Literature DB >> 19697107

Methods of utilizing baseline values for indirect response models.

Sukyung Woo1, Dipti Pawaskar, William J Jusko.   

Abstract

This study derives and assesses modified equations for Indirect Response Models (IDR) for normalizing data for baseline values (R (0)) and evaluates different methods of utilizing baseline information. Pharmacodynamic response equations for the four basic IDR models were adjusted to reflect a ratio to, a change from (e.g., subtraction), or percent change relative to baseline. The original and modified IDR equations were fitted individually to simulated data sets and compared for recovery of true parameter values. Handling of baseline values was investigated using: estimation (E), fixing at the starting value (F1), and fixing at an average of starting and returning values of response profiles (F2). The performance of each method was evaluated using simulated data with variability under various scenarios of different doses, numbers of data points, type of IDR model, and degree of residual errors. The median error and inter-quartile range relative to true values were used as indicators of bias and precision for each method. Applying IDR models to normalized data required modifications in writing differential equations and initial conditions. Use of an observed/baseline ratio led to parameter estimates of k (in) = k (out) and inability to detect differences in k (in) values for groups with different R (0), whereas the modified equations recovered the true values. An increase in variability increased the %Bias and %Imprecision for each R (0) fitting method and was more pronounced for 'F1'. The overall performance of 'F2' was as good as that of 'E' and better than 'F1'. The %Bias in estimation of parameters SC(50) (IC(50)) and k (out) followed the same trend, whereas use of 'F1' or 'F2' resulted in the least bias for S (max) (I (max)). The IDR equations need modifications to directly assess baseline-normalized data. In general, Method 'E' resulted in lesser bias and better precision compared to 'F1'. With rich datasets including sufficient information on the return to baseline, Method 'F2' is reasonable. Method 'E' offers no significant advantage over 'F1' with datasets lacking information on the return to baseline phase. Handling baseline responses properly is an essential aspect of applying pharmacodynamic models.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2009        PMID: 19697107      PMCID: PMC3712653          DOI: 10.1007/s10928-009-9128-6

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


  13 in total

1.  Role of baseline parameters in determining indirect pharmacodynamic responses.

Authors:  Y N Sun; W J Jusko
Journal:  J Pharm Sci       Date:  1999-10       Impact factor: 3.534

2.  Algorithm for application of Fourier analysis for biorhythmic baselines of pharmacodynamic indirect response models.

Authors:  W Krzyzanski; A Chakraborty; W J Jusko
Journal:  Chronobiol Int       Date:  2000-01       Impact factor: 2.877

3.  Mathematical modeling of circadian cortisol concentrations using indirect response models: comparison of several methods.

Authors:  A Chakraborty; W Krzyzanski; W J Jusko
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Biopharm       Date:  1999-02

4.  Consideration of endogenous backgrounds in pharmacokinetic analyses: a simulation study.

Authors:  F Schindel
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2000-12       Impact factor: 2.953

5.  A dispersion model for cellular signal transduction cascades.

Authors:  Murali Ramanathan
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2002-10       Impact factor: 4.200

6.  Assessment of basic indirect pharmacodynamic response models with physiological limits.

Authors:  Zhenling Yao; Wojciech Krzyzanski; William J Jusko
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2006-04       Impact factor: 2.745

7.  Likelihood based approaches to handling data below the quantification limit using NONMEM VI.

Authors:  Jae Eun Ahn; Mats O Karlsson; Adrian Dunne; Thomas M Ludden
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2008-08-07       Impact factor: 2.745

8.  Comparison of four basic models of indirect pharmacodynamic responses.

Authors:  N L Dayneka; V Garg; W J Jusko
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Biopharm       Date:  1993-08

9.  Some suggestions for measuring predictive performance.

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

10.  Disease system analysis: basic disease progression models in degenerative disease.

Authors:  Teun M Post; Jan I Freijer; Joost DeJongh; Meindert Danhof
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2005-07-22       Impact factor: 4.200

View more
  16 in total

1.  Improvement in latent variable indirect response modeling of multiple categorical clinical endpoints: application to modeling of guselkumab treatment effects in psoriatic patients.

Authors:  Chuanpu Hu; Bruce Randazzo; Amarnath Sharma; Honghui Zhou
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2017-06-20       Impact factor: 2.745

2.  Modeling near-continuous clinical endpoint as categorical: application to longitudinal exposure-response modeling of Mayo scores for golimumab in patients with ulcerative colitis.

Authors:  Chuanpu Hu; Omoniyi J Adedokun; Liping Zhang; Amarnath Sharma; Honghui Zhou
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2018-10-30       Impact factor: 2.745

3.  Latent variable indirect response modeling of categorical endpoints representing change from baseline.

Authors:  Chuanpu Hu; Zhenhua Xu; Alan M Mendelsohn; Honghui Zhou
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2012-12-30       Impact factor: 2.745

4.  Latent variable indirect response joint modeling of a continuous and a categorical clinical endpoint.

Authors:  Chuanpu Hu; Philippe O Szapary; Alan M Mendelsohn; Honghui Zhou
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2014-07-20       Impact factor: 2.745

5.  Adjustment of endogenous concentrations in pharmacokinetic modeling.

Authors:  Alexander Bauer; Martin J Wolfsegger
Journal:  Eur J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2014-10-03       Impact factor: 2.953

6.  Interactions of everolimus and sorafenib in pancreatic cancer cells.

Authors:  Dipti K Pawaskar; Robert M Straubinger; Gerald J Fetterly; Wen W Ma; William J Jusko
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2012-10-09       Impact factor: 4.009

7.  Assessment of pharmacologic area under the curve when baselines are variable.

Authors:  Jeremy D Scheff; Richard R Almon; Debra C Dubois; William J Jusko; Ioannis P Androulakis
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  2011-01-14       Impact factor: 4.200

Review 8.  Transitioning from Basic toward Systems Pharmacodynamic Models: Lessons from Corticosteroids.

Authors:  Vivaswath S Ayyar; William J Jusko
Journal:  Pharmacol Rev       Date:  2020-04       Impact factor: 25.468

9.  Mechanism-based population modelling for assessment of L-cell function based on total GLP-1 response following an oral glucose tolerance test.

Authors:  Jonas B Møller; William J Jusko; Wei Gao; Torben Hansen; Oluf Pedersen; Jens J Holst; Rune V Overgaard; Henrik Madsen; Steen H Ingwersen
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2011-09-16       Impact factor: 2.745

10.  A comprehensive evaluation of exposure-response relationships in clinical trials: application to support guselkumab dose selection for patients with psoriasis.

Authors:  Chuanpu Hu; Zhenling Yao; Yang Chen; Bruce Randazzo; Liping Zhang; Zhenhua Xu; Amarnath Sharma; Honghui Zhou
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2018-03-16       Impact factor: 2.745

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.