Literature DB >> 17963024

Impact of censoring data below an arbitrary quantification limit on structural model misspecification.

Wonkyung Byon1, Courtney V Fletcher, Richard C Brundage.   

Abstract

It is not uncommon in pharmacokinetic (PK) studies that some concentrations are censored by the bioanalytical laboratory and reported qualitatively as below the lower limit of quantification (LLOQ). Censoring concentrations below the quantification limit (BQL) has been shown to adversely affect bias and precision of parameter estimates; however, its impact on structural model decision has not been studied. The current simulation study investigated the impact of the percentage of data censored as BQL on the PK structural model decision; evaluated the effect of different coefficient of variation (CV) values to define the LLOQ; and tested the maximum conditional likelihood estimation method in NONMEM VI (YLO). Using a one-compartment intravenous model, data were simulated with 10-50% BQL censoring, while maintaining a 20% CV at LLOQ. In another set of experiments, the LLOQ was chosen to attain CVs of 10, 20, 50 and 100%. Parameters were estimated with both one- and two-compartment models using NONMEM. A type I error was defined as a significantly lower objective function value for the two-compartment model compared to the one-compartment model using the standard likelihood ratio test at alpha = 0.05 and alpha = 0.01. The type I error rate substantially increased to as high as 96% as the median of percent censored data increased at both the 5% and 1% alpha levels. Restricting the CV to 10% caused a higher type I error rate compared to the 20% CV, while the error rate was reduced to the nominal value as the CV increased to 100%. The YLO option prevented the type I error rate from being elevated. This simulation study has shown that the practice of assigning a LLOQ during analytical methods development, although well intentioned, can lead to incorrect decisions regarding the structure of the pharmacokinetic model. The standard operating procedures in analytical laboratories should be adjusted to provide a quantitative value for all samples assayed in the drug development setting where sophisticated modeling may occur. However, the current level of precision may need to be maintained when laboratory results are to be used for direct patient care in a clinical setting. Finally, the YLO option should be considered when more than 10% of data are censored as BQL.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2007        PMID: 17963024     DOI: 10.1007/s10928-007-9078-9

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


  12 in total

1.  Pharmacological basis for concentration-controlled therapy with zidovudine, lamivudine, and indinavir.

Authors:  T N Kakuda; L M Page; P L Anderson; K Henry; T W Schacker; F S Rhame; E P Acosta; R C Brundage; C V Fletcher
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2001-01       Impact factor: 5.191

2.  Bioanalytical method validation--a revisit with a decade of progress.

Authors:  V P Shah; K K Midha; J W Findlay; H M Hill; J D Hulse; I J McGilveray; G McKay; K J Miller; R N Patnaik; M L Powell; A Tonelli; C T Viswanathan; A Yacobi
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 4.200

3.  Ways to fit a PK model with some data below the quantification limit.

Authors:  S L Beal
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 2.745

4.  Analysis of toxicokinetic data using NONMEM: impact of quantification limit and replacement strategies for censored data.

Authors:  J P Hing; S G Woolfrey; D Greenslade; P M Wright
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2001-10       Impact factor: 2.745

5.  Impact of omission or replacement of data below the limit of quantification on parameter estimates in a two-compartment model.

Authors:  Vincent Duval; Mats O Karlsson
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2002-12       Impact factor: 4.200

Review 6.  Conditioning on certain random events associated with statistical variability in PK/PD.

Authors:  Stuart L Beal
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2005-11-07       Impact factor: 2.745

7.  Some suggestions for measuring predictive performance.

Authors:  L B Sheiner; S L Beal
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Biopharm       Date:  1981-08

8.  Pharmacokinetics of zidovudine in infants: a population analysis across studies.

Authors:  M Mirochnick; E Capparelli; J Connor
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  1999-07       Impact factor: 6.875

9.  Concentration-controlled compared with conventional antiretroviral therapy for HIV infection.

Authors:  Courtney V Fletcher; Peter L Anderson; Thomas N Kakuda; Timothy W Schacker; Keith Henry; Cynthia R Gross; Richard C Brundage
Journal:  AIDS       Date:  2002-03-08       Impact factor: 4.177

10.  Population pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of zidovudine in HIV-infected infants and children.

Authors:  Edmund V Capparelli; Janet A Englund; James D Connor; Stephen A Spector; Ross E McKinney; Paul Palumbo; Carol J Baker
Journal:  J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2003-02       Impact factor: 3.126

View more
  31 in total

1.  Use of pharmacokinetic data below lower limit of quantitation values.

Authors:  William J Jusko
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2012-06-23       Impact factor: 4.200

2.  Handling data below the limit of quantification in mixed effect models.

Authors:  Martin Bergstrand; Mats O Karlsson
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2009-05-19       Impact factor: 4.009

3.  Application of population pharmacokinetic modeling in early clinical development of the anticancer agent E7820.

Authors:  Ron J Keizer; Miren K Zamacona; Mendel Jansen; David Critchley; Jantien Wanders; Jos H Beijnen; Jan H M Schellens; Alwin D R Huitema
Journal:  Invest New Drugs       Date:  2008-08-20       Impact factor: 3.850

4.  Population pharmacokinetics of midazolam and its metabolites in overweight and obese adolescents.

Authors:  Anne van Rongen; Janelle D Vaughns; Ganesh S Moorthy; Jeffrey S Barrett; Catherijne A J Knibbe; Johannes N van den Anker
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2015-09-10       Impact factor: 4.335

5.  Impact of low percentage of data below the quantification limit on parameter estimates of pharmacokinetic models.

Authors:  Xu Steven Xu; Adrian Dunne; Holly Kimko; Partha Nandy; An Vermeulen
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2011-05-31       Impact factor: 2.745

6.  Comparison of non-compartmental and mixed effect modelling methods for establishing bioequivalence for the case of two compartment kinetics and censored concentrations.

Authors:  Jim H Hughes; Richard N Upton; David J R Foster
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2017-02-13       Impact factor: 2.745

7.  Study reanalysis using a mechanism-based pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model of pramlintide in subjects with type 1 diabetes.

Authors:  Jing Fang; Cornelia B Landersdorfer; Brenda Cirincione; William J Jusko
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2012-10-02       Impact factor: 4.009

8.  A model-based meta-analysis of monoclonal antibody pharmacokinetics to guide optimal first-in-human study design.

Authors:  Jasmine P Davda; Michael G Dodds; Megan A Gibbs; Wendy Wisdom; John Gibbs
Journal:  MAbs       Date:  2014-05-16       Impact factor: 5.857

9.  Development of a population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model of a single bolus dose of unfractionated heparin in paediatric patients.

Authors:  Hesham Al-Sallami; Fiona Newall; Paul Monagle; Vera Ignjatovic; Noel Cranswick; Stephen Duffull
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2016-05-02       Impact factor: 4.335

10.  Simultaneous pharmacokinetic model for rolofylline and both M1-trans and M1-cis metabolites.

Authors:  Mark Stroh; Matthew M Hutmacher; Jianmei Pang; Ryan Lutz; Hiroshi Magara; Julie Stone
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2013-01-25       Impact factor: 4.009

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.