Comparison of some practical sampling strategies for population pharmacokinetic studies

Abstract

Using population analysis, sparsely sampled Phase 3 clinical data can be utilized to determine the pharmacokinetic characteristics of the target population. Data arising from such studies are likely to be constrained to certain sampling windows, i.e., the visiting hours at the study clinic. When the sampling window is narrow compared to the half-life of the drug, the advantage of taking more than one sample is not obvious. Study designs with one or two samples per visit have been compared with respect to (i) precision and bias of the population parameter estimates, (ii) the ability to identify the underlying pharmacokinetic model, and (iii) the estimation of individual parameter values. The first point was assessed using simulated data while the latter two were studied using a real data set. Results show: (i) Parameter estimates are more biased and imprecise when only one sample is taken compared to when two samples are obtained, this is true irrespective of the time span between the two samples. (ii) Ability to identify a more complex model is increased if two samples are taken. Specifically, the variability between occasions can be quantified. (iii) Two-sample designs are generally better with respect to prediction of individual parameter values. Even minor changes to commonly employed study designs, in this case the addition of one sample at each study occasion, can improve quality and quantity of the information obtained.