Setup in Phoenix/WinNonlin [Study As­sess­ment]

posted by Helmut Homepage – Vienna, Austria, 2016-05-14 02:26  – Posting: # 16302
Views: 19,605

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
 Admin contact
20,138 posts in 4,246 threads, 1,387 registered users;
online 4 (0 registered, 4 guests [including 4 identified bots]).
Forum time (Europe/Vienna): 23:41 CET

The fundamental cause of trouble in the world today is
that the stupid are cocksure
while the intelligent are full of doubt.    Bertrand Russell

The Bioequivalence and Bioavailability Forum is hosted by
BEBAC Ing. Helmut Schütz
HTML5