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.

This paper presents and illustrates methodology for specifying, estimating, and evaluating a predictive model for repeated measures time-to-event responses. The illustrative example specifies a model of the antiemetic effect vs. concentration relationship for the 5-HT3 antagonist ondansetron in the human ipecac model for emesis. A key part of this model is a time-dependent log hazard function for emesis that is increased by ipecac administration and decreased by ondansetron concentration. The model is fit using an approximate maximum likelihood method. The data consist of the time free of emeses and, for those individuals with emetic episodes, the time(s) of the episode(s). Model evaluation is accomplished using residual plots adapted to time-to-event data and a "posterior predictive check" wherein observed data statistics are compared to those obtained from data simulated from the fitted model. The ondansetron concentration required to obtain a 50% reduction in the hazard of emesis is estimated to be 1.4 +/- 0.2 ng/ml, and the rate constant for elimination of ipecac-induced hazard is 1.5 +/- 0.2 hr-1.

In pharmacokinetic data analysis, it is frequently necessary to select the number of exponential terms in a polyexponential expression used to describe the concentration-time relationship. The performance characteristics of several selection criteria, the Akaike Information Criterion (AIC), and the Schwarz Criterion (SC), and the F test (alpha = 0.05), were examined using Monte Carlo simulations. In particular, the ability of these criteria to select the correct model, to select a model allowing estimation of pharmacokinetic parameters with small bias and good precision, and to select a model allowing precise predictions of concentration was evaluated. To some extent interrelationships among these procedures is explainable. Results indicate that the F test tends to choose the simpler model more often than does either the AIC or SC, even when the more complex model is correct. Also, the F test is more sensitive to deficient sampling designs. Clearance estimates are generally very robust to the choice of the wrong model. Other pharmacokinetic parameters are more sensitive to model choice, particularly the apparent elimination rate constant. Prediction of concentrations is generally more precise when the correct model is chosen. The tendency for the F test (alpha = 0.05) to choose the simpler model must be considered relative to the objectives of the study.

This note gives expressions for recirculation mean time parameters of the disposition kinetics of particles in a semihomogeneous stationary linear system. In such a system each compartment may have an arbitrary single-pass disposition function, rather than a known parametric (usually monoexponential) one. Such systems provide a generalization of physiological flow models. Given observations of arterial blood concentrations and tissue amounts, and making the additional assumptions that (i) the fraction of total blood flow exiting each tissue that goes to each other tissue is constant and known, and (ii) the fraction of drug entering each tissue that is eliminated to the outside is constant and known, the input to each tissue can be known, and therefore both its total blood flow and its single-pass disposition function can be estimated. Recirculation mean time parameters can be computed from these estimates. Application to real thiopental data is presented as an example.

Individual pharmacokinetic parameters quantify the pharmacokinetics of an individual, while population pharmacokinetic parameters quantify population mean kinetics, interindividual kinetic variability, and residual variability, including intraindividual variability and measurement error. Individual pharmacokinetics are estimated by fitting a pharmacokinetic model to individual data. Population pharmacokinetic parameters have traditionally been estimated by doing this separately for each individual, and then combining the individual parameter estimates, the Standard Two Stage (STS) approach. Another approach, NONMEM, appropriately pools data across individuals and is therefore less dependent on individual parameter estimates. This study provides further evidence of NONMEM's validity and usefulness by comparing both approaches on simulated routine-type pharmacokinetic data arising from a monoexponential model. The estimates of population parameters (notably those describing interindividual variability) provided by the STS method are poorer than those provided by NONMEM, especially when there is considerable residual error. Further, NONMEM's estimates of population parameters do not require that the data be restricted to special types of routine data such as those obtained only at steady state, or only at peak or trough, nor do the estimates improve with such data. NONMEM's estimates do improve, however, when a data set is enhanced by the addition of single-observation-per-individual type data. Thus, population parameters can be estimated efficiently from data that simulate real clinical pharmacokinetic conditions.

The stochastic formulation of linear kinetic models is elaborated in order to introduce some new concepts and help clarify the meaning and role of residence time moments. Certain conditional moments are introduced. Multicompartment and steady-state dosing within the stochastic context are considered. A general model-independent formula for steady state volume of distribution and a new concept of steady-state moments are presented. A technique for constructing a model of a given topology from its moments is also given.

It has previously been shown that the extended least squares (ELS) method for fitting pharmacokinetic models behaves better than other methods when there is possible heteroscedasticity (unequal error variance) in the data. Confidence intervals for pharmacokinetic parameters, at the target confidence level of 95%, computed in simulations with several pharmacokinetic and error variance models, using a theoretically reasonable approximation to the asymptotic covariance matrix of the ELS parameter estimator, are found to include the true parameter values considerably less than 95% of the time. Intervals with the ordinary least squares method perform better. Two adjustments to the ELS confidence intervals, taken together, result in better performance. These are: (i) apply a bias correction to the ELS estimate of variance, which results in wider confidence intervals, and (ii) use confidence intervals with a target level of 99% to obtain confidence intervals with actual level closer to 95%. Kineticists wishing to use the ELS method may wish to use these adjustments.

It is often difficult to specify weights for weighted least squares nonlinear regression analysis of pharmacokinetic data. Improper choice of weights may lead to inaccurate and/or imprecise estimates of pharmacokinetic parameters. Extended least squares nonlinear regression provides a possible solution to this problem by allowing the incorporation of a general parametric variance model. Weighted least squares and extended least squares analyses of data from a simulated pharmacokinetic experiment were compared. Weighted least squares analysis of the simulated data, using commonly used weighting schemes, yielded estimates of pharmacokinetic parameters that were significantly biased, whereas extended least squares estimates were unbiased. Extended least squares estimates were often significantly more precise than were weighted least squares estimates. It is suggested that extended least squares regression should be further investigated for individual pharmacokinetic data analysis.

An explicit solution to the Michaelis-Menten differential equation with bolus and zero-order input is presented. This solution involves certain simple functions whose values are not readily available. Efficient algorithms for computing values of these functions to any desired degree of accuracy and FORTRAN codes for implementing them are also given.

The precision of pharmacokinetic parameter estimates from several least squares parameter estimation methods are compared. The methods can be thought of as differing with respect to the way they weight data. Three standard methods, Ordinary Least Squares (OLS-equal weighting), Weighted Least Squares with reciprocal squared observation weighting [WLS(y-2)], and log transform OLS (OLS(ln))--the log of the pharmacokinetic model is fit to the log of the observations--are compared along with two newer methods, Iteratively Reweighted Least Squares with reciprocal squared prediction weighting (IRLS,(f-2)), and Extended Least Squares with power function "weighting" (ELS(f-xi)--here xi is regarded as an unknown parameter). The values of the weights are more influenced by the data with the ELS(f-xi) method than they are with the other methods. The methods are compared using simulated data from several pharmacokinetic models (monoexponential, Bateman, Michaelis-Menten) and several models for the observation error magnitude. For all methods, the true structural model form is assumed known. Each of the standard methods performs best when the actual observation error magnitude conforms to the assumption of the method, but OLS is generally least perturbed by wrong error models. In contrast, WLS(y-2) is the worst of all methods for all error models violating its assumption (and even for the one that does not, it is out performed by OLS(ln)). Regarding the newer methods, IRLS(f-2) improves on OLS(ln), but is still often inferior to OLS. ELS(f-xi), however, is nearly as good as OLS (OLS is only 1-2% better) when the OLS assumption obtains, and in all other cases ELS(f-xi) does better than OLS. Thus, ELS(f-xi) provides a flexible and robust method for estimating pharmacokinetic parameters.