Impact of censoring data below an arbitrary quantification limit on structural model misspecification

It is not uncommon in pharmacokinetic (PK) studies that some concentrations are censored by the bioanalytical laboratory and reported qualitatively as below the lower limit of quantification (LLOQ). Censoring concentrations below the quantification limit (BQL) has been shown to adversely affect bias and precision of parameter estimates; however, its impact on structural model decision has not been studied. The current simulation study investigated the impact of the percentage of data censored as BQL on the PK structural model decision; evaluated the effect of different coefficient of variation (CV) values to define the LLOQ; and tested the maximum conditional likelihood estimation method in NONMEM VI (YLO). Using a one-compartment intravenous model, data were simulated with 10–50% BQL censoring, while maintaining a 20% CV at LLOQ. In another set of experiments, the LLOQ was chosen to attain CVs of 10, 20, 50 and 100%. Parameters were estimated with both one- and two-compartment models using NONMEM. A type I error was defined as a significantly lower objective function value for the two-compartment model compared to the one-compartment model using the standard likelihood ratio test at α  =  0.05 and α  =  0.01. The type I error rate substantially increased to as high as 96% as the median of percent censored data increased at both the 5% and 1% alpha levels. Restricting the CV to 10% caused a higher type I error rate compared to the 20% CV, while the error rate was reduced to the nominal value as the CV increased to 100%. The YLO option prevented the type I error rate from being elevated. This simulation study has shown that the practice of assigning a LLOQ during analytical methods development, although well intentioned, can lead to incorrect decisions regarding the structure of the pharmacokinetic model. The standard operating procedures in analytical laboratories should be adjusted to provide a quantitative value for all samples assayed in the drug development setting where sophisticated modeling may occur. However, the current level of precision may need to be maintained when laboratory results are to be used for direct patient care in a clinical setting. Finally, the YLO option should be considered when more than 10% of data are censored as BQL.

[1]  Stuart L. Beal Conditioning on Certain Random Events Associated with Statistical Variability in PK/PD , 2005, Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics.

[2]  Lewis B. Sheiner,et al.  Population Pharmacokinetics of Nevirapine, Zidovudine, and Didanosine in Human Immunodeficiency Virus-Infected Patients , 1999, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.

[3]  E. Capparelli,et al.  Pharmacokinetics of zidovudine in infants: A population analysis across studies , 1999, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[4]  Mats O. Karlsson,et al.  Impact of Omission or Replacement of Data Below the Limit of Quantification on Parameter Estimates in a Two-Compartment Model , 2002, Pharmaceutical Research.

[5]  Peter L. Anderson,et al.  Pharmacological Basis for Concentration-Controlled Therapy with Zidovudine, Lamivudine, and Indinavir , 2001, Antimicrobial Agents and Chemotherapy.

[6]  Steven G. Woolfrey,et al.  Analysis of Toxicokinetic Data Using NONMEM: Impact of Quantification Limit and Replacement Strategies for Censored Data , 2001, Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics.

[7]  Stuart L. Beal,et al.  Ways to Fit a PK Model with Some Data Below the Quantification Limit , 2001, Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics.

[8]  Lewis B. Sheiner,et al.  Some suggestions for measuring predictive performance , 1981, Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Biopharmaceutics.

[9]  G. Molenberghs Applied Longitudinal Analysis , 2005 .

[10]  D. Stram,et al.  Variance components testing in the longitudinal mixed effects model. , 1994, Biometrics.

[11]  Paul Palumbo,et al.  Population Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics of Zidovudine in HIV‐Infected Infants and Children , 2003, Journal of clinical pharmacology.

[12]  Vinod P. Shah,et al.  Bioanalytical Method Validation—A Revisit with a Decade of Progress , 2000, Pharmaceutical Research.

[13]  Richard C Brundage,et al.  Concentration-controlled compared with conventional antiretroviral therapy for HIV infection , 2002, AIDS.