Literature DB >> 15379381

Power, selection bias and predictive performance of the Population Pharmacokinetic Covariate Model.

Jakob Ribbing1, E Niclas Jonsson.   

Abstract

Identification and quantification of covariate relations is often an important part of population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) modelling. The covariate model is regularly built in a stepwise manner. With such methods, selection bias may be a problem if only statistically significant covariates are accepted into the model. Competition between multiple covariates may further increase selection bias, especially when there is a moderate to high correlation between the covariates. This can also result in a loss of power to find the true covariates. The aim of this simulation study was to investigate the effect on power, selection bias and predictive performance of the covariate model, when altering study design and system-related quantities. Data sets with 20-1000 subjects were investigated. Five covariates were created by sampling from a multivariate standard normal distribution. The true covariate was set up to have no, low, moderate and high correlation to the other four covariates, respectively. Data sets, in which each individual had two or three PK observations, were simulated using a one-compartment i.v. bolus model. The true covariate influenced clearance according to one of several magnitudes. Different magnitudes of residual error and inter-individual variability in the structural model parameters were also introduced to the simulation model. A total of 7400 replicate data sets were simulated independently for each combination of the above conditions. Models with one of the five simulated covariates influencing clearance and the model without any covariate were fitted to the data. The probability of selecting (according to a pre-specified P-value) the different covariates, along with the estimated covariate coefficient, was recorded. The results show that selection bias is very high for small data sets (< or = 50 subjects) simulated with a weak covariate effect. If selected under these circumstances, the covariate coefficient is on average estimated to be more than twice its true value, making the covariate model useless for predictive purposes. Surprisingly, even though competition from false covariates caused substantial loss in the power of selecting the true covariate, the already high selection bias increased only marginally. This means that the bias due to competition is negligible if statistical significance is also required for covariate selection. Bias and predictive performance are direct functions of power, only indirectly affected by study design and system-related quantities. Mainly because of selection bias, low-powered covariates can be expected to harm the predictive performance when selected. For the same reason these low-powered covariates may falsely appear to be clinically relevant when selected. If the aim of an analysis is predictive modelling, we do not recommend stepwise selection or significance testing of covariates to be performed on small or moderately sized data sets (<50-100 subjects).

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2004        PMID: 15379381     DOI: 10.1023/b:jopa.0000034404.86036.72

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn        ISSN: 1567-567X            Impact factor:   2.745


  11 in total

1.  Stepwise selection in small data sets: a simulation study of bias in logistic regression analysis.

Authors:  E W Steyerberg; M J Eijkemans; J D Habbema
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  Development and implementation of the population Fisher information matrix for the evaluation of population pharmacokinetic designs.

Authors:  S Retout; S Duffull; F Mentré
Journal:  Comput Methods Programs Biomed       Date:  2001-05       Impact factor: 5.428

3.  Assessment of actual significance levels for covariate effects in NONMEM.

Authors:  U Wählby; E N Jonsson; M O Karlsson
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2001-06       Impact factor: 2.745

4.  Design and power of a population pharmacokinetic study.

Authors:  P I Lee
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 4.200

5.  Comparison of stepwise covariate model building strategies in population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic analysis.

Authors:  Ulrika Wählby; E Niclas Jonsson; Mats O Karlsson
Journal:  AAPS PharmSci       Date:  2002

6.  Prediction of creatinine clearance from serum creatinine.

Authors:  D W Cockcroft; M H Gault
Journal:  Nephron       Date:  1976       Impact factor: 2.847

7.  Automated covariate model building within NONMEM.

Authors:  E N Jonsson; M O Karlsson
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  1998-09       Impact factor: 4.200

8.  Comparison of some practical sampling strategies for population pharmacokinetic studies.

Authors:  E N Jonsson; J R Wade; M O Karlsson
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Biopharm       Date:  1996-04

9.  A population pharmacokinetic model for docetaxel (Taxotere): model building and validation.

Authors:  R Bruno; N Vivier; J C Vergniol; S L De Phillips; G Montay; L B Sheiner
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Biopharm       Date:  1996-04

10.  Some suggestions for measuring predictive performance.

Authors:  L B Sheiner; S L Beal
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Biopharm       Date:  1981-08
View more
  60 in total

1.  Design of pharmacokinetic studies for latent covariates.

Authors:  Chakradhar V Lagishetty; Carolyn V Coulter; Stephen B Duffull
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2011-12-10       Impact factor: 2.745

2.  Disease progression model in subjects with mild cognitive impairment from the Alzheimer's disease neuroimaging initiative: CSF biomarkers predict population subtypes.

Authors:  Mahesh N Samtani; Nandini Raghavan; Yingqi Shi; Gerald Novak; Michael Farnum; Victor Lobanov; Tim Schultz; Eric Yang; Allitia DiBernardo; Vaibhav A Narayan
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2013-01       Impact factor: 4.335

Review 3.  The relationship between drug clearance and body size: systematic review and meta-analysis of the literature published from 2000 to 2007.

Authors:  Sarah C McLeay; Glynn A Morrish; Carl M J Kirkpatrick; Bruce Green
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2012-05-01       Impact factor: 6.447

4.  A reduction in between subject variability is not mandatory for selecting a new covariate.

Authors:  Chakradhar V Lagishetty; Pavan Vajjah; Stephen B Duffull
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2012-07-06       Impact factor: 2.745

Review 5.  Interpreting population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic analyses - a clinical viewpoint.

Authors:  Stephen B Duffull; Daniel F B Wright; Helen R Winter
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2011-06       Impact factor: 4.335

Review 6.  Covariate pharmacokinetic model building in oncology and its potential clinical relevance.

Authors:  Markus Joerger
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2012-01-25       Impact factor: 4.009

7.  A population pharmacokinetic model for montelukast disposition in adults and children.

Authors:  Rohini Ramakrishnan; Elizabeth Migoya; Barbara Knorr
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2005-04-07       Impact factor: 4.200

Review 8.  Population pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics of anesthetics.

Authors:  Erik Olofsen; Albert Dahan
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2005-10-05       Impact factor: 4.009

9.  Population pharmacokinetics of intravenous pantoprazole in paediatric intensive care patients.

Authors:  Géraldine Pettersen; Mohamad-Samer Mouksassi; Yves Théorêt; Line Labbé; Christophe Faure; Bao Nguyen; Catherine Litalien
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2008-10-23       Impact factor: 4.335

10.  Busulfan in infant to adult hematopoietic cell transplant recipients: a population pharmacokinetic model for initial and Bayesian dose personalization.

Authors:  Jeannine S McCune; Meagan J Bemer; Jeffrey S Barrett; K Scott Baker; Alan S Gamis; Nicholas H G Holford
Journal:  Clin Cancer Res       Date:  2013-11-11       Impact factor: 12.531

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.