Skip to main content
Log in

Discrimination Between Rival Dosing Histories

  • Published:
Pharmaceutical Research Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose. In population pharmacokinetic studies, the dosing history is sometimes recorded in more than one way. The purpose of this study was to develop and evaluate a procedure for discriminating between rival dosing histories, i.e., for each individual in a data set, identify the dosing history that is the most plausible.

Methods. The procedure consists of four steps. In the first step we identify individuals whose dosing histories produce predictions that are consistent. In the second step these individuals are used to build a population pharmacokinetic model which is used, in step three, to select the dosing history for the individuals not identified in step one. In step four the population model is refined using the best available dosing histories for all individuals. The proposed procedure was evaluated using both simulations and a real data set, in which two dosing histories, based on patient diaries and electronic monitoring devices (MEMS) were available.

Results. In the real data set, estimated variabilities were almost always lower when the selected dosing histories were used compared to when no selection procedure was used. The diary dosing histories were selected more often than the MEMS dosing histories. In the simulations, the parameter estimates obtained using the selection procedure were closer to the true parameter values compared to when only one of the dosing histories was used.

Conclusions. The proposed procedure appears to be robust and should be beneficial in at least two respects: improved parameter estimation of population pharmacokinetic and PK/PD models and objective information by which dosage recording methodologies can be compared and patient dose recording behavior can be assessed.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

REFERENCES

  1. L. Aarons. Eur. J. Metab. Pharmacokin. 18:97–100, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  2. E. J. Antal, T. H. Grasela Jr, and R. B. Smith. J. Pharmacokin. Biopharm. 19:37s–46s, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  3. J. Urquhart. Clin. Pharmacokin. 27:202–215, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  4. J. K. Aronsson and M. Hardman. Brit. Med. J. 305:1009–1011, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  5. D. Matsui, C. Hermann, J. Klein, M. Berkovitch, N. Olivieri, and G. Koren. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 34:944–949, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  6. N. F. Olivieri, D. Matsui, C. Hermann, and G. Koren. Arch. Dis. Child. 66:1399–1402, 1991.

    Google Scholar 

  7. L. B. Sheiner, B. Rosenberg, and V. V. Marathe. J. Pharmacokin. Biopharm. 5:445–479, 1977.

    Google Scholar 

  8. L. B. Sheiner and S. L. Beal. J. Pharm. Sci. 71:1344–1348, 1982.

    Google Scholar 

  9. A. J. Boeckmann, L. B. Sheiner, and S. L. Beal. NONMEM users guides. NONMEM project group, University of California, San Francisco, CA, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  10. D. W. Cockroft and M. H. Gault. Nephron 16:31–41, 1976.

    Google Scholar 

  11. M. O. Karlsson and L. B. Sheiner. J. Pharmacokin. Biopharm. 21:735–750, 1993.

    Google Scholar 

  12. M. O. Karlsson, S. L. Beal, and L. B. Sheiner. J. Pharmacokin. Biopharm. 23:651–672, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  13. E. I. Ette and T. M. Ludden. Pharm. Res. 12:1845–1855, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to E. Niclas Jonsson.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Jonsson, E.N., Wade, J.R., Almqvist, G. et al. Discrimination Between Rival Dosing Histories. Pharm Res 14, 984–991 (1997). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012184808192

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1012184808192

Navigation