Neutropenia and febrile neutropenia (FN) are serious side effects of cytotoxic chemotherapy which may be alleviated with the administration of recombinant granulocyte colony-stimulating factor (GCSF) derivatives, such as pegfilgrastim (PG) which increases absolute neutrophil count (ANC). In this work, a population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PKPD) model was developed based on data obtained from healthy volunteers receiving multiple administrations of PG. The developed model was a bidirectional PKPD model, where PG stimulated the proliferation, maturation, and margination of neutrophils and where circulating neutrophils in turn increased the elimination of PG. Simulations from the developed model show disproportionate changes in response with changes in dose. A dose increase of 10% from the 6 mg therapeutic dose taken as a reference leads to area under the curve (AUC) increases of ~50 and ~5% for PK and PD, respectively. A full random effects covariate model showed that little of the parameter variability could be explained by sex, age, body size, and race. As a consequence, little of the secondary parameter variability (C and AUC of PG and ANC) could be explained by these covariates.

Background and ObjectivesFixed-dose combination formulations where several drugs are included in one tablet are important for the implementation of many long-term multidrug therapies. The selection of optimal dose ratios and tablet content of a fixed-dose combination and the design of individualized dosing regimens is a complex task, requiring multiple simultaneous considerations.MethodsIn this work, a methodology for the rational design of a fixed-dose combination was developed and applied to the case of a three-drug pediatric anti-tuberculosis formulation individualized on body weight. The optimization methodology synthesizes information about the intended use population, the pharmacokinetic properties of the drugs, therapeutic targets, and practical constraints. A utility function is included to penalize deviations from the targets; a sequential estimation procedure was developed for stable estimation of break-points for individualized dosing. The suggested optimized pediatric anti-tuberculosis fixed-dose combination was compared with the recently launched World Health Organization-endorsed formulation.ResultsThe optimized fixed-dose combination included 15, 36, and 16% higher amounts of rifampicin, isoniazid, and pyrazinamide, respectively. The optimized fixed-dose combination is expected to result in overall less deviation from the therapeutic targets based on adult exposure and substantially fewer children with underexposure (below half the target).ConclusionThe development of this design tool can aid the implementation of evidence-based formulations, integrating available knowledge and practical considerations, to optimize drug exposures and thereby treatment outcomes.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s40262-017-0577-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The full random‐effects model (FREM) is a method for determining covariate effects in mixed‐effects models. Covariates are modeled as random variables, described by mean and variance. The method captures the covariate effects in estimated covariances between individual parameters and covariates. This approach is robust against issues that may cause reduced performance in methods based on estimating fixed effects (e.g., correlated covariates where the effects cannot be simultaneously identified in fixed‐effects methods). FREM covariate parameterization and transformation of covariate data records can be used to alter the covariate‐parameter relation. Four relations (linear, log‐linear, exponential, and power) were implemented and shown to provide estimates equivalent to their fixed‐effects counterparts. Comparisons between FREM and mathematically equivalent full fixed‐effects models (FFEMs) were performed in original and simulated data, in the presence and absence of non‐normally distributed and highly correlated covariates. These comparisons show that both FREM and FFEM perform well in the examined cases, with a slightly better estimation accuracy of parameter interindividual variability (IIV) in FREM. In addition, FREM offers the unique advantage of letting a single estimation simultaneously provide covariate effect coefficient estimates and IIV estimates for any subset of the examined covariates, including the effect of each covariate in isolation. Such subsets can be used to apply the model across data sources with different sets of available covariates, or to communicate covariate effects in a way that is not conditional on other covariates.

No abstract

The inclusion of covariates in population models during drug development is a key step to understanding drug variability and support dosage regimen proposal, but high correlation among covariates often complicates the identification of the true covariate. We compared three covariate selection methods balancing data information and prior knowledge: (1) full fixed effect modelling (FFEM), with covariate selection prior to data analysis, (2) simplified stepwise covariate modelling (sSCM), data driven selection only, and (3) Prior-Adjusted Covariate Selection (PACS) mixing both. PACS penalizes the a priori less likely covariate model by adding to its objective function value (OFV) a prior probability-derived constant: $$2*{\kern 1pt} \,{\ln}\left( {{\Pr}\left( X \right)/\left( {1 - {\Pr}\left( X \right)} \right)} \right)$$ 2 ∗ ln Pr X / 1 - Pr X , Pr(X) being the probability of the more likely covariate. Simulations were performed to compare their external performance (average OFV in a validation dataset of 10,000 subjects) in selecting the true covariate between two highly correlated covariates: 0.5, 0.7, or 0.9, after a training step on datasets of 12, 25 or 100 subjects (increasing power). With low power data no method was superior, except FFEM when associated with highly correlated covariates ($$r=0.9$$ r = 0.9 ), sSCM and PACS suffering both from selection bias. For high power data, PACS and sSCM performed similarly, both superior to FFEM. PACS is an alternative for covariate selection considering both the expected power to identify an anticipated covariate relation and the probability of prior information being correct. A proposed strategy is to use FFEM whenever the expected power to distinguish between contending models is < 80%, PACS when > 80% but < 100%, and SCM when the expected power is 100%.