RE: Simulation settgin in the precence of Shrinkage in PK when doing PK-PD analysis
Resending, since my posting from this morning (below) has not yet appeared on
nmusers.
Apologies for any duplicate postings!
Quoted reply history
From: Ribbing, Jakob
Sent: 18 February 2013 09:59
To: "Kågedal, Matts"; [email protected]
Cc: Ribbing, Jakob
Subject: RE: Simulation settgin in the precence of Shrinkage in PK when doing
PK-PD analysis
Hi Matts,
I think you are correct; the problem you describe has not had much (public)
discussion.
It is also correct like you say that this is mostly a problem in case of all of
the below
· sequential PK-PD analysis is applied (IPP approach, Zang et al)
· non-ignorable degree of shrinkage in PK parameters of relevance
o Of relevance: the PK parameters effectively driving PD for the mechanism,
e.g. CL/F if AUC is driving. In addition, if PD response develops over several
weeks/months then shrinkage in IOV may be ignored even for relevant PK
parameters
· I would also like to add that for this to be an issue individual PK
parameters must explain a fair degree of the variability in PD, which is not
always the case
o If driving PD with typical PK parameters (along with dose and other PD
covariates) does not increase PD omegas, compared to IPP, then either PK
shrinkage is already massive, or else it is not an issue for the IPP-PD model
If only the IPP approach is possible/practical a simplistic approach to
simulate PD data is as follows:
· sample (with replacement) the individual PK parameters along with any
potential covariates (maintaining correlation between IIP and covariates, i.e.
whole subject vectors for these entities, but generally not for dose since
generally should only have only random association with IPP or PK/PD-covariates)
· then use the re-sampled datasets for simulating PD according to the
PD model (driven by IPP, covariates, dose, etc). The degree of shrinkage is
then the same for PD estimation and simulation.
This approach may for example allow to simulate realistic PD response at
multiple dosing, based on only single dose PD. When the MD data becomes
available then one may find that variabilities shift between PK and PD due to
different PK shrinkage, but I would argue the simulated PD responses still were
realistic. This approach is useful for predictions into the same population
(especially if sufficient number of subjects available for re-sampling), but
may not allow extrapolation into other populations where PK is projected to be
different.
When possible the obvious solution is to apply one of the alternative
approaches to simultaneous PK-PD fit; after you have arrived at a final-IPP
model.
If a simultaneous fit is obtainable/practical this is the best option, but
notice that e.g. if you have rich PK data in healthy and no PK data in patients
(plus PD data in both populations): You can estimate separate omegas for PD
parameters in healthy vs. patients, but it may be difficult to tell whether
patients higher PD variability is due to PK shrinkage, or due to the actual PD
variability being higher in this population (or both). PD variability may be
confounded by a number of other factors that are actually variability in PK
(fu, active metabolites and bio phase distribution, just to mention a few where
information may be absent on the individual level). Depending on the purpose of
the modelling this often not an issue, however.
As you suggest there may be rare situations with IPP where a more complicated
approach is needed, with a) simulation and re-estimation of PK model, to obtain
Empirical-Bayes Estimates based on simulated data, and then feed these into the
subsequent PD model. I would see this as a last resort. There are pitfalls in
that if PD parameters have been estimated under one degree of PK shrinkage,
then applying these estimates to a simulated example with different PK
shrinkage requires adjustment of PD variability. I am not sure anyone has had
to go down that route before and if not I hope you do not have to either. Maybe
others can advice on this?
Best regards
Jakob
Two methodological references:
Simultaneous vs. sequential analysis for population PK/PD data II: robustness
of methods.
Zhang L, Beal SL, Sheiner LB.
J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2003 Dec;30(6):405-16.
Simultaneous vs. sequential analysis for population PK/PD data I: best-case
performance.
Zhang L, Beal SL, Sheiner LB.
J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2003 Dec;30(6):387-404.