ArticleJournal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics2023
Pharmacokinetic comparability between two populations using nonlinear mixed effect models: a Monte Carlo study.
Article in Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed, 1 citations in OpenAlex.
- A Cross-sectional Comparative Analysis of Eleven Population Pharmacokinetic Models for Docetaxel in Chinese Breast Cancer Patients.Current drug metabolism · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
'Are two populations the same or are they different' is a question that is often faced in clinical pharmacology trials e.g., a pharmacokinetic trial studying a particular drug in racially different groups. To address this question, concentration-time data were simulated from a reference and test population, where in the latter the clearance, sample size, and sampling design were systematically varied. It was of interest to determine whether the estimates of clearance from the two groups were the same or different. Two approaches were used to estimate the empirical Bayes estimates (EBEs) for clearance. One approach developed a population pharmacokinetic model for the reference population and the EBEs for the reference population were estimated from this model. The parameters of the reference population were fixed to their maximum likelihood estimates. The model was then applied to the test population dataset to estimate the EBEs of the test population using the MAXEVAL = 0 option in NONMEM. A second approach, the theta approach, combined the reference and test datasets into a single dataset and used population as a covariate in the model; the EBEs were estimated from this combined model. The power and type I error rate of each approach were calculated for each treatment combination using a variety of statistical tests to determine whether there was a difference in the distribution of the EBEs in the reference population compared to the test population. Our results suggest that either MAXEVAL or theta approaches can be used with informative sampling designs. In addition to reasonable power and type I error, both approaches gave almost identical results under a dense sampling design. To statistically compare the distribution of EBEs of pharmacokinetic parameters from a reference group to that of a test group, a T-test and DTS eCDF test are equally useful.
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.