Cargando…

Performance comparison of first-order conditional estimation with interaction and Bayesian estimation methods for estimating the population parameters and its distribution from data sets with a low number of subjects

BACKGROUND: Exploratory preclinical, as well as clinical trials, may involve a small number of patients, making it difficult to calculate and analyze the pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters, especially if the PK parameters show very high inter-individual variability (IIV). In this study, the performance...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pradhan, Sudeep, Song, Byungjeong, Lee, Jaeyeon, Chae, Jung-woo, Kim, Kyung Im, Back, Hyun-moon, Han, Nayoung, Kwon, Kwang-il, Yun, Hwi-yeol
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5709938/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29191177
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0427-0
_version_ 1783282877818994688
author Pradhan, Sudeep
Song, Byungjeong
Lee, Jaeyeon
Chae, Jung-woo
Kim, Kyung Im
Back, Hyun-moon
Han, Nayoung
Kwon, Kwang-il
Yun, Hwi-yeol
author_facet Pradhan, Sudeep
Song, Byungjeong
Lee, Jaeyeon
Chae, Jung-woo
Kim, Kyung Im
Back, Hyun-moon
Han, Nayoung
Kwon, Kwang-il
Yun, Hwi-yeol
author_sort Pradhan, Sudeep
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Exploratory preclinical, as well as clinical trials, may involve a small number of patients, making it difficult to calculate and analyze the pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters, especially if the PK parameters show very high inter-individual variability (IIV). In this study, the performance of a classical first-order conditional estimation with interaction (FOCE-I) and expectation maximization (EM)-based Markov chain Monte Carlo Bayesian (BAYES) estimation methods were compared for estimating the population parameters and its distribution from data sets having a low number of subjects. METHODS: In this study, 100 data sets were simulated with eight sampling points for each subject and with six different levels of IIV (5%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 50%, and 80%) in their PK parameter distribution. A stochastic simulation and estimation (SSE) study was performed to simultaneously simulate data sets and estimate the parameters using four different methods: FOCE-I only, BAYES(C) (FOCE-I and BAYES composite method), BAYES(F) (BAYES with all true initial parameters and fixed ω (2)), and BAYES only. Relative root mean squared error (rRMSE) and relative estimation error (REE) were used to analyze the differences between true and estimated values. A case study was performed with a clinical data of theophylline available in NONMEM distribution media. NONMEM software assisted by Pirana, PsN, and Xpose was used to estimate population PK parameters, and R program was used to analyze and plot the results. RESULTS: The rRMSE and REE values of all parameter (fixed effect and random effect) estimates showed that all four methods performed equally at the lower IIV levels, while the FOCE-I method performed better than other EM-based methods at higher IIV levels (greater than 30%). In general, estimates of random-effect parameters showed significant bias and imprecision, irrespective of the estimation method used and the level of IIV. Similar performance of the estimation methods was observed with theophylline dataset. CONCLUSIONS: The classical FOCE-I method appeared to estimate the PK parameters more reliably than the BAYES method when using a simple model and data containing only a few subjects. EM-based estimation methods can be considered for adapting to the specific needs of a modeling project at later steps of modeling. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-017-0427-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5709938
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-57099382017-12-06 Performance comparison of first-order conditional estimation with interaction and Bayesian estimation methods for estimating the population parameters and its distribution from data sets with a low number of subjects Pradhan, Sudeep Song, Byungjeong Lee, Jaeyeon Chae, Jung-woo Kim, Kyung Im Back, Hyun-moon Han, Nayoung Kwon, Kwang-il Yun, Hwi-yeol BMC Med Res Methodol Research Article BACKGROUND: Exploratory preclinical, as well as clinical trials, may involve a small number of patients, making it difficult to calculate and analyze the pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters, especially if the PK parameters show very high inter-individual variability (IIV). In this study, the performance of a classical first-order conditional estimation with interaction (FOCE-I) and expectation maximization (EM)-based Markov chain Monte Carlo Bayesian (BAYES) estimation methods were compared for estimating the population parameters and its distribution from data sets having a low number of subjects. METHODS: In this study, 100 data sets were simulated with eight sampling points for each subject and with six different levels of IIV (5%, 10%, 20%, 30%, 50%, and 80%) in their PK parameter distribution. A stochastic simulation and estimation (SSE) study was performed to simultaneously simulate data sets and estimate the parameters using four different methods: FOCE-I only, BAYES(C) (FOCE-I and BAYES composite method), BAYES(F) (BAYES with all true initial parameters and fixed ω (2)), and BAYES only. Relative root mean squared error (rRMSE) and relative estimation error (REE) were used to analyze the differences between true and estimated values. A case study was performed with a clinical data of theophylline available in NONMEM distribution media. NONMEM software assisted by Pirana, PsN, and Xpose was used to estimate population PK parameters, and R program was used to analyze and plot the results. RESULTS: The rRMSE and REE values of all parameter (fixed effect and random effect) estimates showed that all four methods performed equally at the lower IIV levels, while the FOCE-I method performed better than other EM-based methods at higher IIV levels (greater than 30%). In general, estimates of random-effect parameters showed significant bias and imprecision, irrespective of the estimation method used and the level of IIV. Similar performance of the estimation methods was observed with theophylline dataset. CONCLUSIONS: The classical FOCE-I method appeared to estimate the PK parameters more reliably than the BAYES method when using a simple model and data containing only a few subjects. EM-based estimation methods can be considered for adapting to the specific needs of a modeling project at later steps of modeling. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s12874-017-0427-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2017-12-01 /pmc/articles/PMC5709938/ /pubmed/29191177 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0427-0 Text en © The Author(s). 2017 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Pradhan, Sudeep
Song, Byungjeong
Lee, Jaeyeon
Chae, Jung-woo
Kim, Kyung Im
Back, Hyun-moon
Han, Nayoung
Kwon, Kwang-il
Yun, Hwi-yeol
Performance comparison of first-order conditional estimation with interaction and Bayesian estimation methods for estimating the population parameters and its distribution from data sets with a low number of subjects
title Performance comparison of first-order conditional estimation with interaction and Bayesian estimation methods for estimating the population parameters and its distribution from data sets with a low number of subjects
title_full Performance comparison of first-order conditional estimation with interaction and Bayesian estimation methods for estimating the population parameters and its distribution from data sets with a low number of subjects
title_fullStr Performance comparison of first-order conditional estimation with interaction and Bayesian estimation methods for estimating the population parameters and its distribution from data sets with a low number of subjects
title_full_unstemmed Performance comparison of first-order conditional estimation with interaction and Bayesian estimation methods for estimating the population parameters and its distribution from data sets with a low number of subjects
title_short Performance comparison of first-order conditional estimation with interaction and Bayesian estimation methods for estimating the population parameters and its distribution from data sets with a low number of subjects
title_sort performance comparison of first-order conditional estimation with interaction and bayesian estimation methods for estimating the population parameters and its distribution from data sets with a low number of subjects
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5709938/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29191177
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-017-0427-0
work_keys_str_mv AT pradhansudeep performancecomparisonoffirstorderconditionalestimationwithinteractionandbayesianestimationmethodsforestimatingthepopulationparametersanditsdistributionfromdatasetswithalownumberofsubjects
AT songbyungjeong performancecomparisonoffirstorderconditionalestimationwithinteractionandbayesianestimationmethodsforestimatingthepopulationparametersanditsdistributionfromdatasetswithalownumberofsubjects
AT leejaeyeon performancecomparisonoffirstorderconditionalestimationwithinteractionandbayesianestimationmethodsforestimatingthepopulationparametersanditsdistributionfromdatasetswithalownumberofsubjects
AT chaejungwoo performancecomparisonoffirstorderconditionalestimationwithinteractionandbayesianestimationmethodsforestimatingthepopulationparametersanditsdistributionfromdatasetswithalownumberofsubjects
AT kimkyungim performancecomparisonoffirstorderconditionalestimationwithinteractionandbayesianestimationmethodsforestimatingthepopulationparametersanditsdistributionfromdatasetswithalownumberofsubjects
AT backhyunmoon performancecomparisonoffirstorderconditionalestimationwithinteractionandbayesianestimationmethodsforestimatingthepopulationparametersanditsdistributionfromdatasetswithalownumberofsubjects
AT hannayoung performancecomparisonoffirstorderconditionalestimationwithinteractionandbayesianestimationmethodsforestimatingthepopulationparametersanditsdistributionfromdatasetswithalownumberofsubjects
AT kwonkwangil performancecomparisonoffirstorderconditionalestimationwithinteractionandbayesianestimationmethodsforestimatingthepopulationparametersanditsdistributionfromdatasetswithalownumberofsubjects
AT yunhwiyeol performancecomparisonoffirstorderconditionalestimationwithinteractionandbayesianestimationmethodsforestimatingthepopulationparametersanditsdistributionfromdatasetswithalownumberofsubjects