Does Sample Size, Sampling Strategy, or Handling of Concentrations Below the Lower Limit of Quantification Matter When Externally Evaluating Population Pharmacokinetic Models?
Journal
European journal of drug metabolism and pharmacokinetics
ISSN: 2107-0180
Titre abrégé: Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet
Pays: France
ID NLM: 7608491
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 May 2024
05 May 2024
Historique:
accepted:
07
04
2024
medline:
6
5
2024
pubmed:
6
5
2024
entrez:
5
5
2024
Statut:
aheadofprint
Résumé
Precision dosing requires selecting the appropriate population pharmacokinetic model, which can be assessed through external evaluations (EEs). The lack of understanding of how different study design factors influence EE study outcomes makes it challenging to select the most suitable model for clinical use. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of sample size, sampling strategy, and handling of concentrations below the lower limit of quantification (BLQ) on the outcomes of EE for four population pharmacokinetic models using vancomycin and tobramycin as examples. Three virtual patient populations undergoing vancomycin or tobramycin therapy were simulated with varying sample size and sampling scenarios. The three approaches used to handle BLQ data were to (1) discard them, (2) impute them as LLOQ/2, or (3) use a likelihood-based approach. EEs were performed with NONMEM and R. Sample size did not have an important impact on the EE results for a given scenario. Increasing the number of samples per patient did not improve predictive performance for two out of the three evaluated models. Evaluating a model developed with rich sampling did not result in better performance than those developed with regular therapeutic drug monitoring. A likelihood-based method to handle BLQ samples impacted the outcomes of the EE with lower bias for predicted troughs. This study suggests that a large sample size may not be necessary for an EE study, and models selected based on TDM may be more generalizable. The study highlights the need for guidelines for EE of population pharmacokinetic models for clinical use.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
OBJECTIVE
Precision dosing requires selecting the appropriate population pharmacokinetic model, which can be assessed through external evaluations (EEs). The lack of understanding of how different study design factors influence EE study outcomes makes it challenging to select the most suitable model for clinical use. This study aimed to evaluate the impact of sample size, sampling strategy, and handling of concentrations below the lower limit of quantification (BLQ) on the outcomes of EE for four population pharmacokinetic models using vancomycin and tobramycin as examples.
METHODS
METHODS
Three virtual patient populations undergoing vancomycin or tobramycin therapy were simulated with varying sample size and sampling scenarios. The three approaches used to handle BLQ data were to (1) discard them, (2) impute them as LLOQ/2, or (3) use a likelihood-based approach. EEs were performed with NONMEM and R.
RESULTS
RESULTS
Sample size did not have an important impact on the EE results for a given scenario. Increasing the number of samples per patient did not improve predictive performance for two out of the three evaluated models. Evaluating a model developed with rich sampling did not result in better performance than those developed with regular therapeutic drug monitoring. A likelihood-based method to handle BLQ samples impacted the outcomes of the EE with lower bias for predicted troughs.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
This study suggests that a large sample size may not be necessary for an EE study, and models selected based on TDM may be more generalizable. The study highlights the need for guidelines for EE of population pharmacokinetic models for clinical use.
Identifiants
pubmed: 38705941
doi: 10.1007/s13318-024-00897-1
pii: 10.1007/s13318-024-00897-1
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Informations de copyright
© 2024. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG.
Références
Marsot A. Pharmacokinetic variability in pediatrics and intensive care: toward a personalized dosing approach. J Pharm Pharm Sci. 2018;21(1):354–62.
pubmed: 30226814
doi: 10.18433/jpps30082
Powell JR, Cook J, Wang Y, Peck R, Weiner D. Drug dosing recommendations for all patients: a roadmap for change. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2021;109(1):65–72.
pubmed: 32453862
doi: 10.1002/cpt.1923
Mould DR, Upton RN. Basic concepts in population modeling, simulation, and model-based drug development-part 2: introduction to pharmacokinetic modeling methods. CPT Pharmacomet Syst Pharmacol. 2013;2(4): e38.
doi: 10.1038/psp.2013.14
Kantasiripitak W, Van Daele R, Gijsen M, Ferrante M, Spriet I, Dreesen E. Software tools for model-informed precision dosing: how well do they satisfy the needs? Front Pharmacol. 2020;11:620.
pubmed: 32457619
pmcid: 7224248
doi: 10.3389/fphar.2020.00620
Aljutayli A, Thirion DJG, Bonnefois G, Nekka F. Pharmacokinetic equations versus Bayesian guided vancomycin monitoring: pharmacokinetic model and model-informed precision dosing trial simulations. Clin Transl Sci. 2022;15(4):942–53.
pubmed: 35170243
pmcid: 9010252
doi: 10.1111/cts.13210
Gu JQ, Guo YP, Jiao Z, Ding JJ, Li GF. How to handle delayed or missed doses: a population pharmacokinetic perspective. Eur J Drug Metab Pharmacokinet. 2020;45(2):163–72.
pubmed: 31792726
doi: 10.1007/s13318-019-00598-0
Patanwala AE, Spremo D, Jeon M, Thoma Y, Alffenaa JWC, Stocker S. Discrepancies between Bayesian vancomycin models can affect clinical decisions in the critically ill. Crit Care Res Pract. 2022;2022:7011376.
pubmed: 36561549
pmcid: 9767744
El Hassani M, Marsot A. External evaluation of population pharmacokinetic models for precision dosing: current state and knowledge gaps. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2023;62(4):533–40.
pubmed: 37004650
doi: 10.1007/s40262-023-01233-7
Cheng Y, Wang C-Y, Li Z-R, Pan Y, Liu M-B, Jiao Z. Can population pharmacokinetics of antibiotics be extrapolated? Implications of external evaluations. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2021;60(1):53–68.
pubmed: 32960439
doi: 10.1007/s40262-020-00937-4
Kim YK, Lee JH, Jang HJ, Zang DY, Lee DH. Predicting antibiotic effect of vancomycin using pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling and simulation: dense sampling versus sparse sampling. Antibiotics (Basel). 2022;11(6):743.
pubmed: 35740150
doi: 10.3390/antibiotics11060743
Aarons L, Ogungbenro K. Optimal design of pharmacokinetic studies. Basic Clin Pharmacol Toxicol. 2010;106(3):250–5.
pubmed: 20102362
doi: 10.1111/j.1742-7843.2009.00533.x
Beal SL. Sample size determination for confidence intervals on the population mean and on the difference between two population means. Biometrics. 1989;45(3):969–77.
pubmed: 2790131
doi: 10.2307/2531696
Grieve AP. Confidence intervals and sample sizes. Biometrics. 1991;47(4):1597–602.
pubmed: 1786333
doi: 10.2307/2532411
Ogungbenro K, Aarons L. How many subjects are necessary for population pharmacokinetic experiments? Confidence interval approach. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2008;64(7):705–13.
pubmed: 18483725
doi: 10.1007/s00228-008-0493-7
Chan Kwong AHXP, Calvier EAM, Fabre D, Gattacceca F, Khier S. Prior information for population pharmacokinetic and pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analysis: overview and guidance with a focus on the NONMEM PRIOR subroutine. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2020;47(5):431–46.
pubmed: 32535847
pmcid: 7520416
doi: 10.1007/s10928-020-09695-z
Keizer RJ, Jansen RS, Rosing H, Thijssen B, Beijnen JH, Schellens JH, et al. Incorporation of concentration data below the limit of quantification in population pharmacokinetic analyses. Pharmacol Res Perspect. 2015;3(2): e00131.
pubmed: 26038706
pmcid: 4448983
doi: 10.1002/prp2.131
Huang S, Ding Q, Yang N, Sun Z, Cheng Q, Liu W, et al. External evaluation of published population pharmacokinetic models of posaconazole. Front Pharmacol. 2022;13:1005348.
pubmed: 36249756
pmcid: 9561726
doi: 10.3389/fphar.2022.1005348
Konecki C, Feliu C, Cazaubon Y, Giusti D, Tonye-Libyh M, Brixi H, et al. External evaluation of population pharmacokinetic models and bayes-based dosing of infliximab. Pharmaceutics. 2021;13(8):1191.
pubmed: 34452152
pmcid: 8398005
doi: 10.3390/pharmaceutics13081191
Beal SL. Ways to fit a PK model with some data below the quantification limit. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2001;28(5):481–504.
pubmed: 11768292
doi: 10.1023/A:1012299115260
Santacana E, Rodríguez-Alonso L, Padullés A, Guardiola J, Rodríguez-Moranta F, Serra K, et al. External evaluation of population pharmacokinetic models of infliximab in patients with inflammatory bowel disease. Ther Drug Monit. 2018;40(1):120–9.
pubmed: 29200097
doi: 10.1097/FTD.0000000000000476
Hanafin PO, Nation RL, Scheetz MH, Zavascki AP, Sandri AM, Kwa AL, et al. Assessing the predictive performance of population pharmacokinetic models for intravenous polymyxin B in critically ill patients. CPT Pharmacomet Syst Pharmacol. 2021;10(12):1525–37.
doi: 10.1002/psp4.12720
Yang N, Wang J, Xie Y, Ding J, Wu C, Liu J, et al. External evaluation of population pharmacokinetic models to inform precision dosing of meropenem in critically ill patients. Front Pharmacol. 2022;13: 838205.
pubmed: 35662716
pmcid: 9157771
doi: 10.3389/fphar.2022.838205
Nguyen TH, Comets E, Mentré F. Extension of NPDE for evaluation of nonlinear mixed effect models in presence of data below the quantification limit with applications to HIV dynamic model. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2012;39(5):499–518.
pubmed: 22886041
doi: 10.1007/s10928-012-9264-2
Irby DJ, Ibrahim ME, Dauki AM, Badawi MA, Illamola SM, Chen M, et al. Approaches to handling missing or “problematic” pharmacology data: pharmacokinetics. CPT Pharmacomet Syst Pharmacol. 2021;10(4):291–308.
doi: 10.1002/psp4.12611
Ahn JE, Karlsson MO, Dunne A, Ludden TM. Likelihood based approaches to handling data below the quantification limit using NONMEM VI. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2008;35(4):401–21.
pubmed: 18686017
doi: 10.1007/s10928-008-9094-4
Bergstrand M, Karlsson MO. Handling data below the limit of quantification in mixed effect models. AAPS J. 2009;11(2):371–80.
pubmed: 19452283
pmcid: 2691472
doi: 10.1208/s12248-009-9112-5
Mehrotra N, Tang L, Phelps SJ, Meibohm B. Evaluation of vancomycin dosing regimens in preterm and term neonates using Monte Carlo simulations. Pharmacotherapy. 2012;32(5):408–19.
pubmed: 22488303
doi: 10.1002/j.1875-9114.2012.01029.x
Dong M, Rodriguez AV, Blankenship CA, McPhail G, Vinks AA, Hunter LL. Pharmacokinetic modelling to predict risk of ototoxicity with intravenous tobramycin treatment in cystic fibrosis. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2021;76(11):2923–31.
pubmed: 34379758
pmcid: 8677449
doi: 10.1093/jac/dkab288
El Hassani M, Simard C, Pilote S, Cloutier I, Soufsaf S, Marsot A. Consideration of height-based tobramycin dosing regimens for the treatment of adult cystic fibrosis pulmonary exacerbations. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2021;88(5):2246–55.
pubmed: 34820875
doi: 10.1111/bcp.15154
Smit C, Wasmann RE, Wiezer MJ, van Dongen HPA, Mouton JW, Brüggemann RJM, et al. Tobramycin clearance is best described by renal function estimates in obese and non-obese individuals: results of a prospective rich sampling pharmacokinetic study. Pharm Res. 2019;36(8):112.
pubmed: 31147853
pmcid: 6542779
doi: 10.1007/s11095-019-2651-2
Koloskoff K, Thirion DJG, Matouk E, Marsot A. New recommendations of a height-based dosing regimen of tobramycin for cystic fibrosis in adults: a population pharmacokinetic analysis. Ther Drug Monit. 2022. https://doi.org/10.1097/FTD.0000000000001021 .
doi: 10.1097/FTD.0000000000001021
Alghanem S, Paterson I, Touw DJ, Thomson AH. Influence of multiple courses of therapy on aminoglycoside clearance in adult patients with cystic fibrosis. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2013;68(6):1338–47.
pubmed: 23435691
doi: 10.1093/jac/dkt035
Teutonico D, Musuamba F, Maas HJ, Facius A, Yang S, Danhof M, et al. Generating virtual patients by multivariate and discrete re-sampling techniques. Pharm Res. 2015;32(10):3228–37.
pubmed: 25994981
pmcid: 4577546
doi: 10.1007/s11095-015-1699-x
Owen JS, Fiedler-Kelly J (2014) Introduction to population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic analysis with nonlinear mixed effects models. John Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ
Germovsek E, Osborne L, Gunaratnam F, Lounis SA, Busquets FB, Standing JF, et al. Development and external evaluation of a population pharmacokinetic model for continuous and intermittent administration of vancomycin in neonates and infants using prospectively collected data. J Antimicrob Chemother. 2019;74(4):1003–11.
pubmed: 30668696
doi: 10.1093/jac/dky525
Vancocin (vancomycin hydrochloride) [package insert]. Baudette, MN: ANI Pharmaceuticals; 2017
Aljutayli A, El-Haffaf I, Marsot A, Nekka F. An update on population pharmacokinetic analyses of vancomycin, part II: in pediatric patients. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2022;61(1):47–70.
pubmed: 34671937
doi: 10.1007/s40262-021-01050-w
Smit C, Wasmann RE, Goulooze SC, Hazebroek EJ, Van Dongen EPA, Burgers DMT, et al. A prospective clinical study characterizing the influence of morbid obesity on the pharmacokinetics of gentamicin: towards individualized dosing in obese patients. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2019;58(10):1333–43.
pubmed: 31016671
pmcid: 6768900
doi: 10.1007/s40262-019-00762-4
Crass RL, Pai MP. Optimizing estimated glomerular filtration rate to support adult to pediatric pharmacokinetic bridging studies in patients with cystic fibrosis. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2019;58(10):1323–32.
pubmed: 30972695
pmcid: 8856582
doi: 10.1007/s40262-019-00761-5
Frymoyer A, Hersh AL, El-Komy MH, Gaskari S, Su F, Drover DR, et al. Association between vancomycin trough concentration and area under the concentration-time curve in neonates. Antimicrob Agents Chemother. 2014;58(11):6454–61.
pubmed: 25136027
pmcid: 4249374
doi: 10.1128/AAC.03620-14
Bauer RJ. NONMEM tutorial part II: estimation methods and advanced examples. CPT Pharmacomet Syst Pharmacol. 2019;8(8):538–56.
doi: 10.1002/psp4.12422
Maitre PO, Ausems ME, Vozeh S, Stanski DR. Evaluating the accuracy of using population pharmacokinetic data to predict plasma concentrations of alfentanil. Anesthesiology. 1988;68(1):59–67.
pubmed: 3122601
doi: 10.1097/00000542-198801000-00010
Hara M, Masui K, Eleveld DJ, Struys MMRF, Uchida O. Predictive performance of eleven pharmacokinetic models for propofol infusion in children for long-duration anaesthesia. Br J Anaesth. 2017;118(3):415–23.
pubmed: 28186264
doi: 10.1093/bja/aex007
Miyabe-Nishiwaki T, Masui K, Kaneko A, Nishiwaki K, Nishio T, Kanazawa H. Evaluation of the predictive performance of a pharmacokinetic model for propofol in Japanese macaques (Macaca fuscata fuscata). J Vet Pharmacol Ther. 2013;36(2):169–73.
pubmed: 22568878
doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2885.2012.01404.x
Comets E, Brendel K, Mentré F. Computing normalised prediction distribution errors to evaluate nonlinear mixed-effect models: the npde add-on package for R. Comput Methods Programs Biomed. 2008;90(2):154–66.
pubmed: 18215437
doi: 10.1016/j.cmpb.2007.12.002
Hughes JH, Tong DMH, Faldasz JD, Frymoyer A, Keizer RJ. Evaluation of neonatal and paediatric vancomycin pharmacokinetic models and the impact of maturation and serum creatinine covariates in a large multicentre data set. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2023;62(1):67–76.
pubmed: 36404388
doi: 10.1007/s40262-022-01185-4
Heus A, Uster DW, Grootaert V, Vermeulen N, Somers A, In’t Veld DH, et al. Model-informed precision dosing of vancomycin via continuous infusion: a clinical fit-for-purpose evaluation of published PK models. Int J Antimicrob Agents. 2022;59(5): 106579.
pubmed: 35341931
doi: 10.1016/j.ijantimicag.2022.106579
Colin PJ, Allegaert K, Thomson AH, Touw DJ, Dolton M, de Hoog M, et al. Vancomycin pharmacokinetics throughout life: results from a pooled population analysis and evaluation of current dosing recommendations. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2019;58(6):767–80.
pubmed: 30656565
doi: 10.1007/s40262-018-0727-5
Cunio CB, Uster DW, Carland JE, Buscher H, Liu Z, Brett J et al. Towards precision dosing of vancomycin in critically ill patients: an evaluation of the predictive performance of pharmacometric models in ICU patients. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2021;27(5):783.e7–783.e14
Nguyen TH, Mouksassi MS, Holford N, Al-Huniti N, Freedman I, Hooker AC, et al. Model evaluation of continuous data pharmacometric models: metrics and graphics. CPT Pharmacomet Syst Pharmacol. 2017;6(2):87–109.
doi: 10.1002/psp4.12161
Bensken WP, Pieracci FM, Ho VP. Basic introduction to statistics in medicine, part 1: describing data. Surg Infect (Larchmt). 2021;22(6):590–6.
pubmed: 34270357
doi: 10.1089/sur.2020.429
Hsu LF. A survey of population pharmacokinetic reports submitted to the USFDA: an analysis of common issues in NDA and BLA from 2012 to 2021. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2022;61(12):1697–703.
pubmed: 36316621
doi: 10.1007/s40262-022-01182-7
Savic RM, Karlsson MO. Importance of shrinkage in empirical bayes estimates for diagnostics: problems and solutions. AAPS J. 2009;11(3):558–69.
pubmed: 19649712
pmcid: 2758126
doi: 10.1208/s12248-009-9133-0