Advertisement

The AAPS Journal

, 13:464 | Cite as

A Fast Method for Testing Covariates in Population PK/PD Models

  • Akash Khandelwal
  • Kajsa Harling
  • E. Niclas Jonsson
  • Andrew C. Hooker
  • Mats O. Karlsson
Research Article

Abstract

The development of covariate models within the population modeling program like NONMEM is generally a time-consuming and non-trivial task. In this study, a fast procedure to approximate the change in objective function values of covariate–parameter models is presented and evaluated. The proposed method is a first-order conditional estimation (FOCE)-based linear approximation of the influence of covariates on the model predictions. Simulated and real datasets were used to compare this method with the conventional nonlinear mixed effect model using both first-order (FO) and FOCE approximations. The methods were mainly assessed in terms of difference in objective function values (ΔOFV) between base and covariate models. The FOCE linearization was superior to the FO linearization and showed a high degree of concordance with corresponding nonlinear models in ΔOFV. The linear and nonlinear FOCE models provided similar coefficient estimates and identified the same covariate–parameter relations as statistically significant or non-significant for the real and simulated datasets. The time required to fit tesaglitazar and docetaxel datasets with 4 and 15 parameter–covariate relations using the linearization method was 5.1 and 0.5 min compared with 152 and 34 h, respectively, with the nonlinear models. The FOCE linearization method allows for a fast estimation of covariate–parameter relations models with good concordance with the nonlinear models. This allows a more efficient model building and may allow the utilization of model building techniques that would otherwise be too time-consuming.

Key words

conditional estimation covariate model building NONMEM population PK/PD 

References

  1. 1.
    Maitre PO, Buhrer M, Thomson D, Stanski DR. A three-step approach combining Bayesian regression and NONMEM population analysis: application to midazolam. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1991;19:377–84.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Savic RM, Karlsson MO. Importance of shrinkage in empirical Bayes estimates for diagnostics: Problems and solutions. AAPS J. 2009;11:558–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mandema JM, Verotta D, Sheiner LB. Building population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic models. I. Models for covariate effects. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1992;20:511–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jonsson EN, Karlsson MO. Automated covariate model building within NONMEM. Pharm Res. 1998;15:1463–8.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wahlby U, Jonsson EN, Karlsson MO. Assessment of actual significance levels for covariate effects in NONMEM. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2001;28:231–52.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Beal S, Sheiner LB, Boeckmann A, Bauer RJ. NONMEM user’s guides. Icon Development Solutions, Ellicott City, MD, USA; 1989–2009.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kloft C, Wallin J, Henningsson A, Chatelut E, Karlsson MO. Population pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic model for neutropenia with patient subgroup identification: comparison across anticancer drugs. Clin Cancer Res. 2006;12:5481–90.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Grasela Jr TH, Donn SM. Neonatal population pharmacokinetics of phenobarbital derived from routine clinical data. Dev Pharmacol Ther. 1985;8:374–83.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Karlsson MO, Jonsson EN, Wiltse CG, Wade JR. Assumption testing in population pharmacokinetic models: illustrated with an analysis of moxonidine data from congestive heart failure patients. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1998;26:207–46.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Bruno R, Iliadis MC, Lacarelle B, Cosson V, Mandema JW, Le Roux Y, et al. Evaluation of Bayesian estimation in comparison to NONMEM for population pharmacokinetic data analysis: application to pefloxacin in intensive care unit patients. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1992;20:653–69.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Karlsson MO, Sheiner LB. The importance of modeling interoccasion variability in population pharmacokinetic analyses. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1993;21:735–50.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Tunblad K, Lindbom L, McFadyen L, Jonsson EN, Marshall S, Karlsson MO. The use of clinical irrelevance criteria in covariate model building with application to dofetilide pharmacokinetic data. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2008;35:503–26.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Bruno R, Hille D, Riva A, Vivier N, Ten Bokkel Huinnink WW, van Oosterom AT, et al. Population pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of docetaxel in phase II studies in patients with cancer. J Clin Oncol. 1998;16:187–96.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hamren B, Bjork E, Sunzel M, Karlsson MO. Models for plasma glucose, HbA1c, and hemoglobin interrelationships in patients with type 2 diabetes following tesaglitazar treatment. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2008;84:228–35.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kowalski KG, Hutmacher MM. Efficient screening of covariates in population models using Wald’s approximation to the likelihood ratio test. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2001;28:253–75.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lindbom L, Pihlgren P, Jonsson EN. PsN-Toolkit—a collection of computer intensive statistical methods for non-linear mixed effect modeling using NONMEM. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2005;79:241–57.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Akash Khandelwal
    • 1
  • Kajsa Harling
    • 1
  • E. Niclas Jonsson
    • 1
  • Andrew C. Hooker
    • 1
  • Mats O. Karlsson
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Pharmaceutical BiosciencesUppsala UniversityUppsalaSweden

Personalised recommendations