Author:
Amann Lisa F.,Wicha Sebastian G.
Abstract
AbstractAn adequate covariate selection is a key step in population pharmacokinetic modelling. In this study, the automated stepwise covariate modelling technique (‘scm’) was compared to full random effects modelling (‘frem’). We evaluated the power to identify a ‘true’ covariate (covariate with highest correlation to the pharmacokinetic parameter), precision, and accuracy of the parameter-covariate estimates. Furthermore, the predictive performance of the final models was assessed. The scenarios varied in covariate effect sizes, number of individuals (n = 20–500) and covariate correlations (0–90% cov-corr). The PsN ‘frem’ routine provides a 90% confidence intervals around the covariate effects. This was used to evaluate its operational characteristics for a statistical backward elimination procedure, defined as ‘fremposthoc’ and to facilitate the comparison to ‘scm’. ‘Fremposthoc’ had a higher power to detect the true covariate with lower bias in small n studies compared to ‘scm’, applied with commonly used settings (forward p < 0.05, backward p < 0.01). This finding was vice versa in a statistically similar setting. For ‘fremposthoc’, power, precision and accuracy of the covariate coefficient increased with higher number of individuals and covariate effect magnitudes. Without a backward elimination step ‘frem’ models provided unbiased coefficients with highly imprecise coefficients in small n datasets. Yet, precision was superior to final ‘scm’ model precision obtained using common settings. We conclude that ‘fremposthoc’ is also a suitable method to guide covariate selection, although intended to serve as a full model approach. However, a deliberated selection of automated methods is essential for the modeller and using those methods in small datasets needs to be taken with caution.
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Reference20 articles.
1. U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for industry: Pharmacokinetics in patients with impaired hepatic function: Study design, data analysis, and impact on dosing and labeling, U.S.Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER),Center for Biologics Evaluation and Research (CBER), May 2003.Clinical Pharmacology. Available from http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm072123.pdf. Accessed 23 Jun 2022
2. Gastonguay MR. Full covariate models as an alternative tomethods relying on statistical significance for inferences aboutcovariate effects: a review of methodology and 42 case studies. Twentieth Meeting, Population Approach Group in Europe; 2011 Jun 7–10; Athens. Available at https://www.page-meeting.org/pdf_assets/1694-GastonguayPAGE2011.pdf. Accessed 06 Jan 2023
3. Jonsson EN, Karlsson MO (1998) Automated covariate model building within NONMEM. Pharm Res 15:1463–1468. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1011970125687
4. Ribbing J, Nyberg J, Caster O, Jonsson EN (2007) The lasso—a novel method for predictive covariate model building in nonlinear mixed effects models. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 34:485–517. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10928-007-9057-1
5. Wahlby U, Jonsson EN, Karlsson MO (2002) Comparison of stepwise covariate model building strategies in population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic analysis. AAPS PharmSci 4:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1208/ps040427
Cited by
4 articles.
订阅此论文施引文献
订阅此论文施引文献,注册后可以免费订阅5篇论文的施引文献,订阅后可以查看论文全部施引文献