Assessment of actual significance levels for covariate effects in NONMEM
- PMID: 11468939
- DOI: 10.1023/a:1011527125570
Assessment of actual significance levels for covariate effects in NONMEM
Abstract
The objectives of this study were to assess the difference between actual and nominal significance levels, as judged by the likelihood ratio test, for hypothesis tests regarding covariate effects using NONMEM, and to study what factors influence these levels. Also, a strategy for obtaining closer agreement between nominal and actual significance levels was investigated. Pharmacokinetic (PK) data without covariate relationships were simulated from a one compartment i.v. bolus model for 50 individuals. Models with and without covariate relationships were then fitted to the data, and differences in the objective function values were calculated. Alterations were made to the simulation settings; the structural and error models, the number of individuals, the number of samples per individual and the covariate distribution. Different estimation methods in NONMEM were also tried. In addition, a strategy for estimating the actual significance levels for a specific data set, model and parameter was investigated using covariate randomization and a real data set. Under most conditions when the first-order (FO) method was used, the actual significance level for including a covariate relationship in a model was higher than the nominal significance level. Among factors with high impact were frequency of sampling and residual error magnitude. The use of the first-order conditional estimation method with interaction (FOCE-INTER) resulted in close agreement between actual and nominal significance levels. The results from the covariate randomization procedure of the real data set were in agreement with the results from the simulation study. With the FO method the actual significance levels were higher than the nominal, independent of the covariate type, but depending on the parameter influenced. When using FOCE-INTER the actual and nominal levels were similar. The most important factors influencing the actual significance levels for the FO method are the approximation of the influence of the random effects in a nonlinear model, a heteroscedastic error structure in which an existing interaction between interindividual and residual variability is not accounted for in the model, and a lognormal distribution of the residual error which is approximated by a symmetric distribution. Estimation with FOCE-INTER and the covariate randomization procedure provide means to achieve agreement between nominal and actual significance levels.
Comment in
-
Commentary on significance levels for covariate effects in NONMEM.J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2002 Aug;29(4):403-10; discussion 411-2. doi: 10.1023/a:1020909324909. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2002. PMID: 12518711 No abstract available.
Similar articles
-
Assessment of type I error rates for the statistical sub-model in NONMEM.J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2002 Jun;29(3):251-69. doi: 10.1023/a:1020254823597. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2002. PMID: 12449498
-
Parametric and nonparametric population methods: their comparative performance in analysing a clinical dataset and two Monte Carlo simulation studies.Clin Pharmacokinet. 2006;45(4):365-83. doi: 10.2165/00003088-200645040-00003. Clin Pharmacokinet. 2006. PMID: 16584284
-
The impact of misspecification of residual error or correlation structure on the type I error rate for covariate inclusion.J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2009 Feb;36(1):81-99. doi: 10.1007/s10928-009-9112-1. Epub 2009 Feb 14. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2009. PMID: 19219538
-
A survey of population analysis methods and software for complex pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic models with examples.AAPS J. 2007 Mar 2;9(1):E60-83. doi: 10.1208/aapsj0901007. AAPS J. 2007. PMID: 17408237 Free PMC article. Review.
-
Covariate pharmacokinetic model building in oncology and its potential clinical relevance.AAPS J. 2012 Mar;14(1):119-32. doi: 10.1208/s12248-012-9320-2. Epub 2012 Jan 25. AAPS J. 2012. PMID: 22274748 Free PMC article. Review.
Cited by
-
A population pharmacokinetic model of piperaquine in pregnant and non-pregnant women with uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria in Sudan.Malar J. 2012 Nov 29;11:398. doi: 10.1186/1475-2875-11-398. Malar J. 2012. PMID: 23190801 Free PMC article.
-
Models for time-varying covariates in population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic analysis.Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2004 Oct;58(4):367-77. doi: 10.1111/j.1365-2125.2004.02170.x. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2004. PMID: 15373929 Free PMC article.
-
Use of prior information to stabilize a population data analysis.J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2002 Dec;29(5-6):473-505. doi: 10.1023/a:1022972420004. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn. 2002. PMID: 12795242
-
LABA/LAMA versus LABA/ICS fixed-dose combinations in the prevention of COPD exacerbations: a modeling analysis of literature aggregate data.Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2023 Oct;79(10):1321-1332. doi: 10.1007/s00228-023-03543-y. Epub 2023 Jul 29. Eur J Clin Pharmacol. 2023. PMID: 37507595
-
Pharmacokinetics of dexamethasone in a rat model of rheumatoid arthritis.Biopharm Drug Dispos. 2008 Sep;29(6):366-72. doi: 10.1002/bdd.626. Biopharm Drug Dispos. 2008. PMID: 18613033 Free PMC article.
References
Publication types
MeSH terms
Substances
LinkOut - more resources
Full Text Sources
Other Literature Sources