Optimal Sampling Times for a Drug and its Metabolite using SIMCYP® Simulations as Prior Information

Abstract

Background: Since 2007, it is mandatory for the pharmaceutical companies to submit a Paediatric Investigation Plan to the Paediatric Committee at the European Medicines Agency for any drug in development in adults, and it often leads to the need to conduct a pharmacokinetic study in children. Pharmacokinetic studies in children raise ethical and methodological issues. Because of limitation of sampling times, appropriate methods, such as the population approach, are necessary for analysis of the pharmacokinetic data. The choice of the pharmacokinetic sampling design has an important impact on the precision of population parameter estimates. Approaches for design evaluation and optimization based on the evaluation of the Fisher information matrix (M F ) have been proposed and are now implemented in several software packages, such as PFIM in R.Objectives: The objectives of this work were to (i) develop a joint population pharmacokinetic model to describe the pharmacokinetic characteristics of a drug S and its active metabolite in children after intravenous drug administration from simulated plasma concentration-time data produced using physiologically based pharmacokinetic (PBPK) predictions; (ii) optimize the pharmacokinetic sampling times for an upcoming clinical study using a multi-response design approach, considering clinical constraints; and iii) evaluate the resulting design taking data below the lower limit of quantification (BLQ) into account.Methods: Plasma concentration-time profiles were simulated in children using a PBPK model previously developed with the software SIMCYP ® for the parent drug and its active metabolite. Data were analysed using non-linear mixed-effect models with the software NONMEM ® , using a joint model for the parent drug and its metabolite. The population pharmacokinetic design, for the future study in 82 children from 2 to 18 years old, each receiving a single dose of the drug, was then optimized using PFIM, assuming identical times for parent and metabolite concentration measurements and considering clinical constraints. Design evaluation was based on the relative standard errors (RSEs) of the parameters of interest. In the final evaluation of the proposed design, an approach was used to assess the possible effect of BLQ concentrations on the design efficiency. This approach consists of rescaling the M F , using, at each sampling time, the probability of observing a concentration BLQ computed from Monte-Carlo simulations.Results: A joint pharmacokinetic model with three compartments for the parent drug and one for its active metabolite, with random effects on four parameters, was used to fit the simulated PBPK concentration-time data. A combined error model best described the residual variability. Parameters and dose were expressed per kilogram of bodyweight. Reaching a compromise between PFIM results and clinical constraints, the optimal design was composed of four samples at 0.1, 1.8, 5 and 10 h after drug injection. This design predicted RSE lower than 30 % for the fo...

A critical review of forest biomass estimation models, common mistakes and corrective measures

“…Uncertainty around a model parameter (h) is usually indicated by the standard error (SE). Better still is the percent relative standard errors (PRSE) defined as PRSE ¼ 100 SE jhj (Dumont et al, 2013;McCune and Grace, 2002). For ecological studies point estimates of h are considered unreliable when PRSE is greater than 20% (McCune and Grace, 2002).…”

Aboveground Biomass and Carbon in a South African Mistbelt Forest and the Relationships with Tree Species Diversity and Forest Structures

“…where SE is the standard error of model parameter (θ) [36]. Valued of PRSE greater than 20% indicate an unreliable parameter [37].…”

A Perspective on the Prediction of Drug Pharmacokinetics and Disposition in Drug Research and Development

“…This information facilitates prediction of complex DDI situations, allowing simultaneous evaluation of competitive inhibition, time-dependent inhibition or auto-inhibition, enzyme-induction or auto-induction, and transporter-mediated DDI with multiple co-administered perpetrator drugs (Varma et al, 2013b;. It is also possible to simultaneously evaluate the impact of metabolites contributing to DDI or population extremes with respect to enzyme or transporter expression levels, ethnicity, or pharmacogenetic variability in enzyme or transporter expression (Inoue et al, 2006;Jamei et al, 2009c;Barter et al, 2013;Dumont et al, 2013). The utility of PBPK models are further realized in the potential financial savings during drug development since appropriately calibrated models reduce development cost by avoiding the conduct of additional or unnecessary clinical DDI studies when used to simulate "what-if" scenarios.…”