Michael L Williams1, Hannah L Weeks1, Cole Beck1, Kelly A Birdwell2, Sara L Van Driest2,3, Leena Choi1. 1. Department of Biostatistics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA. 2. Department of Medicine, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA. 3. Department of Pediatrics, Vanderbilt University Medical Center, Nashville, TN, USA.
Abstract
AIMS: Use of electronic health record (EHR) data to estimate population pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles necessitates several assumptions. We sought to investigate sensitivity to some of these assumptions about dose timing and absorption rates. METHODS: A population PK study with 363 subjects was performed using real-world data extracted from EHRs to estimate the tacrolimus population PK profile. Data were extracted and built using our automated system, EHR2PKPD, suitable for quickly constructing large PK datasets from the EHR. Population PK studies for oral medications performed using EHR data often assume a regular dosing schedule as prescribed without incorporating exact dosing time. We assessed the sensitivity of the PK parameter estimates to assumptions about dose timing using last-dose times extracted by our own natural language processing system, medExtractR. We also investigated the sensitivity of estimates to absorption rate constants that are often fixed at a published value in tacrolimus population PK analyses. We conducted simulation studies to investigate how drug PK profiles and experimental designs such as concentration measurements design affect sensitivity to incorrect assumptions about dose timing and absorption rates. RESULTS: There was no appreciable difference in parameter estimates with assumed versus extracted last-dose time, and our sensitivity analysis revealed little difference between parameters estimated across a range of assumed absorption rate constants. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that drugs with a slower elimination rate (or a longer half-life) are less sensitive to dose timing errors and that experimental designs which only allow for trough blood concentrations are usually insensitive to deviation in absorption rate.
AIMS: Use of electronic health record (EHR) data to estimate population pharmacokinetic (PK) profiles necessitates several assumptions. We sought to investigate sensitivity to some of these assumptions about dose timing and absorption rates. METHODS: A population PK study with 363 subjects was performed using real-world data extracted from EHRs to estimate the tacrolimus population PK profile. Data were extracted and built using our automated system, EHR2PKPD, suitable for quickly constructing large PK datasets from the EHR. Population PK studies for oral medications performed using EHR data often assume a regular dosing schedule as prescribed without incorporating exact dosing time. We assessed the sensitivity of the PK parameter estimates to assumptions about dose timing using last-dose times extracted by our own natural language processing system, medExtractR. We also investigated the sensitivity of estimates to absorption rate constants that are often fixed at a published value in tacrolimus population PK analyses. We conducted simulation studies to investigate how drug PK profiles and experimental designs such as concentration measurements design affect sensitivity to incorrect assumptions about dose timing and absorption rates. RESULTS: There was no appreciable difference in parameter estimates with assumed versus extracted last-dose time, and our sensitivity analysis revealed little difference between parameters estimated across a range of assumed absorption rate constants. CONCLUSION: Our findings suggest that drugs with a slower elimination rate (or a longer half-life) are less sensitive to dose timing errors and that experimental designs which only allow for trough blood concentrations are usually insensitive to deviation in absorption rate.
Authors: Itziar Oteo; John C Lukas; Nerea Leal; Elena Suarez; Andres Valdivieso; Mikel Gastaca; Jorge Ortiz de Urbina; Rosario Calvo Journal: Eur J Clin Pharmacol Date: 2012-06-03 Impact factor: 2.953
Authors: A B Jain; J J Fung; A G Tzakis; R Venkataramanan; K Abu-Elmagd; M Alessiani; J Reyes; W Irish; V Warty; S Mehta Journal: Transplant Proc Date: 1991-12 Impact factor: 1.066
Authors: Stephen P H Alexander; Doriano Fabbro; Eamonn Kelly; Alistair Mathie; John A Peters; Emma L Veale; Jane F Armstrong; Elena Faccenda; Simon D Harding; Adam J Pawson; Joanna L Sharman; Christopher Southan; Jamie A Davies Journal: Br J Pharmacol Date: 2019-12 Impact factor: 8.739
Authors: Kelly A Birdwell; Ben Grady; Leena Choi; Hua Xu; Aihua Bian; Josh C Denny; Min Jiang; Gayle Vranic; Melissa Basford; James D Cowan; Danielle M Richardson; Melanie P Robinson; Talat Alp Ikizler; Marylyn D Ritchie; Charles Michael Stein; David W Haas Journal: Pharmacogenet Genomics Date: 2012-01 Impact factor: 2.089