Advertisement

Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics

, Volume 42, Issue 6, pp 627–637 | Cite as

A pharmacometric case study regarding the sensitivity of structural model parameter estimation to error in patient reported dosing times

  • Jonathan KnightsEmail author
  • Shashank Rohatagi
Original Paper

Abstract

Although there is a body of literature focused on minimizing the effect of dosing inaccuracies on pharmacokinetic (PK) parameter estimation, most of the work centers on missing doses. No attempt has been made to specifically characterize the effect of error in reported dosing times. Additionally, existing work has largely dealt with cases in which the compound of interest is dosed at an interval no less than its terminal half-life. This work provides a case study investigating how error in patient reported dosing times might affect the accuracy of structural model parameter estimation under sparse sampling conditions when the dosing interval is less than the terminal half-life of the compound, and the underlying kinetics are monoexponential. Additional effects due to noncompliance with dosing events are not explored and it is assumed that the structural model and reasonable initial estimates of the model parameters are known. Under the conditions of our simulations, with structural model CV % ranging from ~20 to 60 %, parameter estimation inaccuracy derived from error in reported dosing times was largely controlled around 10 % on average. Given that no observed dosing was included in the design and sparse sampling was utilized, we believe these error results represent a practical ceiling given the variability and parameter estimates for the one-compartment model. The findings suggest additional investigations may be of interest and are noteworthy given the inability of current PK software platforms to accommodate error in dosing times.

Keywords

Population pharmacokinetics Simulation Dosing inaccuracies Reporting error Parameter Estimation 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Timothy Goggin for his valuable comments during the editorial process.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.

Supplementary material

10928_2015_9428_MOESM1_ESM.docx (2.5 mb)
Supplementary material 1 (DOCX 2554 kb)
10928_2015_9428_MOESM2_ESM.pdf (80 kb)
Supplementary material 2 (PDF 80 kb)

References

  1. 1.
    Gibiansky L, Gibiansky E, Cosson V, Frey N, Stark FS (2014) Methods to detect non-compliance and reduce its impact on population PK parameter estimates. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 41(3):279–289. doi: 10.1007/s10928-014-9364-2 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Li J, Nekka F (2007) A pharmacokinetic formalism explicitly integrating the patient drug compliance. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 34(1):115–139. doi: 10.1007/s10928-006-9036-y CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Lu J, Gries J-M, 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(4):343–362CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Soy D, Beal SL, Sheiner LB (2004) Population one-compartment pharmacokinetic analysis with missing dosage data. Clin Pharmacol Ther 76(5):441–451. doi: 10.1016/j.clpt.2004.07.010 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Diaz E, Levine HB, Sullivan MC, Sernyak MJ, Hawkins KA, Cramer JA, Woods SW (2001) Use of the Medication Event Monitoring System to estimate medication compliance in patients with schizophrenia. J Psychiatry Neurosci 26(4):325PubMedCentralPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Parker CS, Chen Z, Price M, Gross R, Metlay JP, Christie JD, Brensinger CM, Newcomb CW, Samaha FF, Kimmel SE (2007) Adherence to warfarin assessed by electronic pill caps, clinician assessment, and patient reports: results from the IN-RANGE study. J Gen Intern Med 22(9):1254–1259PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Samet JH, Sullivan LM, Traphagen ET, Ickovics JR (2001) Measuring adherence among HIV-infected persons: Is MEMS consummate technology? AIDS Behav 5(1):21–30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Savic RM, Barrail-Tran A, Duval X, Nembot G, Panhard X, Descamps D, Verstuyft C, Vrijens B, Taburet A-M, Goujard C (2012) Effect of adherence as measured by MEMS, ritonavir boosting, and CYP3A5 genotype on atazanavir pharmacokinetics in treatment-naive HIV-infected patients. Clin Pharmacol Ther 92(5):575–583PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Haberer J (2013) Medication Event Monitoring Systems. Encyclopedia of behavioral medicine. Springer, New York, pp 1215–1219Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Gupta P, Hutmacher MM, Frame B, Miller R (2008) An alternative method for population pharmacokinetic data analysis under noncompliance. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 35(2):219–233. doi: 10.1007/s10928-008-9085-5 CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Mu S, Ludden TM (2003) Estimation of population pharmacokinetic parameters in the presence of non-compliance. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 30(1):53–81CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    FDA Drugs@FDA. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/scripts/cder/drugsatfda/. Accessed 23 Dec 2014
  13. 13.
    Bauer R (2011) NONMEM users guide introduction to NONMEM 7.2. 0. ICON Development Solutions, Ellicott CityGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    R: A language and environment for statistical computing. (2014). R Foundation for Statistical Computing. http://www.R-project.org/, Vienna, Austria

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Otsuka Pharmaceutical Development & Commercialization, Inc.PrincetonUSA

Personalised recommendations