A comparison of the standard approach and the NONMEM approach in the estimation of bioavailability in man.

There has recently been concern about confidence intervals calculated using the standard error of parameter estimates from NONMEM, a computer program that uses a non-linear mixed-effects model to calculate relative bioavailability (F), because of possible downward bias of these estimates. In this study an alternate approach, the log-likelihood procedure, was used to calculate the confidence intervals for F from NONMEM. These were then compared with those calculated using the standard error of the parameter estimates, the traditional NONMEM approach, and the standard model-independent method, to determine whether bias exists. By use of data from a single dose, open cross-over study of ibuprofen using 14 healthy male volunteers, NONMEM was shown to give results consistent with those obtained using the standard model-independent method of analysis and could be a useful tool in the determination of F where conditions for using the standard method of analysis are not optimum. The width of the confidence interval for F using the log-likelihood procedure was narrower and non-symmetrical when compared with that obtained using the traditional NONMEM approach. The width of the confidence interval obtained using the traditional NONMEM method was similar to that from the standard approach, however the parameter estimate for F was higher than that obtained from the standard method. This could have been because of an outlier in the data set to which the standard approach is more sensitive. No downward bias was found in the confidence intervals from NONMEM. The bioavailability data set was of relatively low variability and more research with highly variable data is necessary before it can be concluded that the confidence intervals calculated from NONMEM can be used for hypothesis testing.

RCT Entities:   Population Interventions Outcomes