Zähneputzen VOR oder NACH dem Früh stück? What comes first? BSV, BOV, or covariat es?

2 messages 2 people Latest: Nov 23, 2010
Dear Paolo, Thanks for this interesting NMusers thread. I think the order you are describing really makes sense in theory, for the reasons you describe, but in brief because it seems covariates should be incorporated on a model already fully developed structurally and statistically, so this includes IOV. Moreover, the covariates will increase the predictive performance (and the understanding) of the model, by being introduced on structural parameters, but also possibly directly on IIV and IOV. I also wanted to verify that this was what was done in practice, there were 6 entries when searching for "occasion AND covariate AND NONMEM" on PubMed, I can recommend the following where the decrease in variability magnitude following the covariate model building is nicely discussed: Sandström M, Lindman H, Nygren P, Johansson M, Bergh J, Karlsson MO. Population analysis of the pharmacokinetics and the haematological toxicity of the fluorouracil-epirubicin-cyclophosphamide regimen in breast cancer patients. Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2006 Aug;58(2):143-56. Best regards, Elodie PS: IOV or breakfast, I like it first :) Elodie L. Plan, PharmD, MSc, PhD student ******************************************** Uppsala Pharmacometrics Research Group Department of Pharmaceutical Biosciences P.O. Box 591, SE-751 24 Uppsala, SWEDEN Mob +46 76-242 1256, Skype “ppeloo”
Quoted reply history
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paolo Denti Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 10:10 AM To: nmusers Subject: [NMusers] Zähneputzen VOR oder NACH dem Frühstück? What comes first? BSV, BOV, or covariates? Dear all, don't be discouraged by the subject, this is indeed NMUsers and not German 101, and this post is about pharmacometrics, please read on... ;) The subject of the message comes from when I was studying German, and from an exercise in our book with lots of colourful pictures. The point of the exercise was only to teach us how to say "tooth brushing", "have breakfast", "before" and "after", but instead it sprouted a lively discussion in the class about what comes first and last in everybody's morning routine... So I thought it would be an appropriate title for this post, which is a survey/question about what modelling approach people use/recommend for model development. Just to contextualize a bit, here at UCT we mainly study HIV and TB drugs, which are dosed repeatedly (once or twice per day) and administered orally. We often have data available on more than one sampling occasion, and many times these occasions are virtually equivalent: no changes in co-treatment or other covariates, just a mere repetition of the experiment on a different day. Confirming what Mats recently pointed out in a post about the use of BOV, our experience is that, especially in the absorption phase, the contribution of BOV is dominant, and cannot be ignored. The absorption is often subject to random delays and factors that are mostly occasion-specific and not measurable/available in the dataset. Therefore, when I start modelling new data, I normally proceed as follows: 1. I initially assume every occasion as a separate profile, either using dummy IDs (and pretending it's different subjects) or coding all variability as BOV. I believe this allows the maximum flexibility to test the structural model, and I find that, if I don't proceed like this, I may run into troubles detecting the correct structural model. In this early stage of model development, I mostly use individual plots, and try to see if my prediction profile is flexible enough to run through the points. 2. Then I try to see if some of the variability is subject-specific (normally V and CL) and can be better explained either by only BSV or both BSV and BOV. I use the OFV to guide this process, but if the BOV is much larger than BSV, and physiology supports the hypothesis that the parameter be occasion-specific, I tend to disregard BSV. 3. Once I believe I got my structural model right, and organized the hierarchy of random variability in a decent way, I start incorporating the covariates. If they turn out to be significant, I see that BOV and BSV decrease, and sometimes become superfluous in the model and can be removed. I know other modellers would recommend first introducing BSV and/or covariates, before considering BOV and I would be interested in knowing people's opinion about this. Each method probably has its pros and cons, and I would really value your input about this topic. What are the advantages and disadvantages of the different approaches? Since I favour the modus operandi I just explained, I give my reasons, and look forward to some comments. My opinion (but I am obviously biased) is that it does not hurt to include BOV first, since it is easy to remove from the model if the same variability is explained by covariates, and likely, if this is the case, BOV will decrease in size. On the other hand, disregarding BOV might prevent the identification of the correct structural model. I am thinking, for example, about a comparison between 2-cmpt vs 1-cmpt when the absorption is subject to substantial random delays. If BOV is not considered, this is equivalent to pooling the data from all occasions, with the potential result of having a cloud of points without much structure... And also, as a general rule, I would allow a parameter to move with an ETA, before I try to explain its changes with a covariate effect. In this way I can also test better if the covariate is explaining some of this variability. Ok, I've been once again way too lengthy, apologies. Any comments/thoughts? In other words, do you first brush your teeth or have breakfast? Please join the survey! ;) Greetings from Cape Town, Paolo PS Ich putze die Zähne immer NACH dem Frühstück... I can't enjoy coffee with that minty toothpaste after-taste... :) -- ------------------------------------------------ Paolo Denti, PhD Post-Doctoral Fellow Division of Clinical Pharmacology Department of Medicine University of Cape Town K45 Old Main Building Groote Schuur Hospital Observatory, Cape Town 7925 South Africa phone: +27 21 404 7719 fax: +27 21 448 1989 email: [email protected] ------------------------------------------------ ### UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN This e-mail is subject to the UCT ICT policies and e-mail disclaimer published on our website at http://www.uct.ac.za/about/policies/emaildisclaimer/ or obtainable from +27 21 650 9111. This e-mail is intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. If the e-mail has reached you in error, please notify the author. If you are not the intended recipient of the e-mail you may not use, disclose, copy, redirect or print the content. If this e-mail is not related to the business of UCT it is sent by the sender in the sender's individual capacity. ###
Hi Paolo, It is a bit late to chime in but I can't resist... Great discussion point! I am of the opinion that if we develop models robustly, it in the end should not matter. If we would introduce a structural bias by neglecting BOV early on, we should be able to see a reflection of that in a diagnostic plot after introduction of BOV. And that in turn should lead to evaluation of other structural models. But this obviously depends on close scrutiny of diagnostics and frequent back-tracing. Perhaps the question could be restated as: which method is more efficient? - retaining the original answer. It may even be generalized by stating that those model parts that describe most of variance in the most plausible manner should be introduced first. This should prevent bias that complicates evaluation of more detailed parts because of nonlinearity issues as you described. Such a rule could be applied to any model and result in e.g. BSV on baseline be added early on for a PK-PD problem, body weight for general PK, BOV for multi-occasion/rich sampling problems, to name a few. Last but not least, I skip breakfast completely ;-). Best regards, Jeroen Modeling & Simulation Expert Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics & Pharmacometrics (P3) - DMPK MSD PO Box 20 - AP1112 5340 BH Oss The Netherlands [email protected] T: +31 (0)412 66 9320 M: +31 (0)6 46 101 283 F: +31 (0)412 66 2506 www.msd.com
Quoted reply history
-----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paolo Denti Sent: Wednesday, 17 November, 2010 17:23 To: Elodie Plan Cc: 'nmusers' Subject: Re: [NMusers] Zähneputzen VOR oder NACH dem Frühstück? What comes first? BSV, BOV, or covariates? Thank you Elodie, the reference you mention also states that the covariates were tested only on parameters for which BOV and BSV were significant. This is generally the approach I use, so that I can test whether the mentioned variabilities are indeed explained with the inclusion of covariates. I wonder if somebody can think of any exceptions to this "rule"? Also, both Oscar della Pasqua and Coen Van Hasselt pointed to me this PAGE poster (unfortunately presented in a literally burning hot poster session in Berlin): http://www.page-meeting.org/default.asp?abstract=1887 which seems to stress that disregarding BOV might lead to model misspecification. I also got a reply from Alwin Huitema, who told me that his experience with modelling in HIV is that ignoring IOV early in the modelling process might guide to wrong models. Any supporters of an alternative approach or shall I just assume that I was doing the same as everybody else? Who would brush teeth before breakfast anyway? ;) Another, safer, option is suggested by Oscar: > Paolo, > > By the way, hygiene rules do suggest you brush your teeth before and after > breakfast. > I don't want to infer that this is the same for modelling but I can > say that you can recognise the individual ingredients in your > breakfast if your taste butts are clean:) > > Oscar Ciao, Paolo On 16/11/2010 22:15, Elodie Plan wrote: > Dear Paolo, > > Thanks for this interesting NMusers thread. > > I think the order you are describing really makes sense in theory, for > the reasons you describe, but in brief because it seems covariates > should be incorporated on a model already fully developed structurally > and statistically, so this includes IOV. Moreover, the covariates will > increase the predictive performance (and the understanding) of the > model, by being introduced on structural parameters, but also possibly > directly on IIV and IOV. > > I also wanted to verify that this was what was done in practice, there > were > 6 entries when searching for "occasion AND covariate AND NONMEM" on > PubMed, I can recommend the following where the decrease in > variability magnitude following the covariate model building is nicely > discussed: Sandström M, Lindman H, Nygren P, Johansson M, Bergh J, > Karlsson MO. Population analysis of the pharmacokinetics and the > haematological toxicity of the fluorouracil-epirubicin-cyclophosphamide > regimen in breast cancer patients. > Cancer Chemother Pharmacol. 2006 Aug;58(2):143-56. > > Best regards, > Elodie > > PS: IOV or breakfast, I like it first :) > > Elodie L. Plan, PharmD, MSc, PhD student > ******************************************** > Uppsala Pharmacometrics Research Group Department of Pharmaceutical > Biosciences P.O. Box 591, SE-751 24 Uppsala, SWEDEN Mob +46 76-242 > 1256, Skype "ppeloo" > > -----Original Message----- > From:[email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Paolo Denti > Sent: Tuesday, November 16, 2010 10:10 AM > To: nmusers > Subject: [NMusers] Zähneputzen VOR oder NACH dem Frühstück? What comes > first? BSV, BOV, or covariates? > > Dear all, > don't be discouraged by the subject, this is indeed NMUsers and not > German 101, and this post is about pharmacometrics, please read on... > ;) > > The subject of the message comes from when I was studying German, and > from an exercise in our book with lots of colourful pictures. The > point of the exercise was only to teach us how to say "tooth > brushing", "have breakfast", "before" and "after", but instead it > sprouted a lively discussion in the class about what comes first and > last in everybody's morning routine... So I thought it would be an > appropriate title for this post, which is a survey/question about what > modelling approach people use/recommend for model development. > > Just to contextualize a bit, here at UCT we mainly study HIV and TB > drugs, which are dosed repeatedly (once or twice per day) and administered > orally. > We often have data available on more than one sampling occasion, and > many times these occasions are virtually > equivalent: no changes in co-treatment or other covariates, just a > mere repetition of the experiment on a different day. Confirming what > Mats recently pointed out in a post about the use of BOV, our > experience is that, especially in the absorption phase, the > contribution of BOV is dominant, and cannot be ignored. The absorption > is often subject to random delays and factors that are mostly > occasion-specific and not measurable/available in the dataset. > > Therefore, when I start modelling new data, I normally proceed as follows: > 1. I initially assume every occasion as a separate profile, either > using dummy IDs (and pretending it's different subjects) or coding all > variability as BOV. I believe this allows the maximum flexibility to > test the structural model, and I find that, if I don't proceed like > this, I may run into troubles detecting the correct structural model. > In this early stage of model development, I mostly use individual > plots, and try to see if my prediction profile is flexible enough to run > through the points. > > 2. Then I try to see if some of the variability is subject-specific > (normally V and CL) and can be better explained either by only BSV or > both BSV and BOV. I use the OFV to guide this process, but if the BOV > is much larger than BSV, and physiology supports the hypothesis that > the parameter be occasion-specific, I tend to disregard BSV. > > 3. Once I believe I got my structural model right, and organized the > hierarchy of random variability in a decent way, I start incorporating > the covariates. If they turn out to be significant, I see that BOV and > BSV decrease, and sometimes become superfluous in the model and can be > removed. > > I know other modellers would recommend first introducing BSV and/or > covariates, before considering BOV and I would be interested in > knowing people's opinion about this. Each method probably has its pros > and cons, and I would really value your input about this topic. What > are the advantages and disadvantages of the different approaches? > > Since I favour the modus operandi I just explained, I give my reasons, > and look forward to some comments. My opinion (but I am obviously > biased) is that it does not hurt to include BOV first, since it is > easy to remove from the model if the same variability is explained by > covariates, and likely, if this is the case, BOV will decrease in size. > On the other hand, disregarding BOV might prevent the identification > of the correct structural model. I am thinking, for example, about a > comparison between 2-cmpt vs 1-cmpt when the absorption is subject to > substantial random delays. If BOV is not considered, this is > equivalent to pooling the data from all occasions, with the potential > result of having a cloud of points without much structure... And also, > as a general rule, I would allow a parameter to move with an ETA, > before I try to explain its changes with a covariate effect. In this > way I can also test better if the covariate is explaining some of this > variability. > > Ok, I've been once again way too lengthy, apologies. Any comments/thoughts? > In other words, do you first brush your teeth or have breakfast? > Please join the survey! ;) > > Greetings from Cape Town, > Paolo > > > PS Ich putze die Zähne immer NACH dem Frühstück... I can't enjoy > coffee with that minty toothpaste after-taste... :) > > -- > ------------------------------------------------ > Paolo Denti, PhD > Post-Doctoral Fellow > Division of Clinical Pharmacology > Department of Medicine > University of Cape Town > > K45 Old Main Building > Groote Schuur Hospital > Observatory, Cape Town > 7925 South Africa > phone: +27 21 404 7719 > fax: +27 21 448 1989 > email:[email protected] > ------------------------------------------------ > > > > > > ### > UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN > > This e-mail is subject to the UCT ICT policies and e-mail disclaimer > published on our website at > http://www.uct.ac.za/about/policies/emaildisclaimer/ or obtainable > from +27 > 21 650 9111. This e-mail is intended only for the person(s) to whom it > is addressed. If the e-mail has reached you in error, please notify the > author. > If you are not the intended recipient of the e-mail you may not use, > disclose, copy, redirect or print the content. If this e-mail is not > related to the business of UCT it is sent by the sender in the > sender's individual capacity. > > ### > > > -- ------------------------------------------------ Paolo Denti, PhD Post-Doctoral Fellow Division of Clinical Pharmacology Department of Medicine University of Cape Town K45 Old Main Building Groote Schuur Hospital Observatory, Cape Town 7925 South Africa phone: +27 21 404 7719 fax: +27 21 448 1989 email:[email protected] ------------------------------------------------ ### UNIVERSITY OF CAPE TOWN This e-mail is subject to the UCT ICT policies and e-mail disclaimer published on our website at http://www.uct.ac.za/about/policies/emaildisclaimer/ or obtainable from +27 21 650 9111. This e-mail is intended only for the person(s) to whom it is addressed. If the e-mail has reached you in error, please notify the author. If you are not the intended recipient of the e-mail you may not use, disclose, copy, redirect or print the content. If this e-mail is not related to the business of UCT it is sent by the sender in the sender's individual capacity. ### This message and any attachments are solely for the intended recipient. If you are not the intended recipient, disclosure, copying, use or distribution of the information included in this message is prohibited --- Please immediately and permanently delete.