Comparisons Between Hamiltonian Monte Carlo and Maximum A Posteriori For A Bayesian Model For Apixaban Induction Dose & Dose Personalization

Precision medicine’s slogan is “right drug – right patient – right time.” Implicit in the slogan is “right dose”; however, determining the right dose for any one patient can be challenging when dose-response data are limited. Bayesian methods, with their ability to explicitly incorporate prior information to supplement limited data, have been proposed as a solution to this problem. Although Hamiltonian Monte Carlo (HMC) is a leading methodology for inference in Bayesian models because of its ability to capture posterior distributions with high fidelity, dose personalization studies commonly use simpler Maximum A Posteriori (MAP) inference methods. The impact of the choice of inference engine on dose decision-making has not been explored. To better understand this issue, we perform a simulation study characterizing the differences between inferences made via MAP and HMC for personalized dosing strategies. The simulation study uses a new Bayesian pharmacokinetic model for apixaban pharmacokinetics written in an open source Bayesian language; the model code and posterior summaries of all parameters will be publicly available. We demonstrate that the differences between HMC and MAP are non-trivial and can greatly affect the choices surrounding dose selection for personalized medicine.

[1]  Richard E. Turner,et al.  Magnetic Hamiltonian Monte Carlo , 2016, ICML.

[2]  Andrew Gelman,et al.  The No-U-turn sampler: adaptively setting path lengths in Hamiltonian Monte Carlo , 2011, J. Mach. Learn. Res..

[3]  Jon Wakefield,et al.  Gamma Generalized Linear Models for Pharmacokinetic Data , 2008, Biometrics.

[4]  Dan M Roden,et al.  Genetic determinants of response to warfarin during initial anticoagulation. , 2008, The New England journal of medicine.

[5]  Michael Betancourt,et al.  A Conceptual Introduction to Hamiltonian Monte Carlo , 2017, 1701.02434.

[6]  Jiqiang Guo,et al.  Stan: A Probabilistic Programming Language. , 2017, Journal of statistical software.

[7]  Mohammad Karim Sohrabi,et al.  Multi-objective feature selection for warfarin dose prediction , 2017, Comput. Biol. Chem..

[8]  Harumi Takahashi,et al.  Differences in Warfarin Pharmacodynamics and Predictors of Response Among Three Racial Populations , 2019, Clinical Pharmacokinetics.

[9]  Ingrid Glurich,et al.  Evaluation of Genetic Factors for Warfarin Dose Prediction , 2007, Clinical Medicine & Research.

[10]  Natacha Lenuzza,et al.  A limited sampling strategy based on maximum a posteriori Bayesian estimation for a five-probe phenotyping cocktail , 2015, European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology.

[11]  Feng Yu,et al.  Development of a novel individualized warfarin dose algorithm based on a population pharmacokinetic model with improved prediction accuracy for Chinese patients after heart valve replacement , 2017, Acta Pharmacologica Sinica.

[12]  R. Mathôt,et al.  Pharmacokinetic-guided dosing of factor VIII concentrate in a morbidly obese severe haemophilia A patient undergoing orthopaedic surgery , 2019, BMJ Case Reports.

[13]  Wonkyung Byon,et al.  Apixaban: A Clinical Pharmacokinetic and Pharmacodynamic Review , 2019, Clinical Pharmacokinetics.

[14]  Zahra Kassam,et al.  Su1495 - Apixaban and Rosuvastatin Pharmacokinetics in Nonalcoholic Fatty Liver Disease , 2018 .

[15]  C. Staatz,et al.  Population Pharmacokinetic Modelling and Bayesian Estimation of Tacrolimus Exposure: Is this Clinically Useful for Dosage Prediction Yet? , 2016, Clinical Pharmacokinetics.

[16]  Lee A. Segel,et al.  Mathematics applied to deterministic problems in the natural sciences , 1974, Classics in applied mathematics.

[17]  J. Bennett,et al.  Bayesian analysis of population pharmacokinetic models. , 1996 .

[18]  Cees Neef,et al.  A limited sampling strategy to estimate exposure of once-daily modified release tacrolimus in renal transplant recipients using linear regression analysis and comparison with Bayesian population pharmacokinetics in different cohorts , 2020, European Journal of Clinical Pharmacology.

[19]  Carol Coupland,et al.  Risks and benefits of direct oral anticoagulants versus warfarin in a real world setting: cohort study in primary care , 2018, British Medical Journal.

[20]  Geoffrey E. Hinton,et al.  Bayesian Learning for Neural Networks , 1995 .

[21]  Daniel Lizotte,et al.  Drug interactions and pharmacogenetic factors contribute to variation in apixaban concentration in atrial fibrillation patients in routine care , 2019, Journal of Thrombosis and Thrombolysis.

[22]  Nick Holford,et al.  Theory‐based pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of S‐ and R‐warfarin and effects on international normalized ratio: influence of body size, composition and genotype in cardiac surgery patients , 2017, British journal of clinical pharmacology.