Literature DB >> 22101761

Comparison of Nonmem 7.2 estimation methods and parallel processing efficiency on a target-mediated drug disposition model.

Leonid Gibiansky1, Ekaterina Gibiansky, Robert Bauer.   

Abstract

The paper compares performance of Nonmem estimation methods--first order conditional estimation with interaction (FOCEI), iterative two stage (ITS), Monte Carlo importance sampling (IMP), importance sampling assisted by mode a posteriori (IMPMAP), stochastic approximation expectation-maximization (SAEM), and Markov chain Monte Carlo Bayesian (BAYES), on the simulated examples of a monoclonal antibody with target-mediated drug disposition (TMDD), demonstrates how optimization of the estimation options improves performance, and compares standard errors of Nonmem parameter estimates with those predicted by PFIM 3.2 optimal design software. In the examples of the one- and two-target quasi-steady-state TMDD models with rich sampling, the parameter estimates and standard errors of the new Nonmem 7.2.0 ITS, IMP, IMPMAP, SAEM and BAYES estimation methods were similar to the FOCEI method, although larger deviation from the true parameter values (those used to simulate the data) was observed using the BAYES method for poorly identifiable parameters. Standard errors of the parameter estimates were in general agreement with the PFIM 3.2 predictions. The ITS, IMP, and IMPMAP methods with the convergence tester were the fastest methods, reducing the computation time by about ten times relative to the FOCEI method. Use of lower computational precision requirements for the FOCEI method reduced the estimation time by 3-5 times without compromising the quality of the parameter estimates, and equaled or exceeded the speed of the SAEM and BAYES methods. Use of parallel computations with 4-12 processors running on the same computer improved the speed proportionally to the number of processors with the efficiency (for 12 processor run) in the range of 85-95% for all methods except BAYES, which had parallelization efficiency of about 70%.

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2011        PMID: 22101761     DOI: 10.1007/s10928-011-9228-y

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


  7 in total

1.  General pharmacokinetic model for drugs exhibiting target-mediated drug disposition.

Authors:  D E Mager; W J Jusko
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2001-12       Impact factor: 2.745

2.  Design evaluation and optimisation in crossover pharmacokinetic studies analysed by nonlinear mixed effects models.

Authors:  Thu Thuy Nguyen; Caroline Bazzoli; France Mentré
Journal:  Stat Med       Date:  2011-10-03       Impact factor: 2.373

3.  Target-mediated drug disposition model for drugs that bind to more than one target.

Authors:  Leonid Gibiansky; Ekaterina Gibiansky
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2010-07-29       Impact factor: 2.745

Review 4.  A survey of population analysis methods and software for complex pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic models with examples.

Authors:  Robert J Bauer; Serge Guzy; Chee Ng
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2007-03-02       Impact factor: 4.009

Review 5.  Target-mediated drug disposition model: approximations, identifiability of model parameters and applications to the population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling of biologics.

Authors:  Leonid Gibiansky; Ekaterina Gibiansky
Journal:  Expert Opin Drug Metab Toxicol       Date:  2009-07       Impact factor: 4.481

6.  Approximations of the target-mediated drug disposition model and identifiability of model parameters.

Authors:  Leonid Gibiansky; Ekaterina Gibiansky; Tarundeep Kakkar; Peiming Ma
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2008-11-13       Impact factor: 2.745

7.  Design evaluation and optimisation in multiple response nonlinear mixed effect models: PFIM 3.0.

Authors:  Caroline Bazzoli; Sylvie Retout; France Mentré
Journal:  Comput Methods Programs Biomed       Date:  2009-11-04       Impact factor: 5.428

  7 in total
  21 in total

1.  Performance comparison of various maximum likelihood nonlinear mixed-effects estimation methods for dose-response models.

Authors:  Elodie L Plan; Alan Maloney; France Mentré; Mats O Karlsson; Julie Bertrand
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2012-04-14       Impact factor: 4.009

2.  Novel hybrid GPU-CPU implementation of parallelized Monte Carlo parametric expectation maximization estimation method for population pharmacokinetic data analysis.

Authors:  C M Ng
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2013-09-04       Impact factor: 4.009

Review 3.  Combining the 'bottom up' and 'top down' approaches in pharmacokinetic modelling: fitting PBPK models to observed clinical data.

Authors:  Nikolaos Tsamandouras; Amin Rostami-Hodjegan; Leon Aarons
Journal:  Br J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2015-01       Impact factor: 4.335

4.  A drug-disease model describing the effect of oseltamivir neuraminidase inhibition on influenza virus progression.

Authors:  Mohamed A Kamal; Ronald Gieschke; Annabelle Lemenuel-Diot; Catherine A A Beauchemin; Patrick F Smith; Craig R Rayner
Journal:  Antimicrob Agents Chemother       Date:  2015-06-22       Impact factor: 5.191

5.  Evaluation of FOCEI and SAEM Estimation Methods in Population Pharmacokinetic Analysis Using NONMEM® Across Rich, Medium, and Sparse Sampling Data.

Authors:  Waroonrat Sukarnjanaset; Thitima Wattanavijitkul; Sutep Jarurattanasirikul
Journal:  Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet       Date:  2018-12       Impact factor: 2.441

6.  Evaluation of bias, precision, robustness and runtime for estimation methods in NONMEM 7.

Authors:  Åsa M Johansson; Sebastian Ueckert; Elodie L Plan; Andrew C Hooker; Mats O Karlsson
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2014-05-07       Impact factor: 2.745

7.  Modeling of safe window for percutaneous thoracic sympathectomy.

Authors:  Do Won Lee; Jung Min Hong; Boo Young Hwang; Tae Kyun Kim; Eun Soo Kim
Journal:  J Anesth       Date:  2014-10-10       Impact factor: 2.078

8.  Comparing the performance of FOCE and different expectation-maximization methods in handling complex population physiologically-based pharmacokinetic models.

Authors:  Xiaoxi Liu; Yuhuan Wang
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2016-05-23       Impact factor: 2.745

9.  Population pharmacokinetics-pharmacodynamics of oral everolimus in patients with seizures associated with tuberous sclerosis complex.

Authors:  François Pierre Combes; Guillaume Baneyx; Neva Coello; Penny Zhu; William Sallas; Hequn Yin; Jerry Nedelman
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2018-07-10       Impact factor: 2.745

10.  Comparing the performance of first-order conditional estimation (FOCE) and different expectation-maximization (EM) methods in NONMEM: real data experience with complex nonlinear parent-metabolite pharmacokinetic model.

Authors:  Thanh Bach; Guohua An
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2021-04-21       Impact factor: 2.745

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.