...
首页> 外文期刊>Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics >Methods of utilizing baseline values for indirect response models
【24h】

Methods of utilizing baseline values for indirect response models

机译:将基线值用于间接响应模型的方法

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
           

摘要

This study derives and assesses modified equations for Indirect Response Models (IDR) for normalizing data for baseline values (R 0) and evaluates different methods of utilizing baseline information. Pharmacodynamic response equations for the four basic IDR models were adjusted to reflect a ratio to, a change from (e.g., subtraction), or percent change relative to baseline. The original and modified IDR equations were fitted individually to simulated data sets and compared for recovery of true parameter values. Handling of baseline values was investigated using: estimation (E), fixing at the starting value (F1), and fixing at an average of starting and returning values of response profiles (F2). The performance of each method was evaluated using simulated data with variability under various scenarios of different doses, numbers of data points, type of IDR model, and degree of residual errors. The median error and inter-quartile range relative to true values were used as indicators of bias and precision for each method. Applying IDR models to normalized data required modifications in writing differential equations and initial conditions. Use of an observed/baseline ratio led to parameter estimates of k in = k out and inability to detect differences in k in values for groups with different R 0, whereas the modified equations recovered the true values. An increase in variability increased the %Bias and %Imprecision for each R 0 fitting method and was more pronounced for ‘F1’. The overall performance of ‘F2’ was as good as that of ‘E’ and better than ‘F1’. The %Bias in estimation of parameters SC50 (IC50) and k out followed the same trend, whereas use of ‘F1’ or ‘F2’ resulted in the least bias for S max (I max). The IDR equations need modifications to directly assess baseline-normalized data. In general, Method ‘E’ resulted in lesser bias and better precision compared to ‘F1’. With rich datasets including sufficient information on the return to baseline, Method ‘F2’ is reasonable. Method ‘E’ offers no significant advantage over ‘F1’ with datasets lacking information on the return to baseline phase. Handling baseline responses properly is an essential aspect of applying pharmacodynamic models.
机译:这项研究得出并评估了间接响应模型(IDR)的改进方程式,以对基线值(R 0 )的数据进行归一化,并评估了各种利用基线信息的方法。调整了四个基本IDR模型的药效学反应方程式,以反映相对于基线的比率,变化(例如,减法)或变化百分比。原始和修改的IDR方程式分别拟合到模拟数据集,并进行比较以恢复真实参数值。使用以下方法研究基线值的处理:估计(E),固定在起始值(F1)和固定在响应配置​​文件的起始值和返回值的平均值(F2)。使用模拟数据评估每种方法的性能,该模拟数据在不同剂量,数据点数量,IDR模型类型和残差程度的各种情况下具有可变性。相对于真实值的中位数误差和四分位数间距被用作每种方法的偏差和精度指标。将IDR模型应用于规范化数据需要修改微分方程和初始条件。使用观察/基线比率会导致k in = k out 的参数估计,并且无法检测具有不同R 0 的组的k in 值的差异,而修改后的方程恢复了真实值。变异性的增加会增加每种R 0 拟合方法的%Bias和%Imprecision,对于'F1'更为明显。 “ F2”的总体效果与“ E”一样好,并且优于“ F1”。估计参数SC50 (IC50 )和k out 的%Bias遵循相同趋势,而使用'F1'或'F2'导致S max <的偏差最小/ sub>(我最大)。 IDR方程需要修改以直接评估基线归一化数据。通常,与“ F1”相比,“ E”方法产生的偏差更小,精度更高。对于丰富的数据集,其中包括关于基线收益的足够信息,方法“ F2”是合理的。方法“ E”相对于“ F1”没有明显优势,因为数据集缺少返回基线阶段的信息。正确处理基线响应是应用药效学模型的重要方面。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号