Investigating the contribution of residual unexplained variability components on bias and imprecision of parameter estimates in population pharmacokinetic mixed-effects modeling.

In a nonlinear mixed-effects modeling (NLMEM) approach of pharmacokinetic (PK) and pharmacodynamic (PD) data, two levels of random effects are generally modeled: between-subject variability (BSV) and residual unexplained variability (RUV). The goal of this simulation-estimation study was to investigate the extent to which PK and RUV model misspecification, errors in recording dosing and sampling times, and variability in drug content uniformity contribute to the estimated magnitude of RUV and PK parameter bias. A two-compartment model with first-order absorption and linear elimination was simulated as a true model. PK parameters were clearance 5.0 L/h; central volume of distribution 35 L; inter-compartmental clearance 50 L/h; peripheral volume of distribution 50 L. All parameters were assumed to have a 30% coefficient of variation (CV). One hundred in-silico subjects were administered a labeled dose of 120 mg under 4 sample collection designs. PK and RUV model misspecifications were associated with relatively larger increases in the magnitude of RUV compared to other sources for all levels of sampling design. The contribution of dose and dosing time misspecifications have negligible effects on RUV but result in higher bias in PK parameter estimates. Inaccurate sampling time data results in biased RUV and increases with the magnitude of perturbations. Combined perturbation scenarios in the studied sources will propagate the variability and accumulate in RUV magnitude and bias in PK parameter estimates. This work provides insight into the potential contributions of many factors that comprise RUV and bias in PK parameters.

A Note on Decomposition of Sources of Variability in Perceptual Decision-making.

Information processing underlying human perceptual decision-making is inherently noisy and identifying sources of this noise is important to understand processing. Ratcliff, Voskuilen, and McKoon (2018) examined results from five experiments using a double-pass procedure in which stimuli were repeated typically a hundred trials later. Greater than chance agreement between repeated tests provided evidence for trial-to-trial variability from external sources of noise. They applied the diffusion model to estimate the quality of evidence driving the decision process (drift rate) and the variability (standard deviation) in drift rate across trials. This variability can be decomposed into random (internal) and systematic (external) components by comparing the double-pass accuracy and agreement with the model predictions. In this note, we provide an additional analysis of the double-pass experiments using the linear ballistic accumulator (LBA) model. The LBA model does not have within-trial variability and thus it captures all variability in processing with its across-trial variability parameters. The LBA analysis of the double-pass data provides model-based evidence of external variability in a decision process, which is consistent with Ratcliff et al.'s result. This demonstrates that across-trial variability is required to model perceptual decision-making. The LBA model provides measures of systematic and random variability as the diffusion model did. But due to the lack of within-trial variability, the LBA model estimated the random component as a larger proportion of across-trial total variability than did the diffusion model.

Post-acquisition processing confounds in brain volumetric quantification of white matter hyperintensities.

BACKGROUND: Disparate research sites using identical or near-identical magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) acquisition techniques often produce results that demonstrate significant variability regarding volumetric quantification of white matter hyperintensities (WMH) in the aging population. The sources of such variability have not previously been fully explored. NEW METHOD: 3D FLAIR sequences from a group of randomly selected aged subjects were analyzed to identify sources-of-variability in post-acquisition processing that can be problematic when comparing WMH volumetric data across disparate sites. The methods developed focused on standardizing post-acquisition protocol processing methods to develop a protocol with less than 0.5% inter-rater variance. RESULTS: A series of experiments using standard MRI acquisition sequences explored post-acquisition sources-of-variability in the quantification of WMH volumetric data. Sources-of-variability included: the choice of image center, software suite and version, thresholding selection, and manual editing procedures (when used). Controlling for the identified sources-of-variability led to a protocol with less than 0.5% variability between independent raters in post-acquisition WMH volumetric quantification. COMPARISON WITH EXISTING METHOD(S): Post-acquisition processing techniques can introduce an average variance approaching 15% in WMH volume quantification despite identical scan acquisitions. Understanding and controlling for such sources-of-variability can reduce post-acquisition quantitative image processing variance to less than 0.5%. DISCUSSION: Considerations of potential sources-of-variability in MRI volume quantification techniques and reduction in such variability is imperative to allow for reliable cross-site and cross-study comparisons.

Population pharmacokinetic analysis of dutogliptin, a selective dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor.

Dutogliptin is a selective dipeptidyl peptidase-4 inhibitor shown to be efficacious and safe in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). Population pharmacokinetic (PK) analysis of dutogliptin was performed based on data collected in 561 healthy subjects and patients with T2DM enrolled in Phase I and II studies to assess sources of variability and support dosing rationale. The effect of extrinsic (formulations, fed/fasting conditions, potential drug-drug interaction with metformin) and intrinsic (baseline characteristics, markers of renal function, renal impairment category, and disease status) covariates was evaluated using non-linear mixed effect modeling. Plasma concentrations of dutogliptin were best fitted with a two-compartment model with a first-order rate constant of absorption (Ka) and a lag time. No differences were observed between healthy subjects and patients with T2DM. Apparent clearance (CL/F) and terminal elimination half-life of dutogliptin were 176 L/h and 12.2 hours, respectively. Typical CL/F values in patients with mild and moderate renal impairment were 121 and 79 L/h, respectively. No drug-drug interaction was observed with metformin. These results suggest that a reduction in dosing from 400 to 200 mg daily is warranted in T2DM patients with moderate renal impairment. No dose adjustments were deemed necessary for other evaluated patient characteristics and coadministration with metformin.