Extensions to the Visual Predictive Check to facilitate model performance evaluation

The Visual Predictive Check (VPC) is a valuable and supportive instrument for evaluating model performance. However in its most commonly applied form, the method largely depends on a subjective comparison of the distribution of the simulated data with the observed data, without explicitly quantifying and relating the information in both. In recent adaptations to the VPC this drawback is taken into consideration by presenting the observed and predicted data as percentiles. In addition, in some of these adaptations the uncertainty in the predictions is represented visually. However, it is not assessed whether the expected random distribution of the observations around the predicted median trend is realised in relation to the number of observations. Moreover the influence of and the information residing in missing data at each time point is not taken into consideration. Therefore, in this investigation the VPC is extended with two methods to support a less subjective and thereby more adequate evaluation of model performance: (i) the Quantified Visual Predictive Check (QVPC) and (ii) the Bootstrap Visual Predictive Check (BVPC). The QVPC presents the distribution of the observations as a percentage, thus regardless the density of the data, above and below the predicted median at each time point, while also visualising the percentage of unavailable data. The BVPC weighs the predicted median against the 5th, 50th and 95th percentiles resulting from a bootstrap of the observed data median at each time point, while accounting for the number and the theoretical position of unavailable data. The proposed extensions to the VPC are illustrated by a pharmacokinetic simulation example and applied to a pharmacodynamic disease progression example.

[1]  N. Holford,et al.  Population Pharmacokinetics of Humanized Monoclonal Antibody HuCC49ΔCH2 and Murine Antibody CC49 in Colorectal Cancer Patients , 2007, Journal of clinical pharmacology.

[2]  L B Sheiner,et al.  Pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling in drug development. , 2000, Annual review of pharmacology and toxicology.

[3]  C Garnett,et al.  Impact of Pharmacometric Reviews on New Drug Approval and Labeling Decisions—a Survey of 31 New Drug Applications Submitted Between 2005 and 2006 , 2007, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[4]  J. Windeler,et al.  Intention-to-treat: methods for dealing with missing values in clinical trials of progressively deteriorating diseases. , 2001, Statistics in medicine.

[5]  Geert Verbeke,et al.  Multiple Imputation for Model Checking: Completed‐Data Plots with Missing and Latent Data , 2005, Biometrics.

[6]  W. Winter,et al.  A Mechanism-based Disease Progression Model for Comparison of Long-term Effects of Pioglitazone, Metformin and Gliclazide on Disease Processes Underlying Type 2 Diabetes Mellitus , 2006, Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics.

[7]  Mark E. Sale,et al.  A Joint Model for Nonlinear Longitudinal Data with Informative Dropout , 2003, Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics.

[8]  W Ewy,et al.  Model‐based Drug Development , 2007, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[9]  France Mentré,et al.  Metrics for External Model Evaluation with an Application to the Population Pharmacokinetics of Gliclazide , 2006, Pharmaceutical Research.

[10]  N H Holford,et al.  Drug treatment effects on disease progression. , 2001, Annual review of pharmacology and toxicology.

[11]  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.

[12]  R. Urquhart,et al.  Comparison of pioglitazone and gliclazide in sustaining glycemic control over 2 years in patients with type 2 diabetes. , 2005, Diabetes care.

[13]  Nicholas H. G. Holford,et al.  The Visual Predictive Check Superiority to Standard Diagnostic (Rorschach) Plots , 2005 .

[14]  L Aarons Pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic modelling in drug development. , 1999, Statistical methods in medical research.

[15]  Jogarao V. S. Gobburu,et al.  A new equivalence based metric for predictive check to qualify mixed-effects models , 2005, The AAPS Journal.

[16]  L. Sheiner,et al.  Evaluating Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Models Using the Posterior Predictive Check , 2001, Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics.

[17]  J. Nutt,et al.  Disease Progression and Pharmacodynamics in Parkinson Disease – Evidence for Functional Protection with Levodopa and Other Treatments , 2006, Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics.

[18]  L B Sheiner,et al.  Learning versus confirming in clinical drug development , 1997, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[19]  Adrian Dunne,et al.  Analysis of Nonrandomly Censored Ordered Categorical Longitudinal Data from Analgesic Trials , 1997 .

[20]  France Mentré,et al.  Prediction Discrepancies for the Evaluation of Nonlinear Mixed-Effects Models , 2006, Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics.