Use of normalized prediction distribution errors for assessing population physiologically-based pharmacokinetic model adequacy

Anil R. Maharaj, Huali Wu, Christoph P. Hornik, Antonio Arrieta, Laura James, Varsha Bhatt-Mehta, John Bradley, William J. Muller, Amira Al-Uzri, Kevin J. Downes, Michael Cohen-Wolkowiez*

*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

9 Scopus citations

Abstract

Currently employed methods for qualifying population physiologically-based pharmacokinetic (Pop-PBPK) model predictions of continuous outcomes (e.g., concentration–time data) fail to account for within-subject correlations and the presence of residual error. In this study, we propose a new method for evaluating Pop-PBPK model predictions that account for such features. The approach focuses on deriving Pop-PBPK-specific normalized prediction distribution errors (NPDE), a metric that is commonly used for population pharmacokinetic model validation. We describe specific methodological steps for computing NPDE for Pop-PBPK models and define three measures for evaluating model performance: mean of NPDE, goodness-of-fit plots, and the magnitude of residual error. Utility of the proposed evaluation approach was demonstrated using two simulation-based study designs (positive and negative control studies) as well as pharmacokinetic data from a real-world clinical trial. For the positive-control simulation study, where observations and model simulations were generated under the same Pop-PBPK model, the NPDE-based approach denoted a congruency between model predictions and observed data (mean of NPDE = − 0.01). In contrast, for the negative-control simulation study, where model simulations and observed data were generated under different Pop-PBPK models, the NPDE-based method asserted that model simulations and observed data were incongruent (mean of NPDE = − 0.29). When employed to evaluate a previously developed clindamycin PBPK model against prospectively collected plasma concentration data from 29 children, the NPDE-based method qualified the model predictions as successful (mean of NPDE = 0). However, when pediatric subpopulations (e.g., infants) were evaluated, the approach revealed potential biases that should be explored.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)199-218
Number of pages20
JournalJournal of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics
Volume47
Issue number3
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 1 2020

Funding

M.C.W. receives support for research from the NIH (5R01-HD076676), NIH (HHSN275201000003I), NIAID/NIH (HHSN272201500006I), FDA (1U18-FD006298), the Biomedical Advanced Research and Development Authority (HHSO1201300009C), and from the industry for the drug development in adults and children ( www.dcri.duke.edu/research/coi.jsp ). C.P.H. receives salary support for research from National Institute for Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) (K23HD090239), the U.S. government for his work in pediatric and neonatal clinical pharmacology (Government Contract HHSN267200700051C, PI: Benjamin, under the Best Pharmaceuticals for Children Act), and industry for drug development in children. KJD has received research support from Merck, Inc. and Pfizer, Inc. and is supported by NICHD K23HD091365. This study was funded by the National Institutes of Health (1R01-HD076676-01A1; M.C.W.).

Keywords

  • Normalized prediction distribution errors
  • Pediatric subpopulations
  • Population physiologically-based pharmacokinetic modeling
  • Potential biases

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pharmacology

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Use of normalized prediction distribution errors for assessing population physiologically-based pharmacokinetic model adequacy'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this