of restricted maximum likelihood estimation with the ME model, the two types of models yield root mean square errors which are comparable, but which still do not suggest that there is always marked advantage in using the ME model.

Pharmacokinetic data consist of drug concentration measurements, as well as reports of some measured concentrations being below the quantification limit of the assay (BQL). A pharmacokinetic model may befit to these data, and for this purpose, the BQL observations must be either discarded or handled in a special way. In this paper, seven methods for dealing with BQL observations are evaluated. Both single-subject and population data are simulated from a one-compartment model. A moderate amount of data is simulated for each individual. The actual cv of concentration measurements at the quantification limit is assumed to be no greater than 20%, in accord with the FDA Guidance. The results of this paper should be interpreted in this context. The methods include handling BQL observations as fixed-point censored observations, i.e., by using the likelihoods that these observations are in fact BQL. This method is shown to have some overall statistical advantage. However, the gain in using this method over that of simply discarding the BQL observations is not always much, and this is especially so when the frequency of BQL observations is small. Some simple methods entailing (i) replacing one or more BQL observations with the value 0, or (ii) replacing them with the value QL/2, where QL is the quantification limit, are also included. The first of these two approaches should not be used With population data, use of the second approach can result in some noticeably improved estimation of the typical value of a parameter, but then there is also marked degradation in the estimation of the population variance of the parameter.

Objective: To characterize change from baseline weight over time for pregabalin and placebo administration. Methods: Asymptotic fraction of baseline weight was modeled with a nonmixture model and a mixture model as a function of baseline weight, exposure, time, covariate effects, and subject-specific random effects. Model fit was assessed using standard diagnostic plots. Predictive performance was assessed using both data similar to the original data, and open-label data. Results: The nonmixture model indicated that a typical patient (baseline weight 82 kg) receiving placebo or 300 mg/day pregabalin approached an asymptotic fractional change from baseline weight of [mean (95% prediction interval for typical individual)] 0.7% (−5.5% to 7.4%) or 2.5% (−3.8% to 9.1%), respectively, with a half-life of 17 days. Substantial between-subject variability is observed, with some drug-treated subjects remaining weight neutral or losing weight, at all levels of exposure. Structural fixed effects parameters for the two submodels (mixture model) were in close agreement with each other and with those for the nonmixture model. The mixture model described two subpopulations differing in interindividual variability. No significant interindividual-varying covariates influencing the mixture probabilities were identified other than exposure. Both models had adequate fit; both models performed well during external validation. Predictive performance (nonmixture model) was adequate to ~900 days. Conclusions: The weight of a typical 82-kg patient receiving placebo or pregabalin (300 mg/day) approaches an asymptotic fractional change from baseline weight of 0.7%, or 2.5%, respectively, with a half-life of 17 days. Substantial between-subject variability remains unexplained.

When modeling new data with a complex population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model, there may not be sufficient information to obtain estimates of all parameters. In this case information from previous studies can also be used to help stabilize estimation. Using simulated data, we explored three different ways to do this. (i) Some parameter values were fixed to estimates obtained from earlier data. (ii) The earlier data were combined with the current data. (iii) The objective function based on the current data was augmented by a penalty function expressing summary information obtained from the earlier data. This last method is similar to the use of a Bayesian prior. It may be particularly useful when either the combined data set of method (ii) is very large and leads to large computation times or when the early data are not readily available. With this method, two different types of penalty functions were used. With our examples, the three methods all resulted in stabilized estimation. Methods (ii) and (iii) gave similar results for parameter and standard error estimation, especially with respect to fixed effects parameters. For hypothesis testing, results obtained with method (i) are very problematic. There are also problems with the results obtained with method (iii), but they are much less severe, and when the design for the earlier data is known, they can be corrected by using a computer-intensive simulation test procedure.