NDLI: Approaches to handling pharmacodynamic baseline responses

Content Provider	Springer Nature Link
Author	Dansirikul, Chantaratsamon Silber, Hanna E. Karlsson, Mats O.
Copyright Year	2008
Abstract	A few approaches for handling baseline responses are available for use in pharmacokinetic (PK)-pharmacodynamic (PD) analysis. They include: (method 1—B1) estimation of the typical value and interindividual variability (IIV) of baseline in the population, (B2) inclusion of the observed baseline response as a covariate acknowledging the residual variability, (B3) a more general version of B2 as it also takes the IIV of the baseline in the population into account, and (B4) normalization of all observations by the baseline value. The aim of this study was to investigate the relative performance of B1–B4. PD responses over a single dosing interval were simulated from an indirect response model in which a drug acts through stimulation or inhibition of the response according to an Emax model. The performance of B1–B4 was investigated under 22 designs, each containing 100 datasets. NONMEM VI beta was used to estimate model parameters with the FO and the FOCE method. The mean error (ME, %) and root mean squared error (RMSE, %) of the population parameter estimates were computed and used as an indicator of bias and imprecision. Absolute ME (\|ME\|) and RMSE from all methods were ranked within the same design, the lower the rank value the better method performance. Average rank of each method from all designs was reported. The results showed that with B1 and FOCE, the average of \|ME\| and RMSE across all typical individual parameters and all conditions was 5.9 and 31.8%. The average rank of \|ME\| for B1, B2, B3, and B4 was 3.7, 3.8, 3.3, and 5.2 for the FOCE method, and 4.6, 4.3, 4.7, and 6.4 for the FO method. The smallest imprecision was noted with the use of B1 (rank of 3.1 for FO, and 2.9 for FOCE) and increased, in order, with B3 (3.9-FO and 3.6-FOCE), B2 (4.8-FO; 4.7-FOCE), and B4 (6.4-FO; 6.5-FOCE). We conclude that when considering both bias and imprecision B1 was slightly better than B3 which in turn was better than B2. Differences between these methods were small. B4 was clearly inferior. The FOCE method led to a smaller bias, but no marked reduction in imprecision of parameter estimates compared to the FO method.
Starting Page	269
Ending Page	283
Page Count	15
File Format	PDF
ISSN	1567567X
Journal	Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics
Volume Number	35
Issue Number	3
e-ISSN	15738744
Language	English
Publisher	Springer US
Publisher Date	2008-04-30
Publisher Place	Boston
Access Restriction	One Nation One Subscription (ONOS)
Subject Keyword	Baseline responses Baseline model Pharmacokinetics Pharmacodynamics Pharmacology/Toxicology Pharmacy Veterinary Medicine Biomedical Engineering Biochemistry
Content Type	Text
Resource Type	Article
Subject	Pharmacology

Sl.	Authority	Responsibilities	Communication Details
1	Ministry of Education (GoI), Department of Higher Education	Sanctioning Authority	https://www.education.gov.in/ict-initiatives
2	Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	Host Institute of the Project: The host institute of the project is responsible for providing infrastructure support and hosting the project	https://www.iitkgp.ac.in
3	National Digital Library of India Office, Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur	The administrative and infrastructural headquarters of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in
4	Project PI / Joint PI	Principal Investigator and Joint Principal Investigators of the project	Dr. B. Sutradhar bsutra@ndl.gov.in Prof. Saswat Chakrabarti will be added soon
5	Website/Portal (Helpdesk)	Queries regarding NDLI and its services	support@ndl.gov.in
6	Contents and Copyright Issues	Queries related to content curation and copyright issues	content@ndl.gov.in
7	National Digital Library of India Club (NDLI Club)	Queries related to NDLI Club formation, support, user awareness program, seminar/symposium, collaboration, social media, promotion, and outreach	clubsupport@ndl.gov.in
8	Digital Preservation Centre (DPC)	Assistance with digitizing and archiving copyright-free printed books	dpc@ndl.gov.in
9	IDR Setup or Support	Queries related to establishment and support of Institutional Digital Repository (IDR) and IDR workshops	idr@ndl.gov.in

Population pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic model of propofol externally validated in children

Pharmacokinetic–Pharmacodynamic Modelling: History and Perspectives

Changes to journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics

Volterra Series in Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics

A general model-based design of experiments approach to achieve practical identifiability of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic models

Reply to the editor of Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics

Target-mediated pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic model of recombinant human erythropoietin (rHuEPO)

A new mathematical pharmacodynamic model of clonogenic cancer cell death by doxorubicin

Population pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic–disease progression model for effects of anakinra in Lewis rats with collagen-induced arthritis

Approaches to handling pharmacodynamic baseline responses

Similar Documents

Population pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic model of propofol externally validated in children

Pharmacokinetic–Pharmacodynamic Modelling: History and Perspectives

Changes to journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics

Volterra Series in Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics

A general model-based design of experiments approach to achieve practical identifiability of pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic models

Reply to the editor of Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics

Target-mediated pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic model of recombinant human erythropoietin (rHuEPO)

A new mathematical pharmacodynamic model of clonogenic cancer cell death by doxorubicin

Population pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic–disease progression model for effects of anakinra in Lewis rats with collagen-induced arthritis

Approaches to handling pharmacodynamic baseline responses