RE: Time-varing covariate and renal function as a covariate

From: Joseph Standing Date: September 04, 2013 technical Source: mail-archive.com
Dear Matt, Your first hypothetical scenario is an argument not to use CRCL because as you point out, weight is entering the model twice: once to predict renal function and once to scale for size. Other problems of using models that predict CLCr (when really you are interested in your drug CL, not the CL of endogenous creatinine) is that they are only valid for certain populations so if you have say adults and children in your dataset, at what point do you switch between C-G and the Schwartz method? Perhaps a better way is to scale clearance with measured creatinine normalised to the age-adjusted value (which if your drug is renally cleared to any extent should be correlated in some way), and then have a separate weight scaling - that way age, weight and SeCr all only enter into the model once, and can be updated as often as they are measured for time-varying techniques. You can then try different metrics for weight if you have some obese subjects (FFM, LBW...). This approach has been used a couple of times: Johansson ÅM et al. TDM. 2011;33(6):711-8. Germovsek E et al. Age-Corrected Creatinine is a Significant Covariate for Gentamicin Clearance in Neonates. PAGE 2013. BW, Joe Joseph F Standing MRC Fellow, UCL Institute of Child Health Antimicrobial Pharmacist, Great Ormond Street Hospital Tel: +44(0)207 905 2370 Mobile: +44(0)7970 572435
Quoted reply history
________________________________________ From: [email protected] [[email protected]] On Behalf Of Matt Hutmacher [[email protected]] Sent: 03 September 2013 18:00 To: 'Nick Holford'; 'nmusers' Subject: RE: [NMusers] Time-varing covariate and renal function as a covariate Hello Nick, Hans Thanks for the replies and sorry for being so vague. I wanted to get your opinions about such a scenario without providing information that might "steer" the dialogue. Perhaps a hypothetical will help clarify my scientific curiosity. Let's say at baseline we take measurements of weight (WT), etc. Assume Cockcroft-Gault is used to predict CLCR. We formulate a model either by Nick's or Hans' method below to relate WT and CLCR (a function of WT) to CL of the drug. However, over time, the drug changes WT... in some way the ratio of fat to lean mass is altered by the drug. Should we expect the same structural relationship to hold as we would have assumed at baseline (before we knew the drug changes WT)? And if so, then should we assume the same coefficients (exponents) for CLCR and WT would hold over time in such a model, such that just adjusting CLCR and WT as time varying covariates is all that is needed to be predictive? As another example, let's assume we do a pooled population PK using healthy volunteers and obese patients. Then, say a drug is administered that reduces WT. Should we use the same exponent (coefficient) for healthy volunteers and obese patients? And if the drug works, should at what point should we treat the obese patients as healthy volunteers - or would just using WT and CLCR take care of it?. Best regards, Matt -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Nick Holford Sent: Monday, September 02, 2013 12:16 To: 'nmusers' Subject: Re: [NMusers] Time-varing covariate and renal function as a covariate Matt, Thanks for your interest in this question. Hans and I have differing approaches for including 'renal function' but I think we agree on 'size'. Our differences of approach to 'renal function' are not very important for those who understand the biology and pharmacology. But its different when we have to talk to statisticians. While I recognize that you are not typical of statisticians (you know something about biology and pharmacology) it would help me (and probably Hans) if you stated more precisely what you mean by 'renal function' and 'size' and why you think there is a challenge if weight changes over time? Best wishes, Nick On 2/09/2013 9:04 a.m., J.H. Proost wrote: > Dear Matt, > I'm not quite sure that I fully understand your question. I would say > that a changing renal function and a changing weight over time can be > handled as described earlier by Nick Holford, or by the modified > approach I suggested. An important point is how to express renal > function. > Nick's method implies that 'size' should be excluded from 'renal > function', so CLCR needs to be normalized / standardized, e.g. using > CLCR in ml/min/1.73m2. Now, CLCR is a 'pure' measure of the kidney > function (of course, we know that its precision is rather poor, but > that is a different topic, interesting as well!). The factor > WEIGHT^0.75 deals with the factor 'size'. This approach treats CLCR as > a covariate similar to other covariates, making it more suitable for a > standardized approach for covariate analysis. > In the approach proposed by me, CLCR should be the 'individual's renal > clearance of creatinine', so it should expressed in ml/min (or > converted to e.g. l/h), and it should not be normalized / > standardized. Here, CLCR includes both kidney function and size (in > Nick's view a disadvantage, in my view an advantage), and the renal > part of the equation does not need further modification to take 'size' > into account. This approach treats CLCR as a 'special' covariate, > directly related to the renal clearance of the drug. This may be > advantageous for clinical purposes, e.g. dose calculation and > therapeutic drug monitoring. > In my view, both approaches have advantages and disadvantages. > best regards, > Hans Proost > Johannes H. Proost > Dept. of Pharmacokinetics, Toxicology and Targeting University Centre > for Pharmacy Antonius Deusinglaan 1 > 9713 AV Groningen, The Netherlands > tel. 31-50 363 3292 > fax 31-50 363 3247 > Email: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > ******************************************************************************************************************** This message may contain confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient please inform the sender that you have received the message in error before deleting it. Please do not disclose, copy or distribute information in this e-mail or take any action in reliance on its contents: to do so is strictly prohibited and may be unlawful. Thank you for your co-operation. NHSmail is the secure email and directory service available for all NHS staff in England and Scotland NHSmail is approved for exchanging patient data and other sensitive information with NHSmail and GSi recipients NHSmail provides an email address for your career in the NHS and can be accessed anywhere ********************************************************************************************************************
Aug 29, 2013 Matt Hutmacher Time-varing covariate and renal function as a covariate
Sep 02, 2013 Johannes H. Proost Re: Time-varing covariate and renal function as a covariate
Sep 02, 2013 Nick Holford Re: Time-varing covariate and renal function as a covariate
Sep 03, 2013 Matt Hutmacher RE: Time-varing covariate and renal function as a covariate
Sep 04, 2013 Joseph Standing RE: Time-varing covariate and renal function as a covariate
Sep 04, 2013 Doug J. Eleveld RE: Time-varing covariate and renal function as a covariate
Sep 04, 2013 Johannes H. Proost RE: Time-varing covariate and renal function as a covariate
Sep 04, 2013 Nick Holford Re: Time-varing covariate and renal function as a covariate
Sep 06, 2013 Johannes H. Proost Re: Time-varing covariate and renal function as a covariate
Sep 07, 2013 Nick Holford Re: Time-varing covariate and renal function as a covariate