Literature DB >> 28421417

Estimation of QT interval prolongation through model-averaging.

Peter L Bonate1.   

Abstract

The current method to analyze concentration-QT interval data, which is based on predictions conditional on a best model, fails to take into account the uncertainty of the model. Previous studies have suggested that failure to take into account model uncertainty using a best model approach can result in confidence intervals that are overly optimistic and may be too narrow. Theoretically, more realistic estimates are obtained using model-averaging where the overall point estimate and confidence interval are a weighted-average from a set of candidate models, the weights of which are equal to each model's Akaike weight. Monte Carlo simulation was used to determine the degree of narrowness in the confidence interval for the degree of QT prolongation under a single ascending dose and thorough QT trial design. Results showed that model averaging performed as well as the best model approach under most conditions with no numeric advantage to using a model averaging approach. No difference was observed in the coverage of the confidence intervals when the best model and model averaging was done by AIC, AICc, or BIC, although in certain circumstances the coverage of the confidence interval themselves tended to be too narrow when using BIC. Modelers can continue to use the best model approach for concentration-QT modeling with confidence, although model averaging may offer more face validity, may be of value in cases where there is uncertainty or misspecification in the best model, and be more palatable to a non-technical reviewer than the best model approach.

Entities:  

Keywords:  AIC; AICc; BIC; Concentration–response; E14; Linear mixed effect models; Modeling; TQT

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2017        PMID: 28421417     DOI: 10.1007/s10928-017-9523-3

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


  35 in total

1.  Estimating the Probability of Rare Events Occurring Using a Local Model Averaging.

Authors:  Jin-Hua Chen; Chun-Shu Chen; Meng-Fan Huang; Hung-Chih Lin
Journal:  Risk Anal       Date:  2016-02-09       Impact factor: 4.000

Review 2.  The IQ-CSRC prospective clinical Phase 1 study: "Can early QT assessment using exposure response analysis replace the thorough QT study?".

Authors:  Borje Darpo; Nenad Sarapa; Christine Garnett; Charles Benson; Corina Dota; Georg Ferber; Venkateswar Jarugula; Lars Johannesen; James Keirns; Kevin Krudys; Catherine Ortemann-Renon; Steve Riley; Danise Rogers-Subramaniam; Norman Stockbridge
Journal:  Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol       Date:  2013-12-30       Impact factor: 1.468

3.  Model averaging for genome-enabled prediction with reproducing kernel Hilbert spaces: a case study with pig litter size and wheat yield.

Authors:  L Tusell; P Pérez-Rodríguez; S Forni; D Gianola
Journal:  J Anim Breed Genet       Date:  2014-01-08       Impact factor: 2.380

4.  Phase I trial design for drug combinations with Bayesian model averaging.

Authors:  Ick Hoon Jin; Lin Huo; Guosheng Yin; Ying Yuan
Journal:  Pharm Stat       Date:  2015-01-13       Impact factor: 1.894

Review 5.  Viewpoint: model selection uncertainty, pre-specification, and model averaging.

Authors:  Björn Bornkamp
Journal:  Pharm Stat       Date:  2015-01-16       Impact factor: 1.894

6.  Reconstruction of large-scale gene regulatory networks using Bayesian model averaging.

Authors:  Haseong Kim; Erol Gelenbe
Journal:  IEEE Trans Nanobioscience       Date:  2012-09       Impact factor: 2.935

7.  Dose-finding studies, MCP-Mod, model selection, and model averaging: Two applications in the real world.

Authors:  Dominique Verrier; Sïndou Sivapregassam; Anne-Catherine Solente
Journal:  Clin Trials       Date:  2014-05-28       Impact factor: 2.486

8.  Model averaging inconcentration-QT analyses.

Authors:  Bernard Sébastien; David Hoffman; Clémence Rigaux; Franck Pellissier; Jérôme Msihid
Journal:  Pharm Stat       Date:  2016-08-05       Impact factor: 1.894

9.  Linear mixed-effects model of QTc prolongation for olmesartan medoxomil.

Authors:  SaeHeum Song; Nobuko Matsushima; James Lee; Jeanne Mendell
Journal:  J Clin Pharmacol       Date:  2015-08-24       Impact factor: 3.126

10.  Evaluating the Use of Linear Mixed-Effect Models for Inference of the Concentration-QTc Slope Estimate as a Surrogate for a Biological QTc Model.

Authors:  Y Huh; M M Hutmacher
Journal:  CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol       Date:  2015-01-28
View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.