Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Population pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of anesthetics

  • Published:
The AAPS Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this article we review how population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PD) modeling has evolved in the specialty of anesthesiology, how anesthesiology benefited from the mixed-effects approach, and which features of modeling need careful attention. Key articles from the anesthesiology literature are selected to discuss the modeling of typical anesthesiological PD end points, such as level of consciousness and analgesia, interactions between hypnotics and analgesics, estimation with poor and sometimes rich data sets from populations of various sizes, covariate detection, covariances between random effects, and Bayesian forecasting.

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

Access this article

Log in via an institution

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

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. NONMEM Project Group. NONMEM User's Guide. San Francisco, CA: University of California; 1999.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Minto CF, Schnider TW. Expanding clinical applications of population pharmacodynamic modeling.Br J Clin Pharmacol. 1998;46:321–333.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Wright PMC. Population based pharmacokinetic analysis: why do we need it; what is it; and what has it told us about anaesthetics.Br J Anaesth. 1998;80:488–501.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Whiting B, Kelman AW, Grevel J. Population pharmacokinetics. Theory and clinical application.Clin Pharmacokinet. 1986;11:387–401.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Maitre PO, Vozeh S, Heykants J, Thomson DA, Stanski DR. Population pharmacokinetics of alfentanil: the average dose-plasma concentration relationship and interindividual variability in patients.Anesthesiology. 1987;66:3–12.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Grevel J, Whiting B. The relevance of pharmacokinetics to optimal intravenous anesthesia.Anesthesiology. 1987;66:1–2.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. Kataria BK, Ved SA, Nicodemus HF, et al. The pharmacokinetics of propofol in children using three different data analysis approaches.Anesthesiology. 1994;80:104–122.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Fisher DM. Propofol in pediatrics. Lessons in pharmacokinetic modeling.Anesthesiology. 1994;80:2–5.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Schüttler J, Ihmsen H. Population pharmacokinetics of propofol: a multicenter study.Anesthesiology. 2000;92:727–738.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Schnider TW, Minto CF, Gambus PL, et al. The influence of method of administration and covariates on the pharmacokinetics of propofol in adult volunteers.Anesthesiology. 1998;88:1170–1182.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Hull CJ. How far can we go with compartmental models?Anesthesiology. 1990;72:399–402.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Boer F. Drug handling by the lungs.Br J Anaesth. 2003;91:50–60.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Krejcie TC, Henthorn TK, Shanks CA, Avram MJ. A recirculatory pharmacokinetic model describing the circulatory mixing, tissue distribution and elimination of antipyrine in dogs.J Pharm Exp Ther. 1994;269:609–616.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. Kuipers JA, Boer F, Olofsen E, Bovill JG, Burm AGL. Recirculatory pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of rocuronium in patients—the influence of cardiac output.Anesthesiology. 2001;94:47–55.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Sheiner LB, Stanski DR, Vozeh S, Miller RD, Ham J. Simultaneous modeling of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics: application to d-tubocurarine.Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1979;25:358–371.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. Stanski DR, Maitre PO. Population pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of thiopental: the effect of age revisited.Anesthesiology. 1990;72:412–422.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Somma J, Donner A, Zomorodi K, et al. Population pharmacodynamics of midazolam administered by target controlled infusion in SICU patients after CABG surgery.Anesthesiology. 1998;89:1430–1443.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. Fábregas N, Rapado J, Gambús PL, et al. Modeling of the sedative and airway obstruction effects of propofol in patients with Parkinson disease undergoing stereotactic surgery.Anesthesiology. 2002;97:1378–1386.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Knibbe CAJ, Zuideveld KP, DeJongh J, Kuks PFM, Aarts LPHJ, Danhof M. Population pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic modeling of propofol for long-term sedation in critically ill patients: a comparison between propofol 6% and propofol 1%.Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2002;72:670–684.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  20. Doufas AG, Bakhshandeh M, Bjorksten AR, Shafer SL, Sessler DI. Induction speed is not a determinant of propofol pharmacodynamics.Anesthesiology. 2004;101:1112–1121.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  21. Minto CF, Schnider TW, Egan TD, et al. Influence of age and gender on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of remifentanil. I. Model development.Anesthesiology. 1997;86:10–23.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Anderson BJ, Holford NHG, Woollard GA, Kanagasundaram S, Mahadevan M. Perioperative pharmacodynamics of acetaminophen analgesia in children.Anesthesiology. 1999;90:411–421.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. Rehberg B, Bouillon T, Grünewald M, et al. Comparison of the concentration-dependent effect of sevoflurane on the spinal H-reflex and the EEG in humans.Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2004;48:569–576.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  24. Johansen JW, Sebel PS. Development and clinical application of electroencephalographic bispectrum monitoring.Anesthesiology. 2000;93:1336–1344.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Röpcke H, Rehberg B, Koenen-Bergmann M, Bouillon T, Bruhn J, Hoeft A. Surgical stimulation shifts EEG concentration-response relationship of desflurane.Anesthesiology. 2001;94:390–399.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Sarton E, Olofsen E, Romberg R, et al. Sex differences in morphine analgesia: an experimental study in healthy volunteers.Anesthesiology. 2000;93:1245–1254.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  27. Luginbühl M, Schnider TW, Petersen-Felix S, Arendt-Nielsen L, Zbinden AM. Comparison of five experimental pain tests to measure analgesic effects of alfentanil.Anesthesiology. 2001;95:22–29.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Olofsen E, Romberg R, Bijl H, et al. Alfentanil and placebo analgesia: no sex differences detected in models of experimental pain.Anesthesiology. 2005;103:130–139.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  29. Romberg RR, Olofsen E, Bijl H, et al. Polymorphism of μ-opioid receptor gene (OPRM1:c. 118A>G) does not protect against opioid-induced respiratory depression despite reduced analgesic response.Anesthesiology. 2005;102:522–530.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  30. Romberg R, Olofsen E, Sarton E, Teppema L, Dahan A. Pharmacodynamic effect of morphine-6-glucoronide versus morphine on hypoxic and hypercapnic breathing in healthy volunteers.Anesthesiology. 2003;99:788–798.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  31. Bouillon T, Bruhn J, Radu-Radulescu L, Andresen C, Cohane C, Shafer SL. A model of the ventilatory-depressant potency of remifentanil in the non-steady state.Anesthesiology. 2003;99:779–787.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  32. Dahan A, Romberg R, Teppema L, Sarton E, Bijl H, Olofsen E. Simultaneous measurement and integrated analysis of analgesia and respiration after an intravenous morphine infusion.Anesthesiology. 2004;101:1201–1209.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  33. Olofsen E, Sleigh JW, Daham A. The influence of remifentanil on the dynamic relationship between sevoflurane and surrogate anesthetic effect measures derived from the EEG.Anesthesiology. 2002;96:555–564.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  34. Minto CF, Schnider TW, Short TG, Gregg KM, Gentilini A, Shafer SL. Response surface model for anesthetic drug interactions.Anesthesiology. 2000;92:1603–1616.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  35. Bouillon TW, Bruhn J, Radulescu L, et al. Pharmacodynamic interaction between propofol and remifentanil regarding hypnosis, tolerance of laryngoscopy, bispectral index, and electroencephalographic approximate entropy.Anesthesiology. 2004;100:1353–1372.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  36. Dahan A, Nieuwenhuijs D, Olofsen E, Sarton E, Romberg R, Teppema L. Response surface modeling of alfentanil-sevoflurane interaction on cardiorespiratory control and bispectral index.Anesthesiology. 2001;94:982–991.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  37. Nieuwenhuijs DJF, Olofsen E, Romberg RR, et al. Response surface modeling of remifentanil-propofol interaction on cardiorespiratory control and bispectral index.Anesthesiology. 2003;98:312–322.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  38. Maitre PO, Bührer M, Thomson D, Stanski DR. A three-step approach combining Bayesian regression: application to midazolam.J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1991;19:377–384.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. Mandema JW, Verotta D, Sheiner LB. Building population pharmacokineticpharmacodynamic models.J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1992;20:511–528.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  40. Ette El. Stability and performance of a population pharmacokinetic model.J Clin Pharmacol. 1997;37:486–495.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. Olofsen E, Dahan A. Response surface modeling of drug interactions: model selection and multimodel inference using the bootstrap. In: Ward DS, Dahan A, Teppema LJSM, eds.Pharmacology and Pathophysiology of the Control of Breathing. New York: Marcel Dekker; 2005.

    Google Scholar 

  42. Bonate PL. The effect of collinearity on parameter estimates in nonlinear mixed effects models.Pharm Res. 1999;16:709–717.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  43. Ribbing J, Jonsson EN. Power, selection bias and predictive performance of the population pharmacokinetic covariate model.J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2004;31:109–134.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. Wählby U, Jonsson EN, Karlsson MO. assessment of actual significance levels for covariate effects in NONMEN.J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2001;28:231–252.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  45. Wallenstein GC, Stangier J, Ludden TM. Analyzing rich data using different methods provided by NONMEM: pharmacokinetics of telmisartan following intravenous infusion to healthy volunteers.Pharm Res. 1999;16:772–776.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  46. Jonsson EN, Karlsson MO. Nonlinearity detection: advantages of nonlinear mixed-effects modeling.AAPS Pharm Sci. 2000;2:E32.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  47. Lindsey JK, Jones B, Jarvis P. Some statistical issues in modelling pharmacokinetic data.Stat Med. 2001;20:2775–2783.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  48. Sheiner LB. The intellectual health of clinical drug evaluation.Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1991;50:4–9.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  49. Burnham KP, Anderson DR. Model Selection and Multimodel Inference, 2nd ed. New York: Springer; 2002.

    Google Scholar 

  50. Akaike H. A new look at the statistical model identification.IEEE Trans Automat Contr. 1974;19:716–723.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Kuipers JA, Boer F, DeRoode A, Olofsen E, Bovill JG, Burm AGL. Modeling population pharmacokinetics of lidocaine: should cardiac output be included as a patient factor?Anesthesiology. 2001;94:566–573.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  52. Minto CF, Schnider TW, Shafer SL. Pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of remifentanil. II. Model application.Anesthesiology. 1997;86:24–33.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  53. Short TG, Ho TY, Minto CF, Schnider TW, Shafer SL. Efficient trial design for eliciting a pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model-based response surface describing the interaction between two intravenous anesthetic drugs.Anesthesiology. 2002;96:400–408.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  54. Roy A, Ette El. A pragmatic approach to the design of population pharmacokinetic studies.AAPSJ PharmSciTech. In press.

  55. Lu W, Bailey JM. Reliability of pharmacodynamic analysis by logistic regression—a simulation study.Anesthesiology. 2000;92:985–992.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  56. Jönsson S, Kjellson MC, Karlsson MO. Estimating bias in population parameters for some models for repeated measures ordinal data using NONMEM and NLMIXED.J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2004;31:299–320.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Yano Y, Beal SL, Sheiner LB. Evaluating pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic models using the posterior predictive check.J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2001;28:171–192.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  58. Maitre PO, Stanski DR. Bayesian forecasting improves the prediction of intraoperative plasma concentrations of alfentanil.Anesthesiology. 1988;69:652–659.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  59. Brater DC. Bayesian dosing of anesthetic agents: esoteric or practical.Anesthesiology. 1988;69:641–462.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  60. Schnider TW, Minto CF, Bruckert H, Mandema JW. Population pharmacodynamic modeling and covariate detection for central neural blockade.Anesthesiology. 1996;85:502–512.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  61. Sheiner LB, Beal S, Rosenberg B, Marathe VV. Forecasting individual pharmacokinetics.Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1979;26:294–305.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  62. Gentilini A, Frei CW, Glattfedler AH, et al. Multitasked closed-loop control in anesthesia.IEEE Eng Med Biol Mag. 2001;20:39–53.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  63. Fisher DM, Wright PMC. Are plasma concentration values necessary for pharmacodynamic modeling of muscle relaxants?Anesthesiology. 1997;86:567–575.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anesthesiology P5-Q, Leiden University Medical Center, PO Box 9600, 2300 RC, Leiden, The Netherlands

    Erik Olofsen & Albert Dahan

Authors
  1. Erik Olofsen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Albert Dahan
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Erik Olofsen.

Additional information

Published: October 5, 2005

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Olofsen, E., Dahan, A. Population pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of anesthetics. AAPS J 7, 39 (2005). https://doi.org/10.1208/aapsj070239

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1208/aapsj070239

Keywords

Search

Navigation