Advertisement

Clinical Pharmacokinetics

, Volume 37, Issue 1, pp 41–58 | Cite as

Population Pharmacokinetics

A Regulatory Perspective
  • He SunEmail author
  • Emmanuel O. Fadiran
  • Carolyn D. Jones
  • Lawrence Lesko
  • Shiew-Mei Huang
  • Karen Higgins
  • Chuanpu Hu
  • Stella Machado
  • Samuel Maldonado
  • Roger Williams
  • Mohammad Hossain
  • Ene I. Ette
Review Articles Concepts

Abstract

The application of population approaches to drug development is recommended in several US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) guidance documents. Population pharmacokinetic (and pharmacodynamic) techniques enable identification of the sources of inter- and intra-individual variability that impinge upon drug safety and efficacy. This article briefly discusses the 2-stage approach to the estimation of population pharmacokinetic parameters, which requires serial multiple measurements on each participant, and comprehensively reviews the nonlinear mixed-effects modelling approach, which can be applied in situations where extensive sampling is not done on all or any of the participants.

Certain preliminary information, such as the compartment model used in describing the pharmacokinetics of the drug, is required for a population pharmacokinetic study. The practical design considerations of the location of sampling times, number of samples/participants and the need to sample an individual more than once should be borne in mind. Simulation may be useful for choosing the study design that will best meet study objectives.

The objectives of the population pharmacokinetic study can be secondary to the objectives of the primary clinical study (in which case an add-on population pharmacokinetic protocol may be needed) or primary (when a stand-alone protocol is required). Having protocols for population pharmacokinetic studies is an integral part of ‘good pharmacometric practice’.

Real-time data assembly and analysis permit an ongoing evaluation of site compliance with the study protocol and provide the opportunity to correct violations of study procedures. Adequate policies and procedures should be in place for study blind maintenance. Real-time data assembly creates the opportunity for detecting and correcting errors in concentration-time data, drug administration history and covariate data.

Population pharmacokinetic analyses may be undertaken in 3 interwoven steps: exploratory data analysis, model development and model validation (i.e. predictive performance). Documentation for regulatory purposes should include a complete inventory of key runs in the analyses undertaken (with flow diagrams if possible), accompanied by articulation of objectives, assumptions and hypotheses. Use of diagnostic analyses of goodness of fit as evidence of reliability of results is advised. Finally, the use of stability testing or model validation may be warranted to support label claims.

The opinions expressed in this article were revised by incorporating comments from various sources and published by the FDA as ‘Guidance for Industry: Population Pharmacokinetics’ (see the FDA home page http://www.fda.gov for further information).

Keywords

Adis International Limited Exploratory Data Analysis Population Pharmacokinetic Model Population Pharmacokinetic Study Standardise Prediction Error 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Peck C, Barr W, Benet L, et al. Opportunities for integration of pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics and toxikinetics in rational drug development. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1992; 51: 465–73.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aarons L. Population pharmacokinetics: theory and practice. Br J Clin Pharmacol 1991; 32: 669–70.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Levy G. Commentary: what are narrow therapeutic index drugs?. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1998; 63: 501–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Steimer JL, Vozeh S, Racine-Poon A, et al. The population approach: rationale, methods, and applications in clinical pharmacology and drug development [chapter 15]. In: Welling PG, Balant LP, editors. Pharmacokinetics of drugs (Handbook of experimental pharmacology). Berlin-Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 1994:404–51.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Samara E, Granne R. Role of pharmacokinetics in drug development: a pharmaceutical industry perspective. Clin Pharmacokinet 1997; 32(4): 294–312.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ette EI, Miller R, Gillespie WR, et al. The population approach: FDA experience. In: Aarons L, Balant LP, Danhof M, et al., editors. The population approach: measuring and managing variability in response, concentration and dose. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities, European Cooperation in the Field of Scientific and Technical Research, 1997: 271–5.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Sheiner LB, Beal SL. Evaluation of methods for estimating population pharmacokinetic parameters: I. Michaelis-Menten model: routine clinical data. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 1980; 8: 553–71.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sheiner LB, Beal SL. Evaluation of methods for estimating population pharmacokinetic parameters: I. Biexponential model and experimental pharmacokinetic data. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 1981; 9: 635–51.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sheiner LB, Beal SL. Evaluation of methods for estimating population pharmacokinetic parameters: I. Monoexponential model and routine clinical data. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 1983; 11: 303–19.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Steimer JL, Mallet A, Golmard JL, et al. Alternative approaches to the estimation of population pharmacokinetic parameters: comparison with the nonlinear mixed effects model. Drug Metab Rev 1984; 15: 265–92.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Prevost G. Estimation of a normal probability density function from samples measured with non-negligible and non-constant dispersion [in French]. Internal Report 6–77, Adersa-Gerbios, 2 avenue du 1er mai, F-91120 Palaiseau, France. Palaiseau: Adersa-Gerbios, 1984.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Racine-Poon A, Smith AMF. Population models. In: Berry DA, editors. Statistical methodology in pharmaceutical sciences. New York: Dekker, 1990: 139–62.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Beal SL, Sheiner LB. Estimating population pharmacokinetics. CRC Critical Rev Biomed Eng 1982; 8: 195–222.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Whiting B, Kelman A, Grevel J. Population pharmacokinetics: theory and clinical application. Clin Pharmacokinet 1986; 11: 387–401.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Sheiner LB. Learning vs. confirming in clinical drug development. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1997; 61: 275–91.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Phases of an investigation. Code of Federal Regulations. 21 Pt 312. Section 21.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Vozeh S, Steimer JL, Rowland M, et al. The use of population pharmacokinetics in drug development. Clin Pharmacokinet 1996; 30: 81–93.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Temple R. The clinical investigation of drug use by the elderly: Food and Drug guidances. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1987; 42: 681–5.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    E7 studies in support of special populations: geriatrics. ICH Guidance. Bethesda (MD): Federal Register. National Archives and Records Administration; 1994 Aug 2 (59 FR 39398).Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Steimer JL, Mentre F, Mallet A. Population studies for evaluation of pharmacokinetic variability: why? how? when? In: Aiache JM, Hirtz J, editors. Experimental pharmacokinetics. 2nd European Congress on Biopharmaceutics and Pharmacokinetics. Vol. 2. Paris: Lavoisier, 1996: 40–9.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Sheiner LB, Benet LZ. Postmarketing observational studies of population pharmacokinetics of new drugs. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1985; 38: 481–7.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wade JR, Kelman AW, Howie CA, et al. Effect of mis specification of the absorption process on subsequent parameter estimation in population analysis. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 1993; 21: 209–22.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hashimoto Y, Sheiner LB. Designs for population pharmacodynamics: value of pharmacokinetic data and population analysis. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 1991; 19: 333–53.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Al-Banna MK, Kelman AW, Whiting B. Experimental design and efficient parameter estimation in population pharmacokinetics. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 1990; 18: 347–60.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Ette EI, Sun H, Ludden TM. Design of population pharmacokinetic studies. Proceedings of the American Statistics Association (Biopharmaceutics Section); 1994: 487–92.Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Jones CD, Sun H, Ette EL. Designing cross-sectional pharmacokinetic studies: implications for pediatric and animal studies. Clin Res Regul Affairs 1996; 13(3–4): 133–65.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Johnson NE, Wade JR, Karlsson MO. Comparison of some practical sampling strategies for population pharmacokinetic studies. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 1996; 24(6): 245–72.Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sun H, Ette EI, Ludden TM. On error in the recording of sampling times and parameter estimation from repeated measures pharmacokinetic data. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 1996; 24(6): 635–48.Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Karlsson MO, Sheiner LB. The importance of modeling interoccasion variability in population pharmacokinetic analyses. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 1993; 21(6): 735–50.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Hale M, Gillespie WR, Gupt SK, et al. Clinical simulation: streamlining your drug development process. Appl Clin Trials 1996; 5: 35–40.Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Aarons L, Balant PL, Mentre F, et al. Practical experience and issues in designing and performing population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic studies. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 1995; 49: 251–54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Girard P, Sheiner LB, Kastrissios H, et al. Do we need full compliance data for population pharmacokinetic analysis. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 1996; 24: 265–82.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Grasela TH, Antal EJ, Fiedler-Kelley J, et al. An automated drug concentration screening and quality assurance program for clinical trials. Drug Info J. In press.Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Fiedler-Kelly JD, Foit DJ, Knuth DW, et al. Development of a real-time, therapeutic drug monitoring system, delavardine registration trials. Pharm Res 1996: 13 Suppl.: S454.Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Rombout F. Good pharmacokinetic practice (GPP) and logistics a continuing challenge. In: Aarons L, Balant LP, Danhof M, et al., editors. The population approach: measuring and managing variability in response, concentration and dose. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities, European Cooperation in the Field of Scientific and Technical Research, 1997: 183–93.Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Higgins KM, Davidian M, Giltinan DM. A two-step approach to measurement error in time-dependent covariates in nonlinear mixed effects models, with application to Igf-1 pharmacokinetics. J Am Stat Assoc 1997; 92: 436–48.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Donner A. The relative effectiveness of procedures commonly used in multiple regression analysis for dealing with missing values. Am Stat 1982; 36: 378–81.Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Rubin DB. Multiple imputation after 18+ years. J Am Stat Assoc 1996; 91: 473–89.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Rubin DB. Inference and missing data. Biometrika 1976; 63: 581–2.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Ette EI, Sun H, Ludden TM. Ignorability and parameter estimation in longitudinal pharmacokinetics studies. J Clin Pharmacol 1998; 38: 221–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Fattinger KE, Sheiner LB, Verotta D. A new method to explore the distribution of interindividual random effects in nonlinear mixed effects models. Biometrics 1996; 51: 1236–51.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Mallet A. A maximum likelihood estimation method for random coefficient regression models. Biometrika 1986; 73: 645–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. 43.
    Wakefield J. The bayesian analysis of population pharmacokinetic models. J Am Stat Assoc 1996; 91: 62–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Ette EI. Statistical graphics in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics: a tutorial. Ann Pharmacother 1998; 32: 818–28.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Ette EI, Ludden TM. Population pharmacokinetic modeling: the importance of informative graphics. Pharm Res 1995; 12(12): 1845–55.PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. 46.
    Mandema JW, Verotta D, Sheiner LB. Building population pharmacokinetic-pharmacokinetic models: I. Models for covariate effects. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 1992; 20: 511–28.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. 47.
    Peck C. Population approach in pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamic: FDA view. Proceedings of the COST B1 Conference; 1991; Manchester. Brussels: European Commission, 1992: 157–68.Google Scholar
  48. 48.
    Karlsson MO, Jonsson EN, Wiltse CG, et al. 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.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  49. 49.
    Mandema JW, Verotta D, Sheiner LB. Building population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic models. In: D’Argenio DZ, editor. Advanced pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic systems analysis. New York: Plenum Press, 1995: 69–86.Google Scholar
  50. 50.
    Sheiner LB. Analysis of pharmacokinetic data using parametric models: II. Hypothesis tests and confidence intervals. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 1986; 14: 539–55.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Ette EI. Population model stability and performance. J Clin Pharmacol 1997; 37: 486–95.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Roecker EB, Prediction error and its estimation for subset-selected models. Technometrics 1991; 33: 459–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  53. 53.
    Efron B. Estimating the error rate of a prediction rule: improvement on cross-validation. J Am Stat Assoc 1983; 78: 316–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Sheiner LB, Beal LB. Some suggestions for measuring predictive performance. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 1981; 9: 503–12.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. 55.
    Mentre F, Ebelin ME. Validation of population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analyses: review of proposed approaches. In: Aarons L, Balant LP, Danhof M, et al., editors. The population approach: measuring and managing variability in response, concentration and dose. Brussels: Commission of the European Communities, European Cooperation in the Field of Scientific and Technical Research, 1997: 147–60.Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Williams PJ, Lane JR, Capparelli ED, et al. Direct comparison of three methods for predicting digoxin concentrations. Pharmacotherapy 1996; 16: 1085–92.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Vozeh S, Maitre PO, Stanski DR. Evaluation of population (NONMEM) pharmacokinetic parameter estimates. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 1990; 18: 161–73.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Beal SL. Validation of a population model. E-mail to NONMEM usersnet participants. 1994 Feb 2 (http://www.phar.com/nonmeml/nmo/topic006.html).
  59. 59.
    Bruno R, Vivier N, Vergniol JC, et al. A population pharmacokinetic model for docetaxel (taxotere7): model building and validation. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 1996; 24: 153–72.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  60. 60.
    Gelman A, Carlin JB, Stern HS, et al. Bayesian data analysis. New York: Chapman and Hall, 1995.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Adis International Limited 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • He Sun
    • 1
    Email author
  • Emmanuel O. Fadiran
    • 1
  • Carolyn D. Jones
    • 2
  • Lawrence Lesko
    • 1
  • Shiew-Mei Huang
    • 1
  • Karen Higgins
    • 1
  • Chuanpu Hu
    • 1
  • Stella Machado
    • 1
  • Samuel Maldonado
    • 3
  • Roger Williams
    • 1
  • Mohammad Hossain
    • 4
  • Ene I. Ette
    • 5
  1. 1.Center for Drug Evaluation and ResearchFood and Drug AdministrationRockvilleUSA
  2. 2.Solvay PharmeceuticalMarietaUSA
  3. 3.Boehringer Ingelheim PharmeceuticalsRidgefieldUSA
  4. 4.Novartis PharmaceuticalsEast HanoverUSA
  5. 5.Vertex PharmaceuticalsCambridgeUSA

Personalised recommendations