Methods to detect non-compliance and reduce its impact on population PK parameter estimates

  • Leonid Gibiansky
  • Ekaterina Gibiansky
  • Valerie Cosson
  • Nicolas Frey
  • Franziska Schaedeli Stark
Original Paper


This work proposes and evaluates two methods (CM1 and CM2) for detecting non-compliance using concentration–time data and for obtaining estimates of population pharmacokinetic model parameters in a population with prevalent non-compliance. CM1 estimates individual residual variability (RV) and identifies subjects with higher than average RV as non-compliant. Exclusion of subjects with high RV from the analysis dataset reduces the bias in the estimates of the model parameters. Various methods of identification and exclusion of non-compliant subjects were tested, compared, and shown to reduce or eliminate bias in parameter estimates associated with non-compliance. The tested methods were (i) a pre-defined cutoff value of the random effect on RV, (ii) sequential exclusion of subjects with the highest RV percentiles, and (iii) use of a mixture model for RV. CM2 is applicable for the data with a specific sampling pattern that includes a potentially non-compliant outpatient part with several trough samples followed by a dense profile after the inpatient (compliant) dose. It relies only on the doses known to be administered (e.g., inpatient doses). In this method, all concentration measurements during the outpatient part of the study (except the trough value immediately preceding the inpatient dose) are removed from the dataset and an additional parameter (individual relative bioavailability of the outpatient doses) is introduced. For a number of simulated datasets with various sampling schemes and non-compliance patterns the proposed methods allowed to identify subjects with compliance problems and to reduce or eliminate bias in the estimates of the model parameters.


Population PK Nonlinear mixed-effects modeling Patient compliance 

Supplementary material

10928_2014_9364_MOESM1_ESM.doc (263 kb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOC 263 kb)


  1. 1.
    Wang W, Husan F, Chow SC (1996) The impact of patient compliance on drug concentration profile in multiple doses. Stat Med 15(6):659–669PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Girard P, Sheiner LB, Kastrissios H, Blaschke TF (1996) Do we need full compliance data for population pharmacokinetic analysis? J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 24:265–282PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Osborne JW, Overbay A (2004) The power of outliers (and why researchers should always check for them). Pract Assess Res Eval 9:6Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Lu J, Gries JM, Verotta D, Sheiner LB (2001) Selecting reliable pharmacokinetic data for explanatory analyses of clinical trials in the presence of possible noncompliance. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 28:343–362PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Mu S, Ludden TM (2003) Estimation of population pharmacokinetic parameters in the presence of non-compliance. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 30:53–81PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Soy D, Beal SL, Sheiner LB (2004) Population one-compartment pharmacokinetic analysis with missing dosage data. Clin Pharmacol Ther 76:441–451PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gupta P, Hutmacher MM, Frame B, Miller R (2008) An alternative method for population pharmacokinetic data analysis under noncompliance. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 35(2):219–233PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Barrière O, Li J, Nekka FA (2011) Bayesian approach for the estimation of patient compliance based on the last sampling information. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 38(3):333–351PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Beal S, Sheiner LB, Boeckmann A, Bauer RJ (2013) NONMEM user’s guides (1989–2013). Icon Development Solutions, Ellicott CityGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lunn DJ, Thomas A, Best N, Spiegelhalter D (2000) WinBUGS—a Bayesian modelling framework: concepts, structure, and extensibility. Stat Comput 10:325–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    R Core Team (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical computing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing, Vienna.
  12. 12.
    Karlsson MO, Jonsson EN, Wiltse CG, Wade JR (1998) Assumption testing in population pharmacokinetic models: illustrated with an analysis of moxonidine data from congestive heart failure patients. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 26(2):207–246PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hénin E, Trillet-Lenoir V, Colomban O, Tod M, Girard P (2007) Estimation of patient compliance from pharmacokinetic samples. Abstr 1193, Page 16.
  14. 14.
    Lu D, Joshi A, Wang B, Olsen S, Yi JH, Krop IE, Burris HA, Sandhya Girish S (2013) An integrated multiple-analyte pharmacokinetic model to characterize trastuzumab emtansine (T-DM1) clearance pathways and to evaluate reduced pharmacokinetic sampling in patients with HER2-positive metastatic breast cancer. Clin Pharmacokinet 52(8):657–672PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Leonid Gibiansky
    • 1
  • Ekaterina Gibiansky
    • 1
  • Valerie Cosson
    • 2
  • Nicolas Frey
    • 2
  • Franziska Schaedeli Stark
    • 2
  1. 1.QuantPharm LLCNorth PotomacUSA
  2. 2.Roche Innovation CenterBaselSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations