Simultaneous vs. Sequential Analysis for Population PK/PD Data I: Best-Case Performance

Dose [-concentration]-effect relationships can be obtained by fitting a predictive pharmacokinetic (PK)-pharmacodynamic (PD) model to both concentration and effect observations. Either a model can be fit simultaneously to all the data (“simultaneous” method), or first a model can be fit to the PK data and then a model can be fit to the PD data, conditioning in some way on the PK data or on the estimates of the PK parameters (“sequential” method). Using simulated data, we compare the performance of the simultaneous method with that of three sequential method variants with respect to computation time, estimation precision, and inference. Using NONMEM, under various study designs, observations of one type of PK and one type of PD response from different numbers of individuals were simulated according to a one-compartment PK model and direct Emax PD model, with parameters drawn from an appropriate population distribution. The same PK and PD models were fit to these observations using simultaneous and sequential methods. Performance measures include computation time, fraction of cases for which estimates are successfully obtained, precision of PD parameter estimates, precision of PD parameter standard error estimates, and type-I error rates of a likelihood ratio test. With the sequential method, computation time is less, and estimates are more likely to be obtained. Using the First Order Conditional Estimation (FOCE) method, a sequential approach that conditions on both population PK parameter estimates and PK data, estimates PD parameters and their standard errors about as well as the “gold standard” simultaneous method, and saves about 40% computation time. Type-I error rates of likelihood ratio test for both simultaneous and sequential approaches are close to the nominal rates.

[1]  L B Sheiner,et al.  Pharmacokinetic‐pharmacodynamic modeling of caffeine: Tolerance to pressor effects , 1993, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[2]  Amy Racine-Poon,et al.  "The Bayesian approach to population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling". In: Case Studies in Bayesian Statistics (Vol IV), Lecture Notes in Statistics , 1999 .

[3]  A. Gallant,et al.  Nonlinear Statistical Models , 1988 .

[4]  Jon Wakefield,et al.  Population modelling in drug development , 1999, Statistical methods in medical research.

[5]  A. Owen Controlling correlations in latin hypercube samples , 1994 .

[6]  L. Sheiner,et al.  Making the most of sparse clinical data by using a predictive-model-based analysis, illustrated with a stavudine pharmacokinetic study. , 2001, European journal of pharmaceutical sciences : official journal of the European Federation for Pharmaceutical Sciences.

[7]  Marie Davidian,et al.  Nonlinear Models for Repeated Measurement Data , 1995 .

[8]  M. Stein Large sample properties of simulations using latin hypercube sampling , 1987 .

[9]  C. Peck,et al.  Prediction of the outcome of a phase 3 clinical trial of an antischizophrenic agent (quetiapine fumarate) by simulation with a population pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic model , 2000, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[10]  L B Sheiner,et al.  Modeling a bivariate control system: LH and testosterone response to the GnRH antagonist antide. , 1996, The American journal of physiology.

[11]  J Wakefield,et al.  Errors‐in‐Variables in Joint Population Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Modeling , 2001, Biometrics.

[12]  D M Foster,et al.  Developing and testing integrated multicompartment models to describe a single-input multiple-output study using the SAAM II software system. , 1998, Advances in experimental medicine and biology.