Use of normalized prediction distribution errors for assessing population physiologically-based pharmacokinetic model adequacy.
Adolescent
Age Factors
Biological Variation, Population
Child
Child, Preschool
Clindamycin
/ administration & dosage
Computer Simulation
Datasets as Topic
Dose-Response Relationship, Drug
Female
Gestational Age
Humans
Infant
Male
Models, Biological
Prospective Studies
Software
Statistical Distributions
Normalized prediction distribution errors
Pediatric subpopulations
Population physiologically-based pharmacokinetic modeling
Potential biases
Journal
Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics
ISSN: 1573-8744
Titre abrégé: J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101096520
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
06 2020
06 2020
Historique:
received:
01
07
2019
accepted:
27
03
2020
pubmed:
24
4
2020
medline:
21
9
2021
entrez:
24
4
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Currently employed methods for qualifying population physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (Pop-PBPK) model predictions of continuous outcomes (e.g., concentration-time data) fail to account for within-subject correlations and the presence of residual error. In this study, we propose a new method for evaluating Pop-PBPK model predictions that account for such features. The approach focuses on deriving Pop-PBPK-specific normalized prediction distribution errors (NPDE), a metric that is commonly used for population pharmacokinetic model validation. We describe specific methodological steps for computing NPDE for Pop-PBPK models and define three measures for evaluating model performance: mean of NPDE, goodness-of-fit plots, and the magnitude of residual error. Utility of the proposed evaluation approach was demonstrated using two simulation-based study designs (positive and negative control studies) as well as pharmacokinetic data from a real-world clinical trial. For the positive-control simulation study, where observations and model simulations were generated under the same Pop-PBPK model, the NPDE-based approach denoted a congruency between model predictions and observed data (mean of NPDE = - 0.01). In contrast, for the negative-control simulation study, where model simulations and observed data were generated under different Pop-PBPK models, the NPDE-based method asserted that model simulations and observed data were incongruent (mean of NPDE = - 0.29). When employed to evaluate a previously developed clindamycin PBPK model against prospectively collected plasma concentration data from 29 children, the NPDE-based method qualified the model predictions as successful (mean of NPDE = 0). However, when pediatric subpopulations (e.g., infants) were evaluated, the approach revealed potential biases that should be explored.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32323049
doi: 10.1007/s10928-020-09684-2
pii: 10.1007/s10928-020-09684-2
pmc: PMC7293575
mid: NIHMS1586897
doi:
Substances chimiques
Clindamycin
3U02EL437C
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
199-218Subventions
Organisme : NICHD NIH HHS
ID : HHSN267200700051C
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIAID NIH HHS
ID : K24 AI143971
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIH HHS
ID : 1R01-HD076676-01A1
Pays : United States
Organisme : NICHD NIH HHS
ID : HHSN275201000003I
Pays : United States
Organisme : NICHD NIH HHS
ID : K23 HD090239
Pays : United States
Organisme : NICHD NIH HHS
ID : K23 HD091365
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIAAA NIH HHS
ID : HHSN275201000003C
Pays : United States
Organisme : NICHD NIH HHS
ID : R01 HD076676
Pays : United States
Organisme : NIAID NIH HHS
ID : HHSN272201500006C
Pays : United States
Organisme : FDA HHS
ID : U18 FD006298
Pays : United States
Références
AAPS J. 2013 Apr;15(2):455-64
pubmed: 23344790
CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol. 2013 Apr 17;2:e38
pubmed: 23887688
J Pharm Sci. 2005 Jun;94(6):1237-48
pubmed: 15858851
J Pharm Sci. 2019 Jan;108(1):21-25
pubmed: 30385284
J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2007 Jun;34(3):401-31
pubmed: 17431751
CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol. 2016 Sep;5(9):475-83
pubmed: 27566992
Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2014 Oct;96(4):429-37
pubmed: 24949994
AAPS J. 2011 Jun;13(2):143-51
pubmed: 21302010
Expert Rev Clin Pharmacol. 2011 Sep;4(5):643-52
pubmed: 21980319
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2013 Apr;75(4):1068-80
pubmed: 23148919
CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol. 2014 Oct 22;3:e150
pubmed: 25353188
Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2012 Dec;74(6):971-7
pubmed: 22486719
J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2010 Feb;37(1):49-65
pubmed: 20033477
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2016 May 23;60(6):3407-14
pubmed: 27001806
J Pharm Sci. 2006 Jun;95(6):1238-57
pubmed: 16639716
Drug Metab Dispos. 2015 Nov;43(11):1823-37
pubmed: 26296709
CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol. 2017 Feb;6(2):87-109
pubmed: 27884052
J Pharm Sci. 2005 Jun;94(6):1259-76
pubmed: 15858854
Pharm Res. 2006 Sep;23(9):2036-49
pubmed: 16906454
J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2019 Jun;46(3):263-272
pubmed: 31016557
Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2013 Nov;72(5):991-1000
pubmed: 24061863
CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol. 2017 Dec;6(12):814-822
pubmed: 29068158
AAPS J. 2014 Mar;16(2):226-39
pubmed: 24399240
Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2016 Apr 22;60(5):2888-94
pubmed: 26926644
J Pharmacokinet Biopharm. 1993 Dec;21(6):735-50
pubmed: 8138894
J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2012 Oct;39(5):499-518
pubmed: 22886041
Arch Dis Child. 2013 Sep;98(9):737-44
pubmed: 23832061
Clin Pharmacokinet. 2017 Nov;56(11):1343-1353
pubmed: 28290120
CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol. 2017 Feb;6(2):110-119
pubmed: 27935268
J Pharm Sci. 2011 Oct;100(10):4050-73
pubmed: 21523782
CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol. 2017 May;6(5):315-321
pubmed: 28398693
Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2008 May;90(2):154-66
pubmed: 18215437