Simultaneous versus sequential optimal design for pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic models with FO and FOCE considerations

  • J. M. McGreeEmail author
  • J. A. Eccleston
  • S. B. Duffull


We consider nested multiple response models which are used extensively in the area of pharmacometrics. Given the conditional nature of such models, differences in predicted responses are a consequence of different assumptions about how the models interact. As such, sequential versus simultaneous and First Order (FO) versus First Order Conditional Estimation (FOCE) techniques have been explored in the literature where it was found that the sequential and FO approaches can produce biased results. It is therefore of interest to determine any design consequences between the various methods and approximations. As optimal design for nonlinear mixed effects models is dependent upon initial parameter estimates and an approximation to the expected Fisher information matrix, it is necessary to incorporate any influence of nonlinearity (or parameter-effects curvature) into our exploration. Hence, sequential versus simultaneous design with FO and FOCE considerations are compared under low, typical and high degrees of nonlinearity. Additionally, predicted standard errors of parameters are also compared to empirical estimates formed via a simulation/estimation study in NONMEM. Initially, design theory for nested multiple response models is developed and approaches mentioned above are investigated by considering a pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic model found in the literature. We consider design for situations where all responses are continuous and extend this methodology to the case where a response may be a discrete random variable. In particular, for a binary response pharmacodynamic model, it is conjectured that such responses will offer little information about all parameters and hence a sequential optimization, in the form of product design optimality, may yield near optimal designs.


D-optimality Discrete response FO and FOCE approximations Nested multiple response models Product design optimality Simultaneous versus sequential design 



The authors gratefully acknowledge the constructive advice of the reviewers. This research was funded by a University of Queensland Joint Research Scholarship.


  1. 1.
    Hooker A, Vicini P (2005) Simultaneous population optimal design for pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic experiments. AAPS J 7:E759–E785Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Duffull SB, Waterhouse TH, Eccleston JA (2005) Some considerations on the design of population pharmacokinetic studies. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 32:441–457PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gueorguieva I, Aarons L, Ogungbenro K, Jorga KM, Rodgers T, Rowland M (2006) Optimal design for multivariate response pharmacokinetic models. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 33:97–124PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dartois C, Lemenuel-Diot A, Laveille C, Tranchand B, Tod M, Girard P (2007) Evaluation of uncertainty parameters estimated by different population PK software and methods. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 34:289–312PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Zhang L, Beal SL, Sheiner LB (2003) Simultaneous vs. sequential analysis for population PK/PD data I: best-case performance. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 30:387–404PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nestorov IA, Graham G, Duffull SB, Aarons L, Fuseau E, Coates P (2001) Modeling and simulation for clinical trial design involving a categorical response: a phase II case study with naratriptan. Pharm Res 18:1210–1216PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    McCullagh P, Nelder JA (1989) Generalized linear models, 2nd edn. Chapman and Hall, LondonGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Demidenko E (2004) Mixed models—theory and application, 1st edn. Wiley Series in Probability and StatisticsGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Mentré F, Mallet A, Baccar D (1997) Optimal design in random-effects regression models. Biometrika 84:429–442CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Retout S, Mentré F (2003) Further developments of the Fisher information matrix in nonlinear mixed effects models with evaluation in population pharmacokinetics. J Biopharm Stat 13:209–227PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Atkinson AC, Donev AN (1992) Optimum experimental designs. Oxford University Press Inc., OxfordGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Pronzato L, Walter E (1985) Robust experiment design via stochastic approximation. Math Biosci 75:103–120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Dodds MG, Hooker AC, Vicini P (2005) Robust population pharmacokinetic experiment design. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 32:33–64PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tod M, Rocchisani JM (1997) Comparison of ED, EID and API criteria for the robust optimization of sampling times in pharmacokinetics. J Pharmacokinet Biopharmaceut 25:515–537CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Atkinson AC, Cox DR (1974) Planning experiments for discriminating between models. J R Stat Soc 36(B):321–348Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Bates DM, Watts DG (1980) Relative curvature measures of nonlinearity. J R Stat Soc Series B (Methodological) 42:1–25Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. M. McGree
    • 1
    Email author
  • J. A. Eccleston
    • 1
  • S. B. Duffull
    • 2
  1. 1.School of Physical ScienceUniversity of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia
  2. 2.School of PharmacyUniversity of OtagoDunedinNew Zealand

Personalised recommendations