Literature DB >> 27215925

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

Xiaoxi Liu1, Yuhuan Wang2.   

Abstract

For the purpose of population pharmacometric modeling, a variety of mathematic algorithms are implemented in major modeling software packages to facilitate the maximum likelihood modeling, such as FO, FOCE, Laplace, ITS and EM. These methods are all designed to estimate the set of parameters that maximize the joint likelihood of observations in a given problem. While FOCE is still currently the most widely used method in population modeling, EM methods are getting more popular as the current-generation methods of choice because of their robustness with more complex models and sparse data structures. There are several versions of EM method implementation that are available in public modeling software packages. Although there have been several studies and reviews comparing the performance of different methods in handling relatively simple models, there has not been a dedicated study to compare different versions of EM algorithms in solving complex PBPK models. This study took everolimus as a model drug and simulated PK data based on published results. Three most popular EM methods (SAEM, IMP and QRPEM) and FOCE (as a benchmark reference) were evaluated for their estimation accuracy and converging speed when solving models of increased complexity. Both sparse and rich sampling data structure were tested. We concluded that FOCE was superior to EM methods for simple structured models. For more complex models and/ or sparse data, EM methods are much more robust. While the estimation accuracy was very close across EM methods, the general ranking of speed (fastest to slowest) was: QRPEM, IMP and SAEM. IMP gave the most realistic estimation of parameter standard errors, while under- and over- estimation of standard errors were observed in SAEM and QRPEM methods.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Algorithm; Everolimus; Expectation-maximization methods; FOCE; Physiologically-based pharmacokinetic modeling; Sparse data

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2016        PMID: 27215925     DOI: 10.1007/s10928-016-9476-y

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


  25 in total

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

Authors:  Leonid Gibiansky; Ekaterina Gibiansky; Robert Bauer
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2011-11-19       Impact factor: 2.745

2.  Derivation of various NONMEM estimation methods.

Authors:  Yaning Wang
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2007-07-10       Impact factor: 2.745

Review 3.  Physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling in drug discovery and development: a pharmaceutical industry perspective.

Authors:  H M Jones; Y Chen; C Gibson; T Heimbach; N Parrott; S A Peters; J Snoeys; V V Upreti; M Zheng; S D Hall
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2015-01-09       Impact factor: 6.875

4.  Target site pharmacokinetics of linezolid after single and multiple doses in diabetic patients with soft tissue infection.

Authors:  Roza Badr Eslam; Angela Burian; Greisa Vila; Robert Sauermann; Alexandra Hammer; Dorothea Frenzel; Iris K Minichmayr; Charlotte Kloft; Peter Matzneller; Zoe Oesterreicher; Markus Zeitlinger
Journal:  J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2014-05-20       Impact factor: 3.126

5.  Pharmacokinetic measurement of drugs in lung epithelial lining fluid by microdialysis: aminoglycoside antibiotics in rat bronchi.

Authors:  E J Eisenberg; P Conzentino; W M Eickhoff; K C Cundy
Journal:  J Pharmacol Toxicol Methods       Date:  1993-04       Impact factor: 1.950

Review 6.  Physiological parameters in laboratory animals and humans.

Authors:  B Davies; T Morris
Journal:  Pharm Res       Date:  1993-07       Impact factor: 4.200

7.  Intravitreal kinetics of hesperidin, hesperetin, and hesperidin G: effect of dose and physicochemical properties.

Authors:  Ramesh Srirangam; Ketan Hippalgaonkar; Soumyajit Majumdar
Journal:  J Pharm Sci       Date:  2012-01-06       Impact factor: 3.534

8.  The time course of dexamethasone delivery using iontophoresis through human skin, measured via microdialysis.

Authors:  Justin H Rigby; David O Draper; A Wayne Johnson; J William Myrer; Dennis L Eggett; Gary W Mack
Journal:  J Orthop Sports Phys Ther       Date:  2015-02-13       Impact factor: 4.751

9.  Target-mediated drug disposition model and its approximations for antibody-drug conjugates.

Authors:  Leonid Gibiansky; Ekaterina Gibiansky
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2013-12-11       Impact factor: 2.745

10.  Allopurinol: kinetics, inhibition of xanthine oxidase activity, and protective effect in ischemic-reperfused canine heart as studied by cardiac microdialysis.

Authors:  A I Kuzmin; O V Tskitishvili; L I Serebryakova; V I Kapelko; I V Majorova; O S Medvedev
Journal:  J Cardiovasc Pharmacol       Date:  1995-04       Impact factor: 3.105

View more
  7 in total

1.  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

2.  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

3.  Population PBPK modeling using parametric and nonparametric methods of the Simcyp Simulator, and Bayesian samplers.

Authors:  Janak R Wedagedera; Anthonia Afuape; Siri Kalyan Chirumamilla; Hiroshi Momiji; Robert Leary; Mike Dunlavey; Richard Matthews; Khaled Abduljalil; Masoud Jamei; Frederic Y Bois
Journal:  CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol       Date:  2022-04-22

4.  Developing a Natural History Progression Model for Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy Using the Six-Minute Walk Test.

Authors:  Lora Hamuro; Phyllis Chan; Giridhar Tirucherai; Malaz AbuTarif
Journal:  CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol       Date:  2017-08-29

5.  Population Pharmacokinetics of Selumetinib and Its Metabolite N-desmethyl-selumetinib in Adult Patients With Advanced Solid Tumors and Children With Low-Grade Gliomas.

Authors:  Y T Patel; V M Daryani; P Patel; D Zhou; J Fangusaro; D J Carlile; P D Martin; L Aarons; C F Stewart
Journal:  CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol       Date:  2017-03-22

6.  Performance comparison of first-order conditional estimation with interaction and Bayesian estimation methods for estimating the population parameters and its distribution from data sets with a low number of subjects.

Authors:  Sudeep Pradhan; Byungjeong Song; Jaeyeon Lee; Jung-Woo Chae; Kyung Im Kim; Hyun-Moon Back; Nayoung Han; Kwang-Il Kwon; Hwi-Yeol Yun
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2017-12-01       Impact factor: 4.615

Review 7.  Metaheuristics for pharmacometrics.

Authors:  Seongho Kim; Andrew C Hooker; Yu Shi; Grace Hyun J Kim; Weng Kee Wong
Journal:  CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol       Date:  2021-10-22
  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.