Literature DB >> 31385119

Evaluation of Assumptions Underpinning Pharmacometric Models.

Qing-Xi Ooi1, Daniel F B Wright2, Geoffrey K Isbister3, Stephen B Duffull2.   

Abstract

Assumptions inherent to pharmacometric model development and use are not routinely acknowledged, described, or evaluated. The aim of this work is to present a framework for systematic evaluation of assumptions. To aid identification of assumptions, we categorise assumptions into two types: implicit and explicit assumptions. Implicit assumptions are inherent in a method or model and underpin its derivation and use. Explicit assumptions arise from heuristic principles and are typically defined by the user to enable the application of a method or model. A flowchart was developed for systematic evaluation of assumptions. For each assumption, the impact of assumption violation ('significant', 'insignificant', 'unknown') and the probability of assumption violation ('likely', 'unlikely', 'unknown') will be evaluated based on prior knowledge or the result of an additional bespoke study to arrive at a decision ('go', 'no-go') for both model building and model use. A table of assumptions with standardised headings has been proposed to facilitate the documentation of assumptions and evaluation of results. The utility of the proposed framework was illustrated using four assumptions underpinning a top-down model describing the warfarin-coagulation proteins' relationship. The next step of this work is to apply the framework to a series of other settings to fully assess its practicality and its value in identifying and making inferences from assumptions.

Keywords:  assessment; assumption; evaluation; models; pharmacometrics

Year:  2019        PMID: 31385119     DOI: 10.1208/s12248-019-0366-2

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  AAPS J        ISSN: 1550-7416            Impact factor:   4.009


  16 in total

1.  Best practice in the use of physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling and simulation to address clinical pharmacology regulatory questions.

Authors:  P Zhao; M Rowland; S-M Huang
Journal:  Clin Pharmacol Ther       Date:  2012-07       Impact factor: 6.875

Review 2.  A guide for reporting the results of population pharmacokinetic analyses: a Swedish perspective.

Authors:  Janet R Wade; Monica Edholm; Tomas Salmonson
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2005-10-05       Impact factor: 4.009

3.  Prediction of creatinine clearance from serum creatinine.

Authors:  D W Cockcroft; M H Gault
Journal:  Nephron       Date:  1976       Impact factor: 2.847

4.  Reporting a population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic study: a journal's perspective.

Authors:  Kris M Jamsen; Sarah C McLeay; Michael A Barras; Bruce Green
Journal:  Clin Pharmacokinet       Date:  2014-02       Impact factor: 6.447

5.  Assumption testing in population pharmacokinetic models: illustrated with an analysis of moxonidine data from congestive heart failure patients.

Authors:  M O Karlsson; E N Jonsson; C G Wiltse; J R Wade
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Biopharm       Date:  1998-04

Review 6.  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

Review 7.  Guidelines for the quality control of population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic analyses: an industry perspective.

Authors:  P L Bonate; A Strougo; A Desai; M Roy; A Yassen; J S van der Walt; A Kaibara; S Tannenbaum
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2012-07-24       Impact factor: 4.009

8.  Reporting guidelines for population pharmacokinetic analyses.

Authors:  Kevin Dykstra; Nitin Mehrotra; Christoffer Wenzel Tornøe; Helen Kastrissios; Bela Patel; Nidal Al-Huniti; Pravin Jadhav; Yaning Wang; Wonkyung Byon
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2015-04-30       Impact factor: 2.745

9.  Commentary on the MID3 Good Practices Paper.

Authors:  Efthymios Manolis; Jacob Brogren; Susan Cole; Justin L Hay; Anna Nordmark; Kristin E Karlsson; Frederike Lentz; Norbert Benda; Gaby Wangorsch; Gerard Pons; Wei Zhao; Valeria Gigante; Francesca Serone; Joseph F Standing; Aris Dokoumetzidis; Juha Vakkilainen; Michiel van den Heuvel; Victor Mangas Sanjuan; Johannes Taminiau; Essam Kerwash; David Khan; Flora Tshinanu Musuamba; Ine Skottheim Rusten
Journal:  CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol       Date:  2017-07-22

10.  Establishing best practices and guidance in population modeling: an experience with an internal population pharmacokinetic analysis guidance.

Authors:  W Byon; M K Smith; P Chan; M A Tortorici; S Riley; H Dai; J Dong; A Ruiz-Garcia; K Sweeney; C Cronenberger
Journal:  CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol       Date:  2013-07-03
View more
  1 in total

1.  Mechanistic Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Model of Sunitinib and Dopamine in MCF-7/Adr Xenografts: Linking Cellular Heterogeneity to Tumour Burden.

Authors:  Siyuan Wang; Xiao Zhu; Mengyi Han; Fangran Hao; Wei Lu; Tianyan Zhou
Journal:  AAPS J       Date:  2020-02-10       Impact factor: 4.009

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.