Covariates in Pharmacometric Repeated Time-to-Event Models: Old and New (Pre)Selection Tools
Tóm tắt
During covariate modeling in pharmacometrics, computational time can be reduced by using a fast preselection tool to identify a subset of promising covariates that are to be tested with the more computationally demanding likelihood ratio test (LRT), which is considered to be the standard for covariate selection. There is however a lack of knowledge on best practices for covariate (pre)selection in pharmacometric repeated time-to-event (RTTE) models. Therefore, we aimed to systematically evaluate the performance of three covariate (pre)selection tools for RTTE models: the likelihood ratio test (LRT), the empirical Bayes estimates (EBE) test, and a novel Schoenfeld-like residual test. This was done in simulated datasets with and without a “true” time-constant covariate, and both in the presence and absence of high EBE shrinkage. In scenarios with a “true” covariate effect, all tools had comparable power to detect this effect. In scenarios without a “true” covariate effect, the false positive rates of the LRT and the Schoenfeld-like residual test were slightly inflated to 5.7% and 7.2% respectively, while the EBE test had no inflated false positive rate. The presence of high EBE shrinkage (> 40%) did not affect the performance of any of the covariate (pre)selection tools. We found the EBE test to be a fast and accurate tool for covariate preselection in RTTE models. The novel Schoenfeld-like residual test proposed here had a similar performance in the tested scenarios and might be applied more readily to time-varying covariates, such as drug concentration and dynamic biomarkers.
Tài liệu tham khảo
Cox EH, Veyrat-Follet C, Beal SL, Fuseau E, Kenkare S, Sheiner LB. A population pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic analysis of repeated measures time-to-event pharmacodynamic responses: the antiemetic effect of ondansetron. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 1999; 27(6):625–644.
Vigan M, Stirnemann J, Mentre F. Evaluation of estimation methods and power of tests of discrete covariates in repeated time-to-event parametric models: application to Gaucher patients treated by imiglucerase. AAPS J. 2014;16(3):415–23.
Juul RV, Rasmussen S, Kreilgaard M, Christrup LL, Simonsson US, Lund TM. Repeated time-to-event analysis of consecutive analgesic events in postoperative pain. Anesthesiology. 2015;123(6):1411–9.
Mould DR, Upton RN. Basic concepts in population modeling, simulation, and model-based drug development. CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol. 2012;1:e6.
Xu XS, Yuan M, Yang H, Feng Y, Xu J, Pinheiro J. Further evaluation of covariate analysis using empirical Bayes estimates in population pharmacokinetics: the perception of shrinkage and likelihood ratio test. AAPS J. 2017;19(1):264–73.
Hutmacher MM, Kowalski KG. Covariate selection in pharmacometric analyses: a review of methods. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2015;79(1):132–47.
Mould DR, Upton RN. Basic concepts in population modeling, simulation, and model-based drug development-part 2: introduction to pharmacokinetic modeling methods. CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol. 2013;2:e38.
Nguyen TH, Mouksassi MS, Holford N, Al-Huniti N, Freedman I, Hooker AC, et al. Model evaluation of continuous data pharmacometric models: metrics and graphics. CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol. 2017;6(2):87–109.
Savic RM, Karlsson MO. Importance of shrinkage in empirical Bayes estimates for diagnostics: problems and solutions. AAPS J. 2009;11(3):558–69.
Combes FP, Retout S, Frey N, Mentre F. Powers of the likelihood ratio test and the correlation test using empirical Bayes estimates for various shrinkages in population pharmacokinetics. CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol. 2014;3:e109.
Schoenfeld D. Partial residuals for the proportional hazards regression model. Biometrika. 1982;69(1):239–41.
Collett D. Model checking in the cox regression model. Modelling survival data in medical research. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 2015. p. 131–70.
Beal SL, Sheiner LB, Boeckmann AJ, Bauer RJ. NONMEM users guides. 2010.
Nyberg J, Karlsson KE, Jönsson S, Simonsson USH, Karlsson MO, Hooker AC. Simulating large time-to-event trials in NONMEM. PAGE. 2014:23.
Goulooze SC, Valitalo PA, Knibbe CAJ, Krekels EHJ. Kernel-based visual hazard comparison (kbVHC): a simulation-free diagnostic for parametric repeated-time-to-event models. AAPS J. 2018;20(1):5.
Wileyto EP, Li Y, Chen J, Heitjan DF. Assessing the fit of parametric cure models. Biostatistics. 2013;14(2):340–50.
Bonate PL. Pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling and simulation. 2 ed. Springer, 2011.
Kohler I, Hankemeier T, van der Graaf PH, Knibbe CAJ, van Hasselt JGC. Integrating clinical metabolomics-based biomarker discovery and clinical pharmacology to enable precision medicine. Eur J Pharm Sci. 2017;109:S15–21.
Kantae V, Krekels EHJ, Esdonk MJV, Lindenburg P, Harms AC, Knibbe CAJ, et al. Integration of pharmacometabolomics with pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics: towards personalized drug therapy. Metabolomics. 2017;13(1):9.
Goulooze SC, Krekels EHJ, van DM, Tibboel D, van der Graaf PH, Hankemeier T et al. Towards personalized treatment of pain using a quantitative systems pharmacology approach. Eur J Pharm Sci 2017, 109, S32, S38.
Therneau TM, Grambsch PM. Functional form. Modeling survival data: extending the cox model. New York: Springer, 2000; p. 87–126.