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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |