RE: FW: VPC appropriateness in complex PK

-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Nick Holford Sent: den 22 september 2009 12:13 To: nmusers Subject: Re: FW: [NMusers] VPC appropriateness in complex PK Martin, I understand it is a problem to simulate adaptive dosing when the rules used by the clinicians are unknown (or not followed). However, I see no reason not to use a plausible set of rules to try to simulate the know adaptive dosing. Ignoring this will lead to differences between observed and predicted distributions as shown by a VPC even if the structural and random effects model derived from the original data is fine. Adding a dosing regimen model to the simulation structure is not really any different from changing other components of the original model. It may involve a few "informed guess" parameters but if you can get a good agreement between observations and simulated predictions then this can be rewarding in two ways: The first is that it may produce a VPC that helps to confirm the structural and random effects model assumptions and parameter estimates. An example of this is shown in Karlsson & Holford 2008 Slide 27/28 shown at PAGE last year. Dropout simulation based on the simulated response (informative missingness) led to good agreement between the observed and simulated distributions shown in a VPC. Dropout simulation is just an example of adaptive design and in principle is no different from adaptive dosing changes to the design. The second is that the adaptive dosing model that is found to help describe the observations can now be used with some confidence to simulate future trials when adaptive dosing is not strictly controlled but is likely to follow the pattern in the original study. This is not an unreasonable assumption as we frequently make it for other parts of the model when doing clinical trial simulations. This brings me to your question to me. A PC-VPC may help to confirm a model for describing the data but if it does not simulate using adaptive dosing, for a trial that used adaptive dosing, then it cannot help understand what kind of model should be used to simulate adaptive dosing in a future design. This illustrates an important difference between empirical (PC-VPC) and mechanism based (adaptive dose simulation). Results from empirical methods ("confirming") speak to the past while mechanism based methods ("learning") can help predict the future. You mention that in your experience that SPCs are not useful for adaptive dosing studies because of correlation between ETAs and design. I can understand why NPCs would fail (they have the same problem as VPC when comparisons are made directly between the distributions of observations and predictions) but not NPDE. I have struggled with the properties of NPDE in adaptive design but have no direct experience. I have recently responded on nmusers to comments from Yaning Wang which make me think that NPDE should be fine to evaluate adaptive designs provided the original dosing is used for the simulation. Can you tell us more about your experiences? Do you have examples that show that NPDE comes to the wrong conclusion about a model when the original design is based on adaptive dosing? Best wishes, Nick Karlsson MO, Holford NHG. A Tutorial on Visual Predictive Checks. PAGE 17 (2008) Abstr 1434 [wwwpage-meetingorg/?abstract=1434]. 2008. Martin Bergstrand wrote: > > Dear NMusers, > > For some reason my last message to NMusers got lost in www-space. > Since both Leonid and Nick have responded to my initial message I > repost this message so that you can follow the discussion (see email > below). > > In addition to this message I would also like to comment on the > messages by Diane, Leonid and Nick. > > _Nick and Leonid:_ I agree that it would be useful if one could also > simulate that adaptive design (e.g. dose adaptations) and show the > observations on the non transformed scale. However this will in many > cases be very hard since dos adaptations are often done not according > to a strict algorithm and/or all information supporting the dose > alterations is not available. It is to my experience quite commonly > written I study protocols that dose adjustments can be done “by the > discretion of the investigator”. > > _Diane and Leonid:_ If I understood the SVPC procedure correctly from > Diane’s presentation it utilizes a principle similar to that behind > Numerical Predictive Check (NPC). Most of all SVPC seem to have a > striking similarity to the first version of the prediction > discrepancies as described by Metré et al (1). The prediction > discrepancies have been further developed into the normalised > prediction distribution errors (NPDE) (2). From my experience both NPC > and NPDE are useful diagnostic tools but not applicable to data from > studies with adaptive dos adjustments (correlation between ETAs and > design). What is the unique feature with SVPC that sets it apart from > the prediction discrepancies and makes it applicable to studies with > adaptive dos adjustments? > > _Nick:_ Regarding this sentence “The empirical PRED-corrected VPC does > not give this kind of support for future use of the PK model under an > adaptive design scenario”. Why is this? If the PC-VPC can verify that > you have an acceptable structure model and unbiased parameter > estimates you can then simulate any type of adaptive design scenario. > > Best regards, > > Martin > > 1. Prediction discrepancies for the evaluation of … Mentré F, Escolano > S. JPKPD. 2006 > > 2. Computing normalised prediction distribution errors ... Comets E, > Brendel K, Mentré F. CMPB. 2008 > -- Nick Holford, Professor Clinical Pharmacology Dept Pharmacology & Clinical Pharmacology University of Auckland, 85 Park Rd, Private Bag 92019, Auckland, New Zealand [email protected] tel:+64(9)923-6730 fax:+64(9)373-7090 mobile: +64 21 46 23 53 http://www.fmhs.auckland.ac.nz/sms/pharmacology/holford