Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Modeling and simulation of the exposure–response and dropout pattern of guanfacine extended-release in pediatric patients with ADHD

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Guanfacine extended-release (GXR) is a selective α2A-adrenergic receptor agonist approved in the United States for once-daily administration for the treatment of attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in children and adolescents ages 6–17 years old either as monotherapy or adjunctive to stimulant medications. This analysis integrates exposure–response, placebo, and dropout data from 10 clinical trials that used GXR in adolescents and children with ADHD. In these trials, the ADHD Rating Scale-IV (ADHD RS-IV) score was collected longitudinally within patients over the course of 6–13 weeks. Non-linear mixed effects models were developed and used to describe the exposure–response of the GXR and placebo time course. The OpenBUGS program was utilized to describe the dropout time course across the trials. Placebo time course was best described by an inverse Bateman function with a 3-group mixture model that allowed for the onset and offset of the placebo response. Dropout time modeling indicated a missing at random mechanism for dropouts which was best described by a Weibull distribution with an estimated percentage of non-dropout patients. A linear exposure–response model with an adolescent effect on maximum slope (SLPmax), and a time delay for reaching SLPmax, provided the best description of the GXR exposure–response time course. The GXR exposure–response model indicated that the typical (95 % confidence interval) decrease in ADHD RS-IV score from the placebo–response trajectory would be 37.1 % (32.2, 42.0 %) per 0.1 mg/kg of GXR exposure. There was little noticeable difference between the exposure–response in adolescents and children or across ADHD subtypes.

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

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. National Institute of Mental Health (2008) Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD), 08-3572 edn. US Department of Health and Human Services

  2. Biederman J, Faraone SV (2005) Attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder. Lancet 366:237–248

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Wolraich M, Brown L, Brown RT, et al (2011) Implementing the key action statements: an algorithm and explanation for process of care for the evaluation, diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring of ADHD in children and adolescents. Pediatrics 128:SI1–SI21

  4. INTUNIV® (guanfacine) extended-release tablets [package insert]

  5. Roberts MS, Nucifora KA, Braithwaite RS (2010) Using mechanistic models to simulate comparative effectiveness trials of therapy and to estimate long-term outcomes in HIV care. Med Care 48:S90–S95

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Lehr T, Staab A, Trommeshauser D, Schaefer HG, Kloft C (2010) Quantitative pharmacology approach in Alzheimer’s disease: efficacy modeling of early clinical data to predict clinical outcome of tesofensine. AAPS J 12:117–129

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Madabushi R, Cox DS, Hossain M et al (2011) Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic basis for effective argatroban dosing in pediatrics. J Clin Pharmacol 51:19–28

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Soto E, Keizer RJ, Troconiz IF et al (2011) Predictive ability of a semi-mechanistic model for neutropenia in the development of novel anti-cancer agents: two case studies. Invest New Drugs 29:984–995

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. De Cock RFW, Piana C, Krekels EHJ, Danhof M, Allegaert K, Knibbe CAJ (2011) The role of population PK-PD modelling in paediatric clinical research. Eur J Clin Pharmacol 67(Suppl 1):5–16

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Friberg LE, de Greef R, Kerbusch T, Karlsson MO (2009) Modeling and simulation of the time course of asenapine exposure response and dropout patterns in acute schizophrenia. Clin Pharmacol Ther 86:84–91

  11. Tod M, Jullien V, Pons G (2008) Facilitation of drug evaluation in children by population methods and modelling. Clin Pharmacokinet 47:231–243

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Riggs MM, Godfrey CJ, Gastonguay M (2007) Clinical trial simulation: efficacy trials. In: Ette EI, Williams PJ (eds) Pharmacometrics: The Science of Quantitative Pharmacology. Wiley, Hoboken, pp 881–902

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  13. Gastonguay MR, French JL, Heitjan DF, Rogers JA, Ahn JE, Ravva P (2010) Missing data in model-based pharmacometric applications: points to consider. J Clin Pharmacol 50:63S–74S

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Thomas RG, Berg JD, Sano M, Thal L (2000) Analysis of longitudinal data in an Alzheimer’s disease clinical trial. Stat Med 19:1433–1440

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Hu C, Szapary PO, Yeilding N, Zhou H (2011) Informative dropout modeling of longitudinal ordered categorical data and model validation: application to exposure-response modeling of physician’s global assessment score for ustekinumab in patients with psoriasis. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 38:237–260

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  16. Beal SL, Sheiner LB, Boeckmann AJ (2006) NONMEM Users Guide: Part I–VII, (1989–2006). Icon Development Solutions, Ellicott City

    Google Scholar 

  17. Benesch M, Kerbl R, Lackner H et al (2003) Low-dose versus high-dose immunoglobulin for primary treatment of acute immune thrombocytopenic purpura in children: results of a prospective, randomized single-center trial. J Pediatr Hematol Oncol 25:797–800

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Savic RM, Karlsson MO (2009) Importance of shrinkage in empirical bayes estimates for diagnostics: problems and solutions. AAPS J 11:558–569

    Article  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Gomeni R, Lavergne A, Merlo-Pich E (2009) Modelling placebo response in depression trials using a longitudinal model with informative dropout. Eur J Pharm Sci 36:4–10

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Lee JY, Gobburu JV (2011) Bayesian quantitative disease-drug-trial models for Parkinson’s disease to guide early drug development. AAPS J 13:508–518

    Article  CAS  PubMed Central  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Newcorn JH, Sutton VK, Zhang S et al (2009) Characteristics of placebo responders in pediatric clinical trials of attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 48:1165–1172

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. Newcorn JH, Sutton VK, Weiss MD, Sumner CR (2009) Clinical responses to atomoxetine in attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder: the Integrated Data Exploratory Analysis (IDEA) study. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 48:511–518

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Goldman AI (1984) Survivorship analysis when cure is a possibility: a Monte Carlo study. Stat Med 3:153–163

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Berkson J, Gage RP (1950) Calculation of survival rates for cancer. Proc Staff Meet Mayo Clin 25:270–286

    CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Farewell VT (1982) The use of mixture models for the analysis of survival data with longterm survivors. Biometrics 38:1041–1046

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Chen MH, Ibrahim JG, Sinha D (1999) A new bayesian model for survival data with a surviving fraction. J Am Stat Assoc 94:746

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Knebel W, Corcoran M, Ermer J, Gastonguay MR (2014) Population pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic analysis of guanfacine in pediatric patients with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (submitted)

Download references

Acknowledgments

With great sadness, the authors acknowledge the passing of Carla White and recognize her contributions to this article. Funding for this research was provided by Shire Development LLC to Metrum Research Group LLC. Wilson Joe, from MedErgy, provided editorial assistance in formatting, proofreading, and copy editing. This support was funded by Shire. Although the sponsor was involved in the design, collection, analysis, interpretation, and fact checking of information, the content of this manuscript, the ultimate interpretation, and the decision to submit it for publication in the Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics were made by all of the authors independently.

Ethical standards

The studies conducted comply with the current laws of the United States of America in which they were performed.

Conflict of interest

William Knebel, Jim Rogers, Dan Polhamus, and Marc R. Gastonguay are employees of Metrum Research Group LLC, which received funding from Shire Development LLC for this study. Carla White, deceased, had served as a consultant for Shire Pharmaceutical Development Ltd, Basingstoke, United Kingdom. James Ermer is an employee of Shire Development LLC and holds stock/stock options in Shire.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Metrum Research Group LLC, 2 Tunxis Rd, Suite 112, Tariffville, CT, 86081, USA

    William Knebel, Jim Rogers, Dan Polhamus & Marc R. Gastonguay

  2. Shire Development LLC, Wayne, PA, 19087, USA

    James Ermer

Authors
  1. William Knebel
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Jim Rogers
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Dan Polhamus
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. James Ermer
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Marc R. Gastonguay
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to William Knebel.

Electronic supplementary material

Below is the link to the electronic supplementary material.

10928_2014_9397_MOESM1_ESM.eps

Fig. S1. Diagnostic plots for placebo model. Population and individual predicted ADHD RS-IV score versus observed score for the placebo model are presented in the top and middle plots, respectively. The line of identity (white) is included as a reference. Conditional weighted residuals versus population predicted ADHD RS-IV scores are presented in the bottom plots. Values are indicated by open circles with a white line at y = 0 as a reference. Plots are subsetted by subject type with children on the left and adolescents on the right. (ADHD RS-IV, Attention-deficit Hyperactivity Disorder Rating Scale-IV.) (EPS 407 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Knebel, W., Rogers, J., Polhamus, D. et al. Modeling and simulation of the exposure–response and dropout pattern of guanfacine extended-release in pediatric patients with ADHD. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 42, 45–65 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10928-014-9397-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10928-014-9397-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation