ArticleJournal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics2015
Simulation studies on the estimation of total area under the curve in the presence of right-tailed censoring.
Article in Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
1 author.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The effect of extrapolated area (%AUCextrap) on estimating mean AUCinf in a simulated single-dose clinical trial was examined. Concentration-time (C-t) profiles from 12 to 36 subjects for 1- and 2-compartment models after single dose administration were simulated with increasing right-tailed censoring. Each subject's %AUCextrap and AUCinf was calculated using eight different methods, including noncompartmental analysis (NCA), population-based methods, and maximum likelihood (ML) accounting for censoring. Each method's geometric mean AUCinf and percent relative error (PRE) from the true AUCinf was calculated. This was repeated 100 times and the mean PRE (MPRE) was calculated. Mean %AUCextrap ranged from 1 to ~30 % for the 1-compartment and 2 to 32 % for the 2-compartment model at the lowest and highest degree of censoring, respectively. NCA methods using all subjects to estimate the population mean AUCinf had similar or less bias (within ± 20 %) than when those subjects with >20 % %AUCextrap were removed. Using Cpred compared to Clast in the calculation of individual AUCinf resulted in no performance improvement. Linear mixed effects models to estimate λz and ML methods accounting for censoring resulted in either no improvement or increased bias when censoring was high. Population pharmacokinetic method bias was dependent on the nature of the C-t profile. When the C-t profile declined biphasically, population models had higher bias than NCA methods but were superior when the C-t profile decline in a log-linear manner. It is recommended that subjects with high %AUCextrap should not be removed from the estimation of mean AUCinf in NCA analyses.
Indexed as
Identifiers
25367741What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.