Cargando…

Comparative assessment of viral dynamic models for SARS‐CoV‐2 for pharmacodynamic assessment in early treatment trials

Pharmacometric analyses of time series viral load data may detect drug effects with greater power than approaches using single time points. Because SARS‐CoV‐2 viral load rapidly rises and then falls, viral dynamic models have been used. We compared different modelling approaches when analysing Phase...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Agyeman, Akosua A., You, Tao, Chan, Phylinda L. S., Lonsdale, Dagan O., Hadjichrysanthou, Christoforos, Mahungu, Tabitha, Wey, Emmanuel Q., Lowe, David M., Lipman, Marc C. I., Breuer, Judy, Kloprogge, Frank, Standing, Joseph F.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9538685/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36040430
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bcp.15518
_version_ 1784803381773074432
author Agyeman, Akosua A.
You, Tao
Chan, Phylinda L. S.
Lonsdale, Dagan O.
Hadjichrysanthou, Christoforos
Mahungu, Tabitha
Wey, Emmanuel Q.
Lowe, David M.
Lipman, Marc C. I.
Breuer, Judy
Kloprogge, Frank
Standing, Joseph F.
author_facet Agyeman, Akosua A.
You, Tao
Chan, Phylinda L. S.
Lonsdale, Dagan O.
Hadjichrysanthou, Christoforos
Mahungu, Tabitha
Wey, Emmanuel Q.
Lowe, David M.
Lipman, Marc C. I.
Breuer, Judy
Kloprogge, Frank
Standing, Joseph F.
author_sort Agyeman, Akosua A.
collection PubMed
description Pharmacometric analyses of time series viral load data may detect drug effects with greater power than approaches using single time points. Because SARS‐CoV‐2 viral load rapidly rises and then falls, viral dynamic models have been used. We compared different modelling approaches when analysing Phase II‐type viral dynamic data. Using two SARS‐CoV‐2 datasets of viral load starting within 7 days of symptoms, we fitted the slope‐intercept exponential decay (SI), reduced target cell limited (rTCL), target cell limited (TCL) and TCL with eclipse phase (TCLE) models using nlmixr. Model performance was assessed via Bayesian information criterion (BIC), visual predictive checks (VPCs), goodness‐of‐fit plots, and parameter precision. The most complex (TCLE) model had the highest BIC for both datasets. The estimated viral decline rate was similar for all models except the TCL model for dataset A with a higher rate (median [range] day(−1): dataset A; 0.63 [0.56–1.84]; dataset B: 0.81 [0.74–0.85]). Our findings suggest simple models should be considered during pharmacodynamic model development.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-9538685
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2022
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-95386852022-10-11 Comparative assessment of viral dynamic models for SARS‐CoV‐2 for pharmacodynamic assessment in early treatment trials Agyeman, Akosua A. You, Tao Chan, Phylinda L. S. Lonsdale, Dagan O. Hadjichrysanthou, Christoforos Mahungu, Tabitha Wey, Emmanuel Q. Lowe, David M. Lipman, Marc C. I. Breuer, Judy Kloprogge, Frank Standing, Joseph F. Br J Clin Pharmacol Short Communication Pharmacometric analyses of time series viral load data may detect drug effects with greater power than approaches using single time points. Because SARS‐CoV‐2 viral load rapidly rises and then falls, viral dynamic models have been used. We compared different modelling approaches when analysing Phase II‐type viral dynamic data. Using two SARS‐CoV‐2 datasets of viral load starting within 7 days of symptoms, we fitted the slope‐intercept exponential decay (SI), reduced target cell limited (rTCL), target cell limited (TCL) and TCL with eclipse phase (TCLE) models using nlmixr. Model performance was assessed via Bayesian information criterion (BIC), visual predictive checks (VPCs), goodness‐of‐fit plots, and parameter precision. The most complex (TCLE) model had the highest BIC for both datasets. The estimated viral decline rate was similar for all models except the TCL model for dataset A with a higher rate (median [range] day(−1): dataset A; 0.63 [0.56–1.84]; dataset B: 0.81 [0.74–0.85]). Our findings suggest simple models should be considered during pharmacodynamic model development. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-09-15 /pmc/articles/PMC9538685/ /pubmed/36040430 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bcp.15518 Text en © 2022 The Authors. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Pharmacological Society. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
spellingShingle Short Communication
Agyeman, Akosua A.
You, Tao
Chan, Phylinda L. S.
Lonsdale, Dagan O.
Hadjichrysanthou, Christoforos
Mahungu, Tabitha
Wey, Emmanuel Q.
Lowe, David M.
Lipman, Marc C. I.
Breuer, Judy
Kloprogge, Frank
Standing, Joseph F.
Comparative assessment of viral dynamic models for SARS‐CoV‐2 for pharmacodynamic assessment in early treatment trials
title Comparative assessment of viral dynamic models for SARS‐CoV‐2 for pharmacodynamic assessment in early treatment trials
title_full Comparative assessment of viral dynamic models for SARS‐CoV‐2 for pharmacodynamic assessment in early treatment trials
title_fullStr Comparative assessment of viral dynamic models for SARS‐CoV‐2 for pharmacodynamic assessment in early treatment trials
title_full_unstemmed Comparative assessment of viral dynamic models for SARS‐CoV‐2 for pharmacodynamic assessment in early treatment trials
title_short Comparative assessment of viral dynamic models for SARS‐CoV‐2 for pharmacodynamic assessment in early treatment trials
title_sort comparative assessment of viral dynamic models for sars‐cov‐2 for pharmacodynamic assessment in early treatment trials
topic Short Communication
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9538685/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36040430
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bcp.15518
work_keys_str_mv AT agyemanakosuaa comparativeassessmentofviraldynamicmodelsforsarscov2forpharmacodynamicassessmentinearlytreatmenttrials
AT youtao comparativeassessmentofviraldynamicmodelsforsarscov2forpharmacodynamicassessmentinearlytreatmenttrials
AT chanphylindals comparativeassessmentofviraldynamicmodelsforsarscov2forpharmacodynamicassessmentinearlytreatmenttrials
AT lonsdaledagano comparativeassessmentofviraldynamicmodelsforsarscov2forpharmacodynamicassessmentinearlytreatmenttrials
AT hadjichrysanthouchristoforos comparativeassessmentofviraldynamicmodelsforsarscov2forpharmacodynamicassessmentinearlytreatmenttrials
AT mahungutabitha comparativeassessmentofviraldynamicmodelsforsarscov2forpharmacodynamicassessmentinearlytreatmenttrials
AT weyemmanuelq comparativeassessmentofviraldynamicmodelsforsarscov2forpharmacodynamicassessmentinearlytreatmenttrials
AT lowedavidm comparativeassessmentofviraldynamicmodelsforsarscov2forpharmacodynamicassessmentinearlytreatmenttrials
AT lipmanmarcci comparativeassessmentofviraldynamicmodelsforsarscov2forpharmacodynamicassessmentinearlytreatmenttrials
AT breuerjudy comparativeassessmentofviraldynamicmodelsforsarscov2forpharmacodynamicassessmentinearlytreatmenttrials
AT kloproggefrank comparativeassessmentofviraldynamicmodelsforsarscov2forpharmacodynamicassessmentinearlytreatmenttrials
AT standingjosephf comparativeassessmentofviraldynamicmodelsforsarscov2forpharmacodynamicassessmentinearlytreatmenttrials