PubMed Health⌕ Search

Biomedical subjects

Carl C Peck

Publications and source records attributed to Carl C Peck.

7 recordsLinked to original sources

Simulation of correlated continuous and categorical variables using a single multivariate distribution.

Clinical trial simulations make use of input/output models with covariate effects; the virtual patient population generated for the simulation should therefore display physiologically reasonable covariate distributions. Covariate distribution modeling is one method used to create sets of covariate values (vectors) that characterize individual virtual patients, which should be representative of real subjects participating in clinical trials. Covariates can be continuous (e.g., body weight, age) or categorical (e.g., sex, race). A modeling method commonly used for incorporating both continuous and categorical covariates, the Discrete method, requires the patient population to be divided into subgroups for each unique combination of categorical covariates, with separate multivariate functions for the continuous covariates in each subset. However, when there are multiple categorical covariates this approach can result in subgroups with very few representative patients, and thus, insufficient data to build a model that characterizes these patient groups. To resolve this limitation, an application of a statistical methodology (Continuous method) was conceived to enable sampling of complete covariate vectors, including both continuous and categorical covariates, from a single multivariate function. The Discrete and Continuous methods were compared using both simulated and real data with respect to their ability to generate virtual patient distributions that match a target population. The simulated data sets consisted of one categorical and two correlated continuous covariates. The proportion of patients in each subgroup, correlation between the continuous covariates, and ratio of the means of the continuous covariates in the subgroups were varied. During evaluation, both methods accurately generated the summary statistics and proper proportions of the target population. In general, the Continuous method performed as well as the Discrete method, except when the subgroups, defined by categorical value, had markedly different continuous covariate means, for which, in the authors' experience, there are few clinically relevant examples. The Continuous method allows analysis of the full population instead of multiple subgroups, reducing the number of analyses that must be performed, and thereby increasing efficiency. More importantly, analyzing a larger pool of data increases the precision of the covariance estimates of the covariates, thus improving the accuracy of the description of the covariate distribution in the simulated population.

Clinical Trials as Topic↗

Evidence of effectiveness: how much can we extrapolate from existing studies?

Drug development can be a science of extrapolation if the use of a drug exposure-response relationship is embraced and implemented through mechanistically oriented pharmacokinetic (PK)-pharmacodynamic (PD) modeling analysis and clinical trial simulation. The traditional requirement of at least 2 adequate and well-controlled phase III studies by the US Food and Drug Administration for drug approval can be waived in certain situations, substantially reducing the resources and time. In this article, the authors introduce a real drug development case where the chance for this exemption was maximized by actively using PK-PD modeling followed by clinical trial simulation, resulting in faster and more economical introduction of a new dosage regimen to patients.

Animals↗

Population pharmacokinetic analysis and simulation of the time-concentration profile of etanercept in pediatric patients with juvenile rheumatoid arthritis.

This study was performed to estimate the population pharmacokinetic (PK) parameters of etanercept in pediatric juvenile rheumatoid arthritis (JRA) patients and to compare the steady-state time-concentration profiles between etanercept 0.8-mg/kg once-weekly and 0.4-mg/kg twice-weekly subcutaneous (SC) regimens by clinical trial simulation. To this end, mixed-effect analysis (NONMEM, Version 5.1) was performed using the etanercept PK database consisting of 69 JRA patients (4-17 years). Based on the population PK parameters obtained herein, a Monte Carlo clinical trial simulation experiment was conducted to compare the PK profiles in 200 virtual JRA patients who randomly received either etanercept 0.4 mg/kg SC twice weekly or 0.8 mg/kg once weekly for 12 weeks. The following population PK model could adequately describe etanercept PK profiles for twice-weekly SC dosing of 0.4 mg/kg: CL/F (L/h)=0.0576 (female) or 0.0772 (male) x (body surface area in m2/1.071)1.41, V/F(L)=7.88 x (body weight in kg/30.8). The means +/- standard deviations of simulated trough concentrations for 0.8-mg/kg once-weekly and 0.4-mg/kg twice-weekly dosing regimens were 1.58 +/- 1.07 mg/L and 1.92 +/- 1.09 mg/L, respectively. Peaks during 0.8-mg/kg once-weekly dosing (2.92 +/- 1.41 mg/L) were only 11% higher than during 0.4 mg/kg twice-weekly dosing (2.62 +/- 1.23 mg/L). In conclusion, the clinical trial simulation confirmed that 0.8-mg/kg once-weekly and 0.4-mg/kg twice-weekly SC regimens of etanercept are expected to yield overlapping steady-state time-concentration profiles, leading to equivalent clinical outcomes. This has been the basis of the recent Food and Drug Administration approval of the 0.8-mg/kg once-weekly regimen in pediatric patients with JRA.

Adolescent↗

Population pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic modeling of etanercept using logistic regression analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Our objective was to develop a population pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic model of etanercept in patients with rheumatoid arthritis, with the American College of Rheumatology response criterion of 20% improvement (ACR20) used as a binary clinical outcome variable. METHODS: Concentration-time profiles from 25 subjects, administered 25 mg subcutaneous etanercept twice weekly for 24 weeks, were pooled with data from 77 subjects, enrolled in a 24-week, randomized, double-blind study comparing 25 mg and 50 mg subcutaneous etanercept twice weekly. The cumulative area under the concentration-time curve (AUC) was used as the exposure variable, and ACR20 was the binomial clinical outcome. ACR20 data from another 80 placebo-treated patients enrolled in a randomized, double-blind phase III study were used to describe the placebo time course of ACR20. A logistic regression analysis with NONMEM was applied to describe the exposure-response relationship, and the 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) were constructed by bootstrapping 1000 times. RESULTS: The population mean apparent clearance was 0.117 L/h (95% CI, 0.108-0.130 L/h) for white female patients and 0.138 L/h (95% CI, 0.118-0.163 L/h) for white male patients. Interindividual variability and interoccasion variability were 41.1% and 27.6%, respectively. The mean absorption half-life was 20.9 hours, and the elimination half-life was 95.4 hours. An improved response profile in male patients was shown, but the multiplicative factor between slope on cumulative AUC between male and female patients was not statistically significant (1.69; 95% CI, 0.37-9.99). The model-predicted percentage of patients achieving ACR20 at 6 months after dosing of 25 mg subcutaneously twice weekly was 54.9%, comparable to the observed 52.9%. CONCLUSION: The population pharmacokinetic analysis confirmed that etanercept is slowly absorbed and eliminated after subcutaneous administration. The logistic model linking cumulative AUC with ACR20 adequately characterized the time course of clinical improvement in patients with rheumatoid arthritis receiving etanercept.

Area Under Curve↗