Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

A comparison of a bayesian population method with two methods as implemented in commercially available software

  • Pharmacometrics
  • Published:
Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Biopharmaceutics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

In this paper we describe and discuss three specific estimation procedures that are available within commercially available population software packages. The first version of NONMEM (1) was released in 1979 and later versions are the standard analysis tools in both industry and academia. Recently, two commercially available pieces of software have become available. PPHARM was released during 1994 and POPKAN was released in 1995. We provide descriptions and critique the FOCE method within NONMEM, the two-step algorithm within PPHARM and the Markov chain Monte Carlo method that is utilized by POPKAN. We use simulated data generated from a monoexponential model to evaluate the parameter estimation capabilities of these methods within the three software tools. In particular we investigate the effect on parameter estimation of increasing both interindividual and intraindividual variability.

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. S. L. Beal and L. B. Sheiner.NONMEM User's Guide Version I. Division of Clinical Pharmacology, University of California, San Francisco, 1979.

    Google Scholar 

  2. J.-L. Steimer, A. Mallet, J.-L. Golmard, and J.-L. Boisvieux. Alternative approaches to estimation of population pharmacokinetic parameters: Comparison with the nonlinear mixed-effects model.Drug Metab. Rev. 15:265–292 (1984).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. A. Racine-Poon. A Bayesian approach to nonlinear random effects models.Biometrics 41:1015–1023 (1985).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. M. J. Lindstrom and D. M. Bates. Nonlinear mixed effects models for repeated measures data.Biometrics 46:673–687 (1990).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. E. F. Vonesh and R. L. Carter. Mixed-effects nonlinear regression for unbalanced repeated measures.Biometrics 48:1–17 (1992).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. J. C. Wakefield, A. F. M. Smith, A. Racine-Poon, and A. E. Gelfand. Bayesian analysis of linear and nonlinear population models using the Gibbs sampler.Appl. Statist. 41:201–221 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. A. Mallet. A maximum likelihood estimation method for random coefficient regression models.Biometrika 73:645–656 (1986).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. M. Davidian and A. R. Gallant. The nonlinear mixed effects model with a smooth random effects density.Biometrika 80:475–488 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. M. Davidian and D. M. Giltinan.Nonlinear Models for Repeated Measures Data, Chapman and Hall, 1995.

  10. L. Yuh, S. Beal, M. Davidian, F. Harrison, A. Hester, K. Kowalski, E. Vonesh, and R. Wolfinger. Population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic methodology and applications: A bibliography.Biometrics 50:566–575 (1994).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. L. B. Sheiner and S. L. Beal. Evaluation of methods for estimating population pharmacokinetic parameters. I. Michaelis-Menten model: Routine clinical pharmacokinetic data.J. Pharmacokin. Biopharm. 8:533–571 (1980).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. L. B. Sheiner and S. L. Beal. Evaluation of methods for estimating pharmacokinetic parameters. II. Biexponential model and experimental pharmacokinetic data.J. Pharmacokin. Biopharm. 9:635–651 (1981).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. L. B. Sheiner and S. L. Beal. Evaluation of methods for estimating population pharmacokinetic parameters. III. Monoexponential model: Routine clinical pharmacokinetic data.J. Pharmacokin. Biopharm. 11:303–319 (1983).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  14. T. H. Grasela, E. J. Antal, R. J. Townsend, and R. B. Smith. An evaluation of population pharmacokinetics in therapeutic trials. Part I. Comparison of methodologies.Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 39:605–612 (1986).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. A. Racine-Poon and A. F. M. Smith. Population models. In D. Berry (ed.),Statistical Methodology in the Pharmaceutical Sciences, Marcel-Dekker, New York, 1990, pp. 139–162.

    Google Scholar 

  16. S. L. Beal and L. B. Sheiner. Estimating population kinetics.CRC Crit. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 8:195–222 (1982).

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. L. B. Sheiner, B. Rosenburg and V. V. Marathe. Estimation of population characteristics of pharmacokinetic parameters from routine clinical data.J. Pharmacokin. Biopharm. 5:445–479 (1977).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  18. N. M. Laird and J. H. Ware. Random-effects models for longitudinal data.Biometrics 38:963–974 (1982).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. M. J. Lindstrom and D. M. Bates. Newton-Raphson and EM algorithms for linear mixed-effects models for repeated-measures data.J. Am. Statist. Assoc. 83:1014–1022 (1988).

    Google Scholar 

  20. S. L. Beal and L. B. Sheiner.NONMEM User's Guide Version IV, Part VII. Conditional Estimation Methods, University of California, San Francisco, 1992.

    Google Scholar 

  21. J. C. Wakefield and S. G. Walker. A Bayesian population approach to initial dose selection.Statist. Med. (in press).

  22. N. H. G. Holford and L. B. Sheiner. Understanding the dose-effect relationship.Clin. Pharmacokin.6:429–453 (1981).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  23. J. C. Pinheiro and D. M. Bates. Approximations to the loglikelihood function in the nonlinear mixed effects model.J. Comput. Graph. Statist. (1995).

  24. R. Wolfinger. Laplace's approximation for nonlinear mixed models.Biometrika 80:791–795 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. E. F. Vonesh. A note on the Laplace's approximation for nonlinear mixed-effects models.Biometrika 83:447–452 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. L. Tierney and J. B. Kadane. Accurate approximations for posterior moments and marginal densities.J. Am. Statist. Assoc. 81:82–86 (1986).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. J.-L. Steimer, S. Vozeh, A. Racine, N. G. Holford, and R. O'Neill. The population approach: Rationale, methods and applications in clinical pharmacology and drug development. InHandbook of Experimental Pharmacology, Vol. 110, Pharmacokinetics of Drugs, Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, 1994.

    Google Scholar 

  28. F. Mentré and G. Gomeni. A two step iterative algorithm for estimation in nonlinear mixed effect models with an evaluation in population pharmacokinetics.J. Biopharm. Statist. 5:141–158 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. G. Prévost. Estimation of a normal probability density function from samples measured with non-negligible and non-constant dispersion. Internal Report, Andersa-Gerbios, 2 avenue du ler mai, F-91120 Palaiseau, 1977.

  30. J. M. Kinowski, M. Rodier, F. Bressolle, D. Fabre, V. Augey, J. L. Richard, M. Galtier, and R. Gomeni. Bayesian estimation ofp-aminohippurate clearance by a limited sampling strategy.J. Pharm. Sci. 84:307–311 (1995).

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. J. M. Kinowski, F. Bressolle, M. Rodier, V. Augey, D. Fabre, J. L. Richard, M. Galtier, and R. Gomeni. A limited sampling model with Bayesian estimation to determine insulin pharmacokinetics using the population data modelling program P-PHARM.Clin. Pharmacokin. 9:260–269 (1995).

    Google Scholar 

  32. A. P. Dempster, N. M. Laird, and D. B. Rubin. Maximum likelihood from incomplete data via the EM algorithm (with discussion).J. Roy. Statist. Soc. B 39:1–38 (1977).

    Google Scholar 

  33. S. G. Walker. An EM algorithm for nonlinear random effects models.Biometrics 52:934–944 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. A. E. Gelfand, S. E. Hills, A. Racine-Poon, and A. F. M. Smith. Illustration of Bayesian inference in normal data models using Gibbs sampling.J. Am. Statist. Assoc. 85:972–985 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  35. L. Tierney. Markov chains for exploring posterior distributions.Ann. Statist. 22:1701–1762 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. J. E. Bennett, A. Racine-Poon, and J. C. Wakefield. Markov chain Monte Carlo for nonlinear hierarchical models. In W. R. Gilks, S. Richardson, and D. J. Spiegelhalter (eds.),Markov Chain Monte Carlo in Practice, Chapman and Hall, London, 1995.

    Google Scholar 

  37. J. C. Wakefield. An expected loss approach to the design of dosage regimens via sampling-based methods.Statistician 43:13–29 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  38. J. C. Wakefield. Bayesian individualization via a sampling-based methods.J. Pharmacokin. Biopharm. 24:103–131 (1996).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  39. J. C. Wakefield. The Bayesian analysis of population pharmacokinetic models.J. Am. Statist. Assoc. 91:62–75 (1966).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. J. C. Wakefield and A. Racine-Poon. An application of Bayesian population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic models to dose recommendation.Statist. Med. 14:971–986 (1995).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  41. A. Racine-Poon and J. C. Wakefield. Bayesian analysis of population pharmacokinetic and instantaneous pharmacodynamic relationships. In D. Berry and D. Stangl (eds.),Bayesian Biostatistics, Marcel Dekker, New York, 1996.

    Google Scholar 

  42. W. R. Gilks, N. G. Best, and K. K. C. Tan. Adaptive Rejection Metropolis sampling within Gibbs sampling.Appl. Statist. 44:455–472 (1995).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  43. N. G. Best, K. K. C. Tan, W. R. Gilks, and D. J. Spiegelhalter. Estimation of population pharmacokinetics using the Gibbs sampler.J. Pharmacokin. Biopharm. 23:407–424 (1995).

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  44. PPHARM.User's manual, SIMED Scientific Software Development, Créteil, France, (1995).

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Mathematics, Imperial College of Science, Technology and Medicine, Huxley Building, 180 Queen's Gate, SW7 2BZ, London, UK

    J. E. Bennett

  2. Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Imperial College School of Medicine at St Mary's, Norfolk Place, W2 1PG, London, UK

    J. C. Wakefield

Authors
  1. J. E. Bennett
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. J. C. Wakefield
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Additional information

The first author's research was supported by Glaxo Wellcome

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bennett, J.E., Wakefield, J.C. A comparison of a bayesian population method with two methods as implemented in commercially available software. Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Biopharmaceutics 24, 403–432 (1996). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02353520

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02353520

Key words

Search

Navigation