Literature DB >> 19629711

Population pharmacodynamic parameter estimation from sparse sampling: effect of sigmoidicity on parameter estimates.

Sudhakar M Pai1, Suzette Girgis, Vijay K Batra, Ihab G Girgis.   

Abstract

The objective of this stimulation study was to evaluate effect of simoidicity of the concentration-effect (C-E) relationship on the efficiency of population parameter estimation from sparse sampling and is a continuation of previous work that addressed the effect of sample size and number of samples on parameters estimation from sparse sampling for drugs with C-E relationship characterized by high sigmoidicity (gamma > 5). The findings are based on observed C-E relationships for two drugs, octreotide and remifentanil, characterized by simple E (max) and sigmoid E (max) models (gamma = ~2.5), respectively. For each model, C-E profiles (100 replicates of 100 subjects each) were simulated for several sampling designs, with four or five samples/individual randomly obtained from within sampling windows based on EC(50)-normalized plasma drug concentrations, PD parameters based on observed population mean values, and inter-individual and residual variability of 30% and 25%, respectively. The C-E profiles were fitted using non-linear mixed effect modeling with the first-order conditional estimation method; variability parameters were described by an exponential error model. The results showed that, for the sigmoid E (max) model, designs with four or five samples reliably estimated the PD parameters (EC(50), E (max), E (0), and gamma), whereas the five-sample design, with two samples in the 2-3 E (max) region, provided in addition more reliable estimates of inter-individual variability; increasing the information content of the EC(50) region was not critical as long as this region was covered by a single sample in the 0.5-1.5 EC(50) window. For the simple E (max) model, because of the shallower profile, enriching the EC(50) region was more important. The impact of enrichment of appropriate regions for the two models can be explained based on the shape (sigmoidicity) of the concentration-effect relationships, with shallower C-E profiles requiring data enrichment in the EC(50) region and steeper curves less so; in both cases, the E (max) region needs to be adequately delineated, however. The results provide a general framework for population parameter estimation from sparse sampling in clinical trials when the underlying C-E profiles have different degrees of sigmoidicity.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19629711      PMCID: PMC2758124          DOI: 10.1208/s12248-009-9131-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AAPS J        ISSN: 1550-7416            Impact factor:   4.009


  10 in total

1.  Experimental design and efficient parameter estimation in population pharmacokinetics.

Authors:  M K al-Banna; A W Kelman; B Whiting
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Biopharm       Date:  1990-08

2.  An evaluation of point and interval estimates in population pharmacokinetics using NONMEM analysis.

Authors:  D B White; C A Walawander; Y Tung; T H Grasela
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Biopharm       Date:  1991-02

Review 3.  Pharmacodynamic parameter estimation: population size versus number of samples.

Authors:  Suzette Girgis; Sudhakar M Pai; Ihab G Girgis; Vijay K Batra
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2005-10-05       Impact factor: 4.009

4.  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

5.  Parameter estimability of biphasic response models.

Authors:  S Dutta; W F Ebling
Journal:  J Pharm Sci       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 3.534

6.  On the recording of sample times and parameter estimation from repeated measures pharmacokinetic data.

Authors:  H Sun; E I Ette; T M Ludden
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Biopharm       Date:  1996-12

7.  Experimental design and efficient parameter estimation in preclinical pharmacokinetic studies.

Authors:  E I Ette; C A Howie; A W Kelman; B Whiting
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  1995-05       Impact factor: 4.200

8.  Optimal design of experiments for the estimation of precise hyperbolic kinetic and binding parameters.

Authors:  L Endrenyi; F Y Chan
Journal:  J Theor Biol       Date:  1981-05-21       Impact factor: 2.691

9.  Population PK and PK/PD modelling of microencapsulated octreotide acetate in healthy subjects.

Authors:  H Zhou; T L Chen; M Marino; H Lau; T Miller; G Kalafsky; J F McLeod
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 4.335

10.  Influence of age and gender on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of remifentanil. I. Model development.

Authors:  C F Minto; T W Schnider; T D Egan; E Youngs; H J Lemmens; P L Gambus; V Billard; J F Hoke; K H Moore; D J Hermann; K T Muir; J W Mandema; S L Shafer
Journal:  Anesthesiology       Date:  1997-01       Impact factor: 7.892

  10 in total
  4 in total

1.  Optimised protocol design for the screening of analgesic compounds in neuropathic pain.

Authors:  A Taneja; J Nyberg; M Danhof; O Della Pasqua
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2012-11-30       Impact factor: 2.745

2.  Feasibility of Exposure-Response Analyses for Clinical Dose-Ranging Studies of Drug Combinations.

Authors:  Theodoros Papathanasiou; Anders Strathe; Andrew C Hooker; Trine Meldgaard Lund; Rune Viig Overgaard
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2018-04-23       Impact factor: 4.009

3.  Impact of Sampling Period on Population Pharmacokinetic Analysis of Antibiotics: Why do You Take Blood Samples Following the Fourth Dose?

Authors:  So Won Kim; Dong Jin Kim; Dae Young Zang; Dong-Hwan Lee
Journal:  Pharmaceuticals (Basel)       Date:  2020-09-16

4.  Population Pharmacodynamic Modeling Using the Sigmoid Emax Model: Influence of Inter-individual Variability on the Steepness of the Concentration-Effect Relationship. a Simulation Study.

Authors:  Johannes H Proost; Douglas J Eleveld; Michel M R F Struys
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2020-12-24       Impact factor: 4.009

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.