Evidence map›Paper›PMID 19562469›Full record

ArticleJournal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics2009

Pharmacogenetics and population pharmacokinetics: impact of the design on three tests using the SAEM algorithm.

Julie Bertrand, Emmanuelle Comets, Céline M Laffont, Marylore Chenel, France Mentré

Abstract readEvaluation Study
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, 2009. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Cross-validation for nonlinear mixed effects models.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2013
    Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Design of pharmacokinetic studies for latent covariates.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2012
    Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Julie BertrandUMR 738, INSERM, Université Paris Diderot, 75018, Paris, France. julie.bertrand@inserm.fr
Emmanuelle Comets
Céline M Laffont
Marylore Chenel
France Mentré

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Pharmacogenetics is now widely investigated and health institutions acknowledge its place in clinical pharmacokinetics. Our objective is to assess through a simulation study, the impact of design on the statistical performances of three different tests used for analysis of pharmacogenetic information with nonlinear mixed effects models: (i) an ANOVA to test the relationship between the empirical Bayes estimates of the model parameter of interest and the genetic covariate, (ii) a global Wald test to assess whether estimates for the gene effect are significant, and (iii) a likelihood ratio test (LRT) between the model with and without the genetic covariate. We use the stochastic EM algorithm (SAEM) implemented in MONOLIX 2.1 software. The simulation setting is inspired from a real pharmacokinetic study. We investigate four designs with N the number of subjects and n the number of samples per subject: (i) N = 40/n = 4, similar to the original study, (ii) N = 80/n = 2 sorted in 4 groups, a design optimized using the PFIM software, (iii) a combined design, N = 20/n = 4 plus N = 80 with only a trough concentration and (iv) N = 200/n = 4, to approach asymptotic conditions. We find that the ANOVA has a correct type I error estimate regardless of design, however the sparser design was optimized. The type I error of the Wald test and LRT are moderatly inflated in the designs far from the asymptotic (<10%). For each design, the corrected power is analogous for the three tests. Among the three designs with a total of 160 observations, the design N = 80/n = 2 optimized with PFIM provides both the lowest standard error on the effect coefficients and the best power for the Wald test and the LRT while a high shrinkage decreases the power of the ANOVA. In conclusion, a correction method should be used for model-based tests in pharmacogenetic studies with reduced sample size and/or sparse sampling and, for the same amount of samples, some designs have better power than others.

Indexed as

Models, StatisticalPharmacokineticsPolymorphism, Single NucleotideResearch DesignAlgorithmsAnalysis of VarianceBayes TheoremBiotransformationComputer SimulationHumansLikelihood FunctionsPharmacogenetics

Identifiers

PMID19562469
PMCPMC3192406

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.