Re: Using MIXture model to fit 1 compartment vs 2 compartment model

From: Paul Hutson Date: May 15, 2012 technical Source: mail-archive.com
Thank you, Joachim. You express my concern better than I could have. Unfortunately I could not find in the literature the compartmental priors to use in $PRIOR, only non-compartmental hooey. I am thankful to Rob ter Heine who pointed out a nice population PK study of similar patients receiving continuous veno-venous hemofiltration (CVVH) being presented this year at PAGE (#2526). I also appreciate Maciej Swat's point that my coding was faulty, and that CL2=THETA(1)*THETA(3)*ETA(1) led to poorly identifiable thetas, and should be simplified to CL2=THETA(3)*ETA(1), and similarly for TVV2. This also allowed me to re-introduce the parameter-specific etas. Paul Hutson
Quoted reply history
On 5/15/2012 3:48 AM, Joachim Grevel wrote: > Dear Paul and friends within the NONMEM community, > > You touch on a fundamental issue with your questions. The issue is, what to > do with prior knowledge. Do we just fit the data at hand as well as we can, > or do we want to embed the data at hand in a larger knowledge space. I for > my part have once and for all made up my mind. I will not fit any more data > and disregard prior knowledge. For me each drug only exists in its biologic > context, and for each drug there is a body of knowledge that needs to be > respected and represented. I do not hunt anymore for the perfect fit, nor do > I adhere to a strict set of rules. Models need to represent both, prior > knowledge and current data. I now often resort to representing prior > knowledge via the $PRIOR functionality and I have gained experience in the > use of informative priors. > > To answer your specific question: I would not go the route you have chosen > using $MIX. Instead I would represent the two compartment model with > informative priors and I would let your scares new data modify those priors, > to a certain extent to arrive at meaningful individual predictions. Your > very limited data set is obviously not fit to revise the knowledge base of > the drug (CVVH - what is that?), but it may be sufficient to obtain > individual predictions (to relate dialysis flow rate to individual clearance > estimates?). > > The technicalities of setting up informative priors have been discussed in > this forum recently. > > Good luck, > > Joachim > > Joachim Grevel, PhD > Scientific Director > BAST Inc Limited > Loughborough Innovation Centre > Charnwood Building > Holywell Park, Ashby Road > Loughborough, LE11 3AQ > Tel: +44 (0)1509 222908 > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On > Behalf Of Paul Hutson > Sent: 14 May 2012 16:50 > To: [email protected] > Subject: [NMusers] Using MIXture model to fit 1 compartment vs 2 compartment > model > > I have a small data set of 4 samples each from 15 patients getting CVVH for > renal failure that was handed to me. Some subjects appear to be modeled > best by a 1 compartment model, other by a 2 compartment model. > I have tried the ctl stream below using MIX to allow NONMEM to fit to either > a 1 or 2 cmpt model, and it appears to work well (Note there is high > covariance in CL, V1, and Q,V2, so their respective ETAs are shared). > > However, I have two questions to the group: > 1. Is this the optimal way to allow NONMEM to fit to a 1 vs 2 compt model? > > 2. Is this appropriate? That is, the drug likely is best modeled by (at > least) a 2 compartment model, yet only a fraction (~20%) of these sparse > data sets appear best fit by a 2 compt model. Given that the sampling was > not optimized to detect/characterize a 2 compartment model, should I settle > and report a one compartmental model, or describe a 2 cmpt when possible? > Perhaps is it an angels on a pinhead issue, as my primary objective is to > describe any effect of dialysate flow on clearance. > > $INPUT ID TIME CLCK=DROP AMT RATE SS II DV LGDV WGT HGT DURD FLOW CMPD EVID > $DATA Zosyn.CSV IGNORE=# IGNORE(CMPD=2) $SUBROUTINES ADVAN6 TOL=3 $MODEL > NPARAMS=7 NCOMP=2 COMP=(CENTRAL DEFDOSE) > COMP=(TISSUE) > ; 2 COMPARTMENT MODEL > ; CMPD 1 = Piperacillin > ; CMPD 2 = Tazobactam > > $MIX > NSPOP=2 > P(1)=THETA(7) > P(2)=1-THETA(7) > P1C = THETA(7) > $PK > CALLFL=1 > EST=MIXEST > CL1=THETA(1)*EXP(ETA(1)); > TVV1=THETA(2)*EXP(ETA(1)); > CL2=THETA(1)*THETA(3)*EXP(ETA(2)) > TVV2=THETA(2)*THETA(4)*EXP(ETA(2)) > > FLG=1 > IF (MIXNUM.EQ.2) FLG=0 > CL=FLG*CL1 + (1-FLG)*CL2 > V1 = FLG*TVV1 + (1-FLG)*TVV2 > Q=THETA(5)*(1-FLG) > V2 = THETA(6)**(1-FLG); V2 cannot be 0 for 1 compt due to K21=Q/V2 divide by > 0 fault > S1=V1 > > K10 = CL*(FLOW/35)/V1 > K12 = (Q/V1)*(1-FLG) > K21 = (Q/V2)*(1-FLG) > > $DES > DADT(1) = -A(1) * (K10 + K12) + A(2) * K21 > DADT(2) = A(1) * K12 - A(2) * K21 > > -- > Paul R. Hutson, Pharm.D. > Associate Professor > UW School of Pharmacy > T: 608.263.2496 > F: 608.265.5421 -- Paul R. Hutson, Pharm.D. Associate Professor UW School of Pharmacy T: 608.263.2496 F: 608.265.5421
May 14, 2012 Paul Hutson Using MIXture model to fit 1 compartment vs 2 compartment model
May 15, 2012 Joachim Grevel RE: Using MIXture model to fit 1 compartment vs 2 compartment model
May 15, 2012 Paul Hutson Re: Using MIXture model to fit 1 compartment vs 2 compartment model