PURPOSE: The aim of this investigation was to compare the performance of a commonly used semi-mechanistic model for drug-related neutropenia with other semi-mechanistic models published in the literature. METHODS: After their implementation in NONMEM VI, five semi-mechanistic models were assessed using the pharmacokinetic and absolute neutrophil count data obtained from 95 patients with non-small cell lung cancer receiving either 200 mg on day 1 or 50 or 60 mg on days 1, 2 and 3 of a 21-day treatment course with the new Plk-1 inhibitor BI 2536. The model performance was compared by means of predictive (visual and numerical) checks, precision in the parameter estimates and objective function-based measures. Details of model parameterization, model stability and run times are also provided. RESULTS: The time course of the drug plasma concentrations was described by a three compartment model with a first-order elimination rate. With respect to neutropenia, all models were successfully implemented in NONMEM and provided reasonable fits for the median (although not all models described all percentiles of the data well), and in general precise parameter estimates. CONCLUSION: In the current evaluation performed in a single drug, none of the models showed superior performance compared to the most commonly used model first described by Friberg et al. (J Clin Oncol 20:4713-4721, 2002).
RCT Entities:
PURPOSE: The aim of this investigation was to compare the performance of a commonly used semi-mechanistic model for drug-related neutropenia with other semi-mechanistic models published in the literature. METHODS: After their implementation in NONMEM VI, five semi-mechanistic models were assessed using the pharmacokinetic and absolute neutrophil count data obtained from 95 patients with non-small cell lung cancer receiving either 200 mg on day 1 or 50 or 60 mg on days 1, 2 and 3 of a 21-day treatment course with the new Plk-1 inhibitor BI 2536. The model performance was compared by means of predictive (visual and numerical) checks, precision in the parameter estimates and objective function-based measures. Details of model parameterization, model stability and run times are also provided. RESULTS: The time course of the drug plasma concentrations was described by a three compartment model with a first-order elimination rate. With respect to neutropenia, all models were successfully implemented in NONMEM and provided reasonable fits for the median (although not all models described all percentiles of the data well), and in general precise parameter estimates. CONCLUSION: In the current evaluation performed in a single drug, none of the models showed superior performance compared to the most commonly used model first described by Friberg et al. (J Clin Oncol 20:4713-4721, 2002).
Authors: P L Gambús; I F Trocóniz; X Feng; M Gimenez-Milá; R Mellado; V Degos; S Vacas; M Maze Journal: Brain Behav Immun Date: 2015-07-08 Impact factor: 7.217
Authors: A H M de Vries Schultink; A A Suleiman; J H M Schellens; J H Beijnen; A D R Huitema Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2016-02-26 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: Yu Kyoung Cho; Donald J Irby; Junan Li; Douglas W Sborov; Diane R Mould; Mohamed Badawi; Anees Dauki; Misty Lamprecht; Ashley E Rosko; Soledad Fernandez; Erinn M Hade; Craig C Hofmeister; Ming Poi; Mitch A Phelps Journal: CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol Date: 2018-10-20