Simultaneous vs. Sequential Analysis for Population PK/PD Data I: Best-Case Performance

Abstract

Dose [-concentration]-effect relationships can be obtained by fitting a predictive pharmacokinetic (PK)-pharmacodynamic (PD) model to both concentration and effect observations. Either a model can befit simultaneously to all the data ("simultaneous" method), or first a model can befit to the PK data and then a model can be fit to the PD data, conditioning in some way on the PK data or on the estimates of the PK parameters ("sequential" method). Using simulated data, we compare the performance of the simultaneous method with that of three sequential method variants with respect to computation time, estimation precision, and inference. Using NONMEM, under various study designs, observations of one type of PK and one type of PD response from different numbers of individuals were simulated according to a one-compartment PK model and direct Emax PD model, with parameters drawn from an appropriate population distribution. The same PK and PD models were fit to these observations using simultaneous and sequential methods. Performance measures include computation time,fraction of cases for which estimates are successfully obtained, precision of PD parameter estimates, precision of PD parameter standard error estimates, and type-I error rates of a likelihood ratio test. With the sequential method, computation time is less, and estimates are more likely to be obtained. Using the First Order Conditional Estimation (FOCE) method, a sequential approach that conditions on both population PK parameter estimates and PK data, estimates PD parameters and their standard errors about as well as the "gold standard" simultaneous method, and saves about 40% computation time. Type-I error rates of likelihood ratio test for both simultaneous and sequential approaches are close to the nominal rates.

Platelet Dynamics in Peritoneal Carcinomatosis Patients Treated with Cytoreductive Surgery and Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Oxaliplatin

“…In subjects receiving HIO with no oxaliplatin concentrations available (n=9, 11.3%), typical values of pharmacokinetic parameters were assumed to predict time course of oxaliplatin plasma concentrations. The development of the PK/PD model was performed using a sequential process as described elsewhere (37). During the model development process, linear or sigmoid functions of C p or the drug concentration in a hypothetical effect compartment (C e ) were also tested to describe the E Drug .…”

Population pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of bivalirudin in young healthy Chinese volunteers

“…In developing the population PK-PD models, the IPP (Individual PK Parameters) sequential approach [16] was used. The population PK model was built first as mentioned above, and then the estimated individual PK parameters were fixed to individual estimations from the final PK model for estimating the PD parameters.…”

Pharmacometric Modeling of Liver Metastases' Diameter, Volume, and Density and Their Relation to Clinical Outcome in Imatinib‐Treated Patients With Gastrointestinal Stromal Tumors

“…The baseline hazard ( h 0 (t) ) was explored using exponential, Weibull, Gompertz, log‐normal, and log‐logistic models 31. A sequential analysis similar to the population pharmacokinetic parameters and data32 approach was initially considered but led to model instability, preventing likelihood ratio testing. Therefore, an approach similar to the individual pharmacokinetic parameter approach was used,32 in which individual empirical Bayes estimates from the final joint tumor model were used to predict individual tumor size or density time‐courses, which were then investigated as predictors in the TTE models.…”

“…A sequential analysis similar to the population pharmacokinetic parameters and data32 approach was initially considered but led to model instability, preventing likelihood ratio testing. Therefore, an approach similar to the individual pharmacokinetic parameter approach was used,32 in which individual empirical Bayes estimates from the final joint tumor model were used to predict individual tumor size or density time‐courses, which were then investigated as predictors in the TTE models. Baseline predictors included patient characteristics (age and gender) and model‐predicted (log‐transformed) baseline MTD, V actual , V ellipsoid , and tumor density.…”