Literature DB >> 19562469

Pharmacogenetics and population pharmacokinetics: impact of the design on three tests using the SAEM algorithm.

Julie Bertrand1, Emmanuelle Comets, Céline M Laffont, Marylore Chenel, France Mentré.   

Abstract

Pharmacogenetics is now widely investigated and health institutions acknowledge its place in clinical pharmacokinetics. Our objective is to assess through a simulation study, the impact of design on the statistical performances of three different tests used for analysis of pharmacogenetic information with nonlinear mixed effects models: (i) an ANOVA to test the relationship between the empirical Bayes estimates of the model parameter of interest and the genetic covariate, (ii) a global Wald test to assess whether estimates for the gene effect are significant, and (iii) a likelihood ratio test (LRT) between the model with and without the genetic covariate. We use the stochastic EM algorithm (SAEM) implemented in MONOLIX 2.1 software. The simulation setting is inspired from a real pharmacokinetic study. We investigate four designs with N the number of subjects and n the number of samples per subject: (i) N = 40/n = 4, similar to the original study, (ii) N = 80/n = 2 sorted in 4 groups, a design optimized using the PFIM software, (iii) a combined design, N = 20/n = 4 plus N = 80 with only a trough concentration and (iv) N = 200/n = 4, to approach asymptotic conditions. We find that the ANOVA has a correct type I error estimate regardless of design, however the sparser design was optimized. The type I error of the Wald test and LRT are moderatly inflated in the designs far from the asymptotic (<10%). For each design, the corrected power is analogous for the three tests. Among the three designs with a total of 160 observations, the design N = 80/n = 2 optimized with PFIM provides both the lowest standard error on the effect coefficients and the best power for the Wald test and the LRT while a high shrinkage decreases the power of the ANOVA. In conclusion, a correction method should be used for model-based tests in pharmacogenetic studies with reduced sample size and/or sparse sampling and, for the same amount of samples, some designs have better power than others.

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19562469      PMCID: PMC3192406          DOI: 10.1007/s10928-009-9124-x

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


  29 in total

1.  Evaluation of tests based on individual versus population modeling to compare dissolution curves.

Authors:  E Comets; F Mentré
Journal:  J Biopharm Stat       Date:  2001       Impact factor: 1.051

2.  Application of resampling techniques to estimate exact significance levels for covariate selection during nonlinear mixed effects model building: some inferences.

Authors:  Jogarao V S Gobburu; John Lawrence
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2002-01       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.  Design and power of a population pharmacokinetic study.

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

5.  The structure of haplotype blocks in the human genome.

Authors:  Stacey B Gabriel; Stephen F Schaffner; Huy Nguyen; Jamie M Moore; Jessica Roy; Brendan Blumenstiel; John Higgins; Matthew DeFelice; Amy Lochner; Maura Faggart; Shau Neen Liu-Cordero; Charles Rotimi; Adebowale Adeyemo; Richard Cooper; Ryk Ward; Eric S Lander; Mark J Daly; David Altshuler
Journal:  Science       Date:  2002-05-23       Impact factor: 47.728

6.  Simultaneous vs. sequential analysis for population PK/PD data I: best-case performance.

Authors:  Liping Zhang; Stuart L Beal; Lewis B Sheiner
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2003-12       Impact factor: 2.745

7.  Response to antiretroviral treatment in HIV-1-infected individuals with allelic variants of the multidrug resistance transporter 1: a pharmacogenetics study.

Authors:  Jacques Fellay; Catia Marzolini; Emma R Meaden; David J Back; Thierry Buclin; Jean Philippe Chave; Laurent A Decosterd; Hansjakob Furrer; Milos Opravil; Giuseppe Pantaleo; Dorota Retelska; Lidia Ruiz; Alfred H Schinkel; Pietro Vernazza; Chin B Eap; Amalio Telenti
Journal:  Lancet       Date:  2002-01-05       Impact factor: 79.321

Review 8.  MDR1 genotype-related pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics.

Authors:  Toshiyuki Sakaeda; Tsutomu Nakamura; Katsuhiko Okumura
Journal:  Biol Pharm Bull       Date:  2002-11       Impact factor: 2.233

9.  Benefit of therapeutic drug monitoring of protease inhibitors in HIV-infected patients depends on PI used in HAART regimen--ANRS 111 trial.

Authors:  Xavier Duval; France Mentré; Elisabeth Rey; Solange Auleley; Gilles Peytavin; Michel Biour; Annie Métro; Cecile Goujard; Anne-Marie Taburet; Cecile Lascoux; Xaviere Panhard; Jean-Marc Tréluyer; Dominique Salmon-Céron
Journal:  Fundam Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2009-08       Impact factor: 2.748

Review 10.  Polymorphisms in human MDR1 (P-glycoprotein): recent advances and clinical relevance.

Authors:  Catia Marzolini; Erik Paus; Thierry Buclin; Richard B Kim
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2004-01       Impact factor: 6.875

View more
  18 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

Review 2.  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

3.  Bioequivalence tests based on individual estimates using non-compartmental or model-based analyses: evaluation of estimates of sample means and type I error for different designs.

Authors:  Anne Dubois; Sandro Gsteiger; Etienne Pigeolet; France Mentré
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2009-10-30       Impact factor: 4.200

4.  Development of a complex parent-metabolite joint population pharmacokinetic model.

Authors:  Julie Bertrand; Céline M Laffont; France Mentré; Marylore Chenel; Emmanuelle Comets
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2011-05-27       Impact factor: 4.009

5.  Evaluation of Approaches to Deal with Low-Frequency Nuisance Covariates in Population Pharmacokinetic Analyses.

Authors:  Chakradhar V Lagishetty; Stephen B Duffull
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2015-06-26       Impact factor: 4.009

6.  Shrinkage in nonlinear mixed-effects population models: quantification, influencing factors, and impact.

Authors:  Xu Steven Xu; Min Yuan; Mats O Karlsson; Adrian Dunne; Partha Nandy; An Vermeulen
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2012-09-20       Impact factor: 4.009

7.  Population pharmacokinetics and pharmacogenetics of everolimus in renal transplant patients.

Authors:  Dirk Jan A R Moes; Rogier R Press; Jan den Hartigh; Tahar van der Straaten; Johan W de Fijter; Henk-Jan Guchelaar
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2012-07-01       Impact factor: 6.447

8.  Explaining variability in ciclosporin exposure in adult kidney transplant recipients.

Authors:  Rogier R Press; Bart A Ploeger; Jan den Hartigh; T van der Straaten; Hans van Pelt; Meindert Danhof; Hans de Fijter; Henk-Jan Guchelaar
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2010-03-31       Impact factor: 2.953

9.  Influence of body weight, ethnicity, oral contraceptives, and pregnancy on the pharmacokinetics of azithromycin in women of childbearing age.

Authors:  James H Fischer; Gloria E Sarto; Mitra Habibi; Sarah J Kilpatrick; Ruth E Tuomala; Janice M Shier; Lori Wollett; Patricia A Fischer; Kinnari S Khorana; Keith A Rodvold
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2011-11-21       Impact factor: 5.191

10.  Cross-validation for nonlinear mixed effects models.

Authors:  Emily Colby; Eric Bair
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2013-03-27       Impact factor: 2.745

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.