Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum 13:51 CET

Main page Policy/Terms of Use Abbreviations Latest Posts

 Log in |  Register |  Search

Setup in Phoenix/WinNonlin [Study As­sess­ment]

posted by Helmut Homepage - Vienna, Austria, 2016-05-14 02:26  - Posting: # 16302
Views: 13,564

Hi Angus,

» It is a very well known drug and many MR formulations are on the market. (You have experience with this drug).

If we are talking about the same goody: Watch out for polymorphism… Sometimes you have poor metabolizers in the study where enzymes get saturated at higher doses. In one subject I once got a slope of 1.54 for AUC and 2.16 for Cmax over a only twofold dose range! For the other subjects it got 1.05 and 1.02 with a very narrow CI.

» There are only two does levels to plot. The relationship is as follows:
»
» LnPK=B0+B1*Ln(dose) where LnPK pertains to Cmax or AUC.
»
» So we have a regression line going through the points: we evaluate the slope (B1), intercept

OK, so far.

» and the confidence intervals about the slope to evaluate dose proportionality.

This is beyond me. df = np where n is the number of data points and p the number of parameters. How can you calculate a CI with df = 0?

» Brian Smith in Pharm Research year 2000 has extended the approach from the original UK working party.

Yep. Smith et al. use a mixed-effects model, where subjects are a random effect. Thus we increase n. Now a CI is possible even for p = 2.

» It seems that you can calculate intrasubject and intersubject variance e.g. for AUC and partial AUC from this approach.

Correct.

» I do not follow how to do it. I use the usual intrasubject and intersubject values from Phoenix WinNonlin 6.4 and I am happy with that.

If you are happy with that, what is your question? :-D

If you want to reproduce Smith’s results in Phoenix/WinNonlin: Start with a worksheet (columns subject, dose, Cmax, AUC, whatsoever). log-transform: dose, Cmax, … and weight=1/logCmax, … Send to LME. Map Subject as Classification, logCmax as Rgeressor, and logCmax as Dependent.
Model Specification: logCmax
Fixed Effects Confidence Level: 90%
Variance Structure / Random 1: Subject
With Smith’s Cmax-data of Table 1 I got for the slope:
0.7617 (90% CI: 0.6696, 0.8539), slightly different from the reported 0.7615 (0.679, 0.844). Why? Duno.

[image]
(jitter added to doses)


See also chapter 18.3 in Chow/Liu. Without explanation they recommend a 95% CI but a 90% CI in elaborating Smith’s approach. In general I prefer a weighted model (hence the transformation above). Fits much better.
                 SSQ      AIC   Var(Subject)  Var(Res)
w = 1          0.07389   9.247     0.1120     0.01456 
w = 1/logCmax  0.01548  -8.917     0.1108     0.003076



PS: Can you ask “the other worker” why he/she calculated the 98% CI?

Cheers,
Helmut Schütz
[image]

The quality of responses received is directly proportional to the quality of the question asked. ☼
Science Quotes

Complete thread:

Activity
 Mix view
Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum |  Admin contact
19,032 posts in 4,059 threads, 1,299 registered users;
online 12 (0 registered, 12 guests [including 8 identified bots]).

When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that
something is possible, he is almost certainly right.
When he states that something is impossible,
he is very probably wrong.    Arthur C. Clarke

The BIOEQUIVALENCE / BIOAVAILABILITY FORUM is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
HTML5 RSS Feed