» Articles » PMID: 11677931

Selecting Reliable Pharmacokinetic Data for Explanatory Analyses of Clinical Trials in the Presence of Possible Noncompliance

Overview
Publisher Springer
Specialty Pharmacology
Date 2001 Oct 27
PMID 11677931
Citations 15
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

For single-dose concentration-time data collected in clinical trials to be useful for explanatory pharmacokinetic (PK) or pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) analyses, the following two assumptions on the data must hold: (i) the times of the concentration (PK) observations are known, and (ii) the patient's recent past dosing history (times and amounts) is known. If either (or both) of these assumptions does not hold, and data analysis proceeds as if it did, biased estimates may result. Assumption (i) usually does hold as study personnel observe and record PK sampling times. Assumption (ii) is a problem when, as is often the case of outpatient studies, one must rely on patient recall for past dosing history. This paper presents a technique to avoid assumption (ii) by identifying for deletion those PK observation occasions likely exhibiting unreliable preceding dose histories. To so identify occasions, a Bayes objective function (posterior density) for the data is maximized in its parameters for each individual. The likelihood factor of this function is a mixture pharmacostatistical model expressing the likelihood of the observed concentration(s) under three mutually exclusive events: the prescribed dose preceding the occasion was not taken at all (NT), the prescribed dose was taken at the specified time (T), or the prescribed dose was taken at an unspecified time (U). Suspect observations are identified as those whose maximum corresponding likelihood component is other than T. The approach as defined here relies on the following assumptions in addition to (i): (ii) population PK (i.e., the distribution of PK parameters in the population being sampled) is known, at least approximately. (iii) PK samples (at least 1 or 2 per occasion) are available, (iv) doses taken are of the stated magnitude, and (v) the drug has a short half-life. Simulations reveal that especially when more than one PK sample is available per study occasion, the methodology chooses a set of PK observations that should perform better in subsequent explanatory analyses, or as a basis for estimating individual PK parameters, than do other simpler methods.

Citing Articles

Leveraging mathematical modeling to analyze nonadherence for hydroxyurea therapy in sickle cell disease.

Pandey A, Raja R, Estepp J, Ramkrishna D CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol. 2023; 12(6):748-757.

PMID: 37194405 PMC: 10272301. DOI: 10.1002/psp4.12945.


Characterizing HIV-Preventive, Plasma Tenofovir Concentrations-A Pooled Participant-level Data Analysis From Human Immunodeficiency Virus Preexposure Prophylaxis Clinical Trials.

Garcia-Cremades M, Vucicevic K, Hendrix C, Jayachandran P, Jarlsberg L, Grant R Clin Infect Dis. 2022; 75(11):1873-1882.

PMID: 35474481 PMC: 10139701. DOI: 10.1093/cid/ciac313.


A pharmacometric case study regarding the sensitivity of structural model parameter estimation to error in patient reported dosing times.

Knights J, Rohatagi S J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2015; 42(6):627-37.

PMID: 26209956 DOI: 10.1007/s10928-015-9428-y.


Population pharmacokinetics of tenofovir and tenofovir-diphosphate in healthy women.

Burns R, Hendrix C, Chaturvedula A J Clin Pharmacol. 2015; 55(6):629-38.

PMID: 25581815 PMC: 5008110. DOI: 10.1002/jcph.461.


Methods to detect non-compliance and reduce its impact on population PK parameter estimates.

Gibiansky L, Gibiansky E, Cosson V, Frey N, Schaedeli Stark F J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2014; 41(3):279-89.

PMID: 24952228 DOI: 10.1007/s10928-014-9364-2.


References
1.
Sheiner L, Beal S . Bayesian individualization of pharmacokinetics: simple implementation and comparison with non-Bayesian methods. J Pharm Sci. 1982; 71(12):1344-8. DOI: 10.1002/jps.2600711209. View

2.
Dudley M . Clinical pharmacokinetics of nucleoside antiretroviral agents. J Infect Dis. 1995; 171 Suppl 2:S99-112. DOI: 10.1093/infdis/171.supplement_2.s99. View

3.
Urquhart J . Role of patient compliance in clinical pharmacokinetics. A review of recent research. Clin Pharmacokinet. 1994; 27(3):202-15. DOI: 10.2165/00003088-199427030-00004. View

4.
Hammer S, Katzenstein D, Hughes M, Gundacker H, Schooley R, Haubrich R . A trial comparing nucleoside monotherapy with combination therapy in HIV-infected adults with CD4 cell counts from 200 to 500 per cubic millimeter. AIDS Clinical Trials Group Study 175 Study Team. N Engl J Med. 1996; 335(15):1081-90. DOI: 10.1056/NEJM199610103351501. View

5.
Goetghebeur E, Molenberghs G, Katz J . Estimating the causal effect of compliance on binary outcome in randomized controlled trials. Stat Med. 1998; 17(3):341-55. DOI: 10.1002/(sici)1097-0258(19980215)17:3<341::aid-sim766>3.0.co;2-x. View