ArticleThe AAPS journal2015
Comparison of Nonlinear Mixed Effects Models and Noncompartmental Approaches in Detecting Pharmacogenetic Covariates.
Article in The AAPS journal, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers.
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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Methodologies underpinning polygenic risk scores estimation: a comprehensive overview.Human genetics · 2024Review
- Pharmacometrics-Based Considerations for the Design of a Pharmacogenomic Clinical Trial Assessing Irinotecan Safety.Pharmaceutical research · 2021Article
- Adjusted adaptive Lasso for covariate model-building in nonlinear mixed-effect pharmacokinetic models.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2017Article
- Population Pharmacokinetics of Methylphenidate in Healthy Adults Emphasizing Novel and Known Effects of Several Carboxylesterase 1 (CES1) Variants.Clinical and translational science · 2016Article
- Combined Analysis of Phase I and Phase II Data to Enhance the Power of Pharmacogenetic Tests.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Genetic data is now collected in many clinical trials, especially in population pharmacokinetic studies. There is no consensus on methods to test the association between pharmacokinetics and genetic covariates. We performed a simulation study inspired by real clinical trials, using the pharmacokinetics (PK) of a compound under development having a nonlinear bioavailability along with genotypes for 176 single nucleotide polymorphisms (SNPs). Scenarios included 78 subjects extensively sampled (16 observations per subject) to simulate a phase I study, or 384 subjects with the same rich design. Under the alternative hypothesis (H1), six SNPs were drawn randomly to affect the log-clearance under an additive linear model. For each scenario, 200 PK data sets were simulated under the null hypothesis (no gene effect) and H1. We compared 16 combinations of four association tests, a stepwise procedure and three penalised regressions (ridge regression, Lasso, HyperLasso), applied to four pharmacokinetic phenotypes, two observed concentrations, area under the curve estimated by noncompartmental analysis and model-based clearance. The different combinations were compared in terms of true and false positives and probability to detect the genetic effects. In presence of nonlinearity and/or variability in bioavailability, model-based phenotype allowed a higher probability to detect the SNPs than other phenotypes. In a realistic setting with a limited number of subjects, all methods showed a low ability to detect genetic effects. Ridge regression had the best probability to detect SNPs, but also a higher number of false positives. No association test showed a much higher power than the others.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What 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.