Evidence map›Paper›PMID 25367741›Full record

ArticleJournal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics2015

Simulation studies on the estimation of total area under the curve in the presence of right-tailed censoring.

Peter L Bonate

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Peter L BonateAstellas Pharma, 1 Astellas Way, N2.184, Northbrook, IL, 60062, USA, peter.bonate@astellas.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Area Under CurveComputer SimulationModels, BiologicalPharmaceutical PreparationsBiasClinical Trials as TopicHumansMonte Carlo MethodTherapeutic EquivalencyPharmaceutical Preparations

Identifiers

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.