Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics

, Volume 30, Issue 6, pp 387–404 | Cite as

Simultaneous vs. Sequential Analysis for Population PK/PD Data I: Best-Case Performance

  • Liping Zhang
  • Stuart L. Beal
  • Lewis B. Sheiner


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.

pharmacokinetics pharmacodynamics data analysis modeling forcing function 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    D. M. Foster. Developing and testing integrated multicompartment models to describe a single-input multiple-output study using the SAAM II software system. Adv. Exp. Med. Biol. 445:59-78 (1998).Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Bennett and J. Wakefield. Errors-in-variables in joint population pharmacokinetic/ pharmacodynamic modeling. Biometrics 57:803-812 (2001).Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Y. Hashimoto and L. B. Sheiner. Designs for population pharmacodynamics: value of pharmacokinetic data and population analysis. J. Pharmacokinet. Biopharm. 19:333-353 (1991).Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. Shi, N. L. Benowitz, C. P. Denaro, and L. B. Sheiner. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling of caffeine: tolerance to pressor effects. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 53:6-14 (1993).Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    K. E. Fattinger, D. Verotta, H. C. Porchet, A. Munafo, J. Y. Le Cotonnec, and L. B. Sheiner. Modeling a bivariate control system: LH and testosterone response to the GnRH antagonist antide. Am. J. Physiol. 271:E775-787. (1996).Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    J. R. Wade and M. O. Karlsson. In Population Approach Group Europe, Saintes, France, (1999).Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    L. Sheiner and J. Wakefield. Population modelling in drug development. Stat. Methods Med. Res. 8:183-193 (1999).Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    M. Davidian and D. Giltinan. Nonlinear Models for Repeated Measurement Data. Chapman & Hall, London (1995).Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    H. C. Kimko, S. S. Reele, N. H. Holford, and C. C. Peck. Prediction of the outcome of a phase 3 clinical trial of an antischizophrenic agent (quetiapine fumarate) by simulation with a population pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic model. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 68:568-577 (2000).Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. C. Wakefield, L. Aarons, and A. Racine-Poon. The Bayesian approach of population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling Springer-Verlag, (1998).Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    L. Zhang, R. Price, F. Aweeka, S. E. Bellibas, and L. B. Sheiner. Making the most of sparse clinical data by using a predictive-model-based analysis, illustrated with a stavudine pharmacokinetic study. Eur. J. Pharm. Sci. 12:377-385. (2001).Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    M. Gibaldi and D. Perrier. Pharmacokinetics. Marcel Dekker, New York (1982).Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    M. L. Stein. Large sample properties of simulations using Latin hypercube sampling. Technometrics 29:143-151 (1987).Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    A. B. Owen. Controlling correlations in Latin hypercube samples. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 89:1517-1522 (1994).Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    S. L. Beal and L. B. Sheiner. NONMEM Users Guides. Globomax, Inc., Maryland. (1989-1998).Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    A. R. Gallant. Nonlinear Statistical Models. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, p. 217(1986).Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Plenum Publishing Corporation 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Liping Zhang
    • 1
  • Stuart L. Beal
    • 2
  • Lewis B. Sheiner
    • 2
  1. 1.Program in Biological and Medical InformaticsUCSFUSA
  2. 2.Department of Laboratory Medicine, School of MedicineUCSFUSA

Personalised recommendations