Abstract
When performing a population pharmacokinetic modelling analysis covariates are often added to the model. Such additions are often justified by improved goodness of fit and/or decreased in unexplained (random) parameter variability. Increased goodness of fit is most commonly measured by the decrease in the objective function value. Parameter variability can be defined as the sum of unexplained (random) and explained (predictable) variability. Increase in magnitude of explained parameter variability could be another possible criterion for judging improvement in the model. The agreement between these three criteria in diagnosing covariate-parameter relationships of different strengths and nature using stochastic simulations and estimations as well as assessing covariate-parameter relationships in four previously published real data examples were explored. Total estimated parameter variability was found to vary with the number of covariates introduced on the parameter. In the simulated examples and two real examples, the parameter variability increased with increasing number of included covariates. For the other real examples parameter variability decreased or did not change systematically with the addition of covariates. The three criteria were highly correlated, with the decrease in unexplained variability being more closely associated with changes in objective function values than increases in explained parameter variability were. The often used assumption that inclusion of covariates in models only shifts unexplained parameter variability to explained parameter variability appears not to be true, which may have implications for modelling decisions.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Ribbing J, Nyberg J, Caster O, Jonsson EN (2007) The lasso—a novel method for predictive covariate model building in nonlinear mixed effects models. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 34(4):485–517
Khandelwal A, Harling K, Jonsson EN, Hooker AC, Karlsson MO (2011) A fast method for testing covariates in population PK/PD Models. AAPS J 13(3):464–472
FDA (1999) Guidance on population pharmacokinetics. http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/GuidanceComplianceRegulatoryInformation/Guidances/ucm072137.pdf
EMEA European Medicines Agency (2007) Guidline on reporting the results of population pharmacokinetic analyses Doc.Ref. CHMP/EWP/185990/06
Kowalski KG, Hutmacher MM (2001) Efficient screening of covariates in population models using Wald’s approximation to the likelihood ratio test. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 28(3):253–275
Bies RR, Muldoon MF, Pollock BG, Manuck S, Smith G, Sale ME (2006) A genetic algorithm-based, hybrid machine learning approach to model selection. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 33(2):195–221. doi:10.1007/s10928-006-9004-6
Wählby U, Jonsson EN, Karlsson MO (2001) Assessment of actual significance levels for covariate effects in NONMEM. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 28(3):231–252
Hennig S, Norris R, Kirkpatrick CM (2008) Target concentration intervention is needed for tobramycin dosing in paediatric patients with cystic fibrosis–a population pharmacokinetic study. Br J Clin Pharmacol 65(4):502–510
Sandstrom M, Lindman H, Nygren P, Johansson M, Bergh J, Karlsson MO (2006) Population analysis of the pharmacokinetics and the haematological toxicity of the fluorouracil-epirubicin-cyclophosphamide regimen in breast cancer patients. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol 58(2):143–156
Tan B, Naik H, Jang IJ, Yu KS, Kirsch LE, Shin CS, Craft JC, Fleckenstein L (2009) Population pharmacokinetics of artesunate and dihydroartemisinin following single- and multiple-dosing of oral artesunate in healthy subjects. Malar J 8:304
Nielsen EI, Sandstrom M, Honore PH, Ewald U, Friberg LE (2009) Developmental pharmacokinetics of gentamicin in preterm and term neonates: population modelling of a prospective study. Clin Pharmacokinet 48(4):253–263
Hawwa AF, Collier PS, Millership JS, McCarthy A, Dempsey S, Cairns C, McElnay JC (2008) Population pharmacokinetic and pharmacogenetic analysis of 6-mercaptopurine in paediatric patients with acute lymphoblastic leukaemia. Br J Clin Pharmacol 66(6):826–837
Karlsson MO, Sheiner LB (1993) The importance of modeling interoccasion variability in population pharmacokinetic analyses. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 21(6):735–750
Bruno R, Iliadis MC, Lacarelle B, Cosson V, Mandema JW, Le Roux Y, Montay G, Durand A, Ballereau M, Alasia M et al (1992) Evaluation of Bayesian estimation in comparison to NONMEM for population pharmacokinetic data analysis: application to pefloxacin in intensive care unit patients. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 20(6):653–669
Mandema JW, Verotta D, Sheiner LB (1992) Building population pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic models. I. Models for covariate effects. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 20(5):511–528
Kloft C, Wallin J, Henningsson A, Chatelut E, Karlsson MO (2006) Population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic model for neutropenia with patient subgroup identification: comparison across anticancer drugs. Clinical Cancer Res 12(18):5481–5490
Friberg LE, Henningsson A, Maas H, Nguyen L, Karlsson MO (2002) Model of chemotherapy-induced myelosuppression with parameter consistency across drugs. J Clin Oncol 20(24):4713–4721
Karlsson MO, Jonsson EN, Wiltse CG, Wade JR (1998) Assumption testing in population pharmacokinetic models: illustrated with an analysis of moxonidine data from congestive heart failure patients. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 26(2):207–246
Beal S, Sheiner LB, Boeckmann A, Bauer RJ (2009) NONMEM User’s Guides. (1989–2009), 7th edn. Icon Development Solutions, Ellicott City, MD
Lindbom L, Pihlgren P, Jonsson EN (2005) PsN-Toolkit—a collection of computer intensive statistical methods for non-linear mixed effect modeling using NONMEM. Comput Methods Programs Biomed 79(3):241–257
Lagishetty CV, Vajjah P, Duffull SB (2012) A reduction in between subject variability is not mandatory for selecting a new covariate. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 39(4):383–392
Wählby U, Thomson A, Milligan P, Karlsson M (2004) Models for time-varying covariates in population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic analysis. Br J Clin Pharmaco 58(4):367–377
Conflict of interest
The authors have no conflict of interest to declare.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Appendices
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Hennig, S., Karlsson, M.O. Concordance between criteria for covariate model building. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 41, 109–125 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10928-014-9350-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10928-014-9350-8