Modeling and simulation of the exposure–response and dropout pattern of guanfacine extended-release in pediatric patients with ADHD

  • William Knebel
  • Jim Rogers
  • Dan Polhamus
  • James Ermer
  • Marc R. Gastonguay
Original Paper

Abstract

Guanfacine extended-release (GXR) is a selective α2A-adrenergic receptor agonist approved in the United States for once-daily administration for the treatment of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents ages 6–17 years old either as monotherapy or adjunctive to stimulant medications. This analysis integrates exposure–response, placebo, and dropout data from 10 clinical trials that used GXR in adolescents and children with ADHD. In these trials, the ADHD Rating Scale-IV (ADHD RS-IV) score was collected longitudinally within patients over the course of 6–13 weeks. Non-linear mixed effects models were developed and used to describe the exposure–response of the GXR and placebo time course. The OpenBUGS program was utilized to describe the dropout time course across the trials. Placebo time course was best described by an inverse Bateman function with a 3-group mixture model that allowed for the onset and offset of the placebo response. Dropout time modeling indicated a missing at random mechanism for dropouts which was best described by a Weibull distribution with an estimated percentage of non-dropout patients. A linear exposure–response model with an adolescent effect on maximum slope (SLPmax), and a time delay for reaching SLPmax, provided the best description of the GXR exposure–response time course. The GXR exposure–response model indicated that the typical (95 % confidence interval) decrease in ADHD RS-IV score from the placebo–response trajectory would be 37.1 % (32.2, 42.0 %) per 0.1 mg/kg of GXR exposure. There was little noticeable difference between the exposure–response in adolescents and children or across ADHD subtypes.

Keywords

ADHD Guanfacine Exposure–response Pediatric Modeling Simulation 

Supplementary material

10928_2014_9397_MOESM1_ESM.eps (407 kb)
Fig. S1. Diagnostic plots for placebo model. Population and individual predicted ADHD RS-IV score versus observed score for the placebo model are presented in the top and middle plots, respectively. The line of identity (white) is included as a reference. Conditional weighted residuals versus population predicted ADHD RS-IV scores are presented in the bottom plots. Values are indicated by open circles with a white line at y = 0 as a reference. Plots are subsetted by subject type with children on the left and adolescents on the right. (ADHD RS-IV, Attention-deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Rating Scale-IV.) (EPS 407 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    National Institute of Mental Health (2008) Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), 08-3572 edn. US Department of Health and Human ServicesGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Biederman J, Faraone SV (2005) Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Lancet 366:237–248PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wolraich M, Brown L, Brown RT, et al (2011) Implementing the key action statements: an algorithm and explanation for process of care for the evaluation, diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring of ADHD in children and adolescents. Pediatrics 128:SI1–SI21Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    INTUNIV® (guanfacine) extended-release tablets [package insert]Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Roberts MS, Nucifora KA, Braithwaite RS (2010) Using mechanistic models to simulate comparative effectiveness trials of therapy and to estimate long-term outcomes in HIV care. Med Care 48:S90–S95PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lehr T, Staab A, Trommeshauser D, Schaefer HG, Kloft C (2010) Quantitative pharmacology approach in Alzheimer’s disease: efficacy modeling of early clinical data to predict clinical outcome of tesofensine. AAPS J 12:117–129PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Madabushi R, Cox DS, Hossain M et al (2011) Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic basis for effective argatroban dosing in pediatrics. J Clin Pharmacol 51:19–28PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Soto E, Keizer RJ, Troconiz IF et al (2011) Predictive ability of a semi-mechanistic model for neutropenia in the development of novel anti-cancer agents: two case studies. Invest New Drugs 29:984–995PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    De Cock RFW, Piana C, Krekels EHJ, Danhof M, Allegaert K, Knibbe CAJ (2011) The role of population PK-PD modelling in paediatric clinical research. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 67(Suppl 1):5–16PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Friberg LE, de Greef R, Kerbusch T, Karlsson MO (2009) Modeling and simulation of the time course of asenapine exposure response and dropout patterns in acute schizophrenia. Clin Pharmacol Ther 86:84–91Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Tod M, Jullien V, Pons G (2008) Facilitation of drug evaluation in children by population methods and modelling. Clin Pharmacokinet 47:231–243PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Riggs MM, Godfrey CJ, Gastonguay M (2007) Clinical trial simulation: efficacy trials. In: Ette EI, Williams PJ (eds) Pharmacometrics: The Science of Quantitative Pharmacology. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 881–902CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Gastonguay MR, French JL, Heitjan DF, Rogers JA, Ahn JE, Ravva P (2010) Missing data in model-based pharmacometric applications: points to consider. J Clin Pharmacol 50:63S–74SPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Thomas RG, Berg JD, Sano M, Thal L (2000) Analysis of longitudinal data in an Alzheimer’s disease clinical trial. Stat Med 19:1433–1440PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hu C, Szapary PO, Yeilding N, Zhou H (2011) Informative dropout modeling of longitudinal ordered categorical data and model validation: application to exposure-response modeling of physician’s global assessment score for ustekinumab in patients with psoriasis. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 38:237–260PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Beal SL, Sheiner LB, Boeckmann AJ (2006) NONMEM Users Guide: Part I–VII, (1989–2006). Icon Development Solutions, Ellicott CityGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Benesch M, Kerbl R, Lackner H et al (2003) Low-dose versus high-dose immunoglobulin for primary treatment of acute immune thrombocytopenic purpura in children: results of a prospective, randomized single-center trial. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 25:797–800PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Savic RM, Karlsson MO (2009) Importance of shrinkage in empirical bayes estimates for diagnostics: problems and solutions. AAPS J 11:558–569PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Gomeni R, Lavergne A, Merlo-Pich E (2009) Modelling placebo response in depression trials using a longitudinal model with informative dropout. Eur J Pharm Sci 36:4–10PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Lee JY, Gobburu JV (2011) Bayesian quantitative disease-drug-trial models for Parkinson’s disease to guide early drug development. AAPS J 13:508–518PubMedCentralPubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Newcorn JH, Sutton VK, Zhang S et al (2009) Characteristics of placebo responders in pediatric clinical trials of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 48:1165–1172PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Newcorn JH, Sutton VK, Weiss MD, Sumner CR (2009) Clinical responses to atomoxetine in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: the Integrated Data Exploratory Analysis (IDEA) study. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 48:511–518PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Goldman AI (1984) Survivorship analysis when cure is a possibility: a Monte Carlo study. Stat Med 3:153–163PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Berkson J, Gage RP (1950) Calculation of survival rates for cancer. Proc Staff Meet Mayo Clin 25:270–286PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Farewell VT (1982) The use of mixture models for the analysis of survival data with longterm survivors. Biometrics 38:1041–1046PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Chen MH, Ibrahim JG, Sinha D (1999) A new bayesian model for survival data with a surviving fraction. J Am Stat Assoc 94:746CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Knebel W, Corcoran M, Ermer J, Gastonguay MR (2014) Population pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analysis of guanfacine in pediatric patients with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (submitted)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • William Knebel
    • 1
  • Jim Rogers
    • 1
  • Dan Polhamus
    • 1
  • James Ermer
    • 2
  • Marc R. Gastonguay
    • 1
  1. 1.Metrum Research Group LLCTariffvilleUSA
  2. 2.Shire Development LLCWayneUSA

Personalised recommendations