Population pharmacodynamic parameter estimation from sparse sampling: effect of sigmoidicity on parameter estimates.

The objective of this stimulation study was to evaluate effect of simoidicity of the concentration-effect (C-E) relationship on the efficiency of population parameter estimation from sparse sampling and is a continuation of previous work that addressed the effect of sample size and number of samples on parameters estimation from sparse sampling for drugs with C-E relationship characterized by high sigmoidicity (gamma > 5). The findings are based on observed C-E relationships for two drugs, octreotide and remifentanil, characterized by simple E (max) and sigmoid E (max) models (gamma = ~2.5), respectively. For each model, C-E profiles (100 replicates of 100 subjects each) were simulated for several sampling designs, with four or five samples/individual randomly obtained from within sampling windows based on EC(50)-normalized plasma drug concentrations, PD parameters based on observed population mean values, and inter-individual and residual variability of 30% and 25%, respectively. The C-E profiles were fitted using non-linear mixed effect modeling with the first-order conditional estimation method; variability parameters were described by an exponential error model. The results showed that, for the sigmoid E (max) model, designs with four or five samples reliably estimated the PD parameters (EC(50), E (max), E (0), and gamma), whereas the five-sample design, with two samples in the 2-3 E (max) region, provided in addition more reliable estimates of inter-individual variability; increasing the information content of the EC(50) region was not critical as long as this region was covered by a single sample in the 0.5-1.5 EC(50) window. For the simple E (max) model, because of the shallower profile, enriching the EC(50) region was more important. The impact of enrichment of appropriate regions for the two models can be explained based on the shape (sigmoidicity) of the concentration-effect relationships, with shallower C-E profiles requiring data enrichment in the EC(50) region and steeper curves less so; in both cases, the E (max) region needs to be adequately delineated, however. The results provide a general framework for population parameter estimation from sparse sampling in clinical trials when the underlying C-E profiles have different degrees of sigmoidicity.

Pharmacodynamic parameter estimation: population size versus number of samples.

The purpose of this study was to evaluate the effects of population size, number of samples per individual, and level of interindividual variability (IIV) on the accuracy and precision of pharmacodynamic (PD) parameter estimates. Response data were simulated from concentration input data for an inhibitory sigmoid drug efficacy (E(max)) model using Nonlinear Mixed Effect Modeling, version 5 (NONMEM). Seven designs were investigated using different concentration sampling windows ranging from 0 to 3 EC(50) (EC(50) is the drug concentration at 50% of the E(max)) units. The response data were used to estimate the PD and variability parameters in NONMEM. The accuracy and precision of parameter estimates after 100 replications were assessed using the mean and SD of percent prediction error, respectively. Four samples per individual were sufficient to provide accurate and precise estimate of almost all of the PD and variability parameters, with 100 individuals and IIV of 30%. Reduction of sample size resulted in imprecise estimates of the variability parameters; however, the PD parameter estimates were still precise. At 45% IIV, designs with 5 samples per individual behaved better than those designs with 4 samples per individual. For a moderately variable drug with a high Hill coefficient, sampling from the 0.1 to 1, 1 to 2, 2 to 2.5, and 2.5 to 3 EC(50) window is sufficient to estimate the parameters reliably in a PD study.

Temozolomide in patients with advanced cancer: phase I and pharmacokinetic study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To determine the maximum tolerated dose, dose-limiting toxicity, pharmacokinetics, and potential antitumor activity of temozolomide administered as a single dose every 28 days. DESIGN: Open label, phase I, dose-escalation trial. SETTING: University-affiliated cancer center. PATIENTS: Eleven patients aged 33-73 years with a documented solid tumor or lymphoma who failed therapy of proven efficacy for their disease or had a disease for which no conventional therapy was available. INTERVENTION: Temozolomide 500 mg/m2 was administered as a single oral dose every 28 days. Doses were escalated to 750 or 1000 mg/m2. No intrapatient dose escalation was allowed. At least two patients were enrolled at each dose level. Patients who did not have progressive disease and did not experience a dose-limiting toxicity, or experienced a dose-limiting toxicity but were eligible for dose reduction, were eligible to continue on the study. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Pharmacokinetic analysis was performed for temozolomide and its active metabolite, 5-(3-methyltriazeno)-imidazole-4-carboxamide (MTIC). Neutropenia and thrombocytopenia were dose limiting at 1000 mg/m2. Temozolomide was absorbed rapidly (mean time to maximum concentration 1.4 hrs) and eliminated, with average half-life and apparent oral systemic clearance values of 1.8 hours and 97 ml/minute/m2, respectively. Mean systemic exposure to MTIC was 3.7% of temozolomide. No objective responses were observed. The maximum tolerated dose of temozolomide was 750 mg/m2. CONCLUSION: Temozolomide 750 mg/m2 administered orally every 28 days was well tolerated. Alternate temozolomide dosing schedules such as continuous daily administration may enhance antitumor activity through sustained depletion of the DNA repair protein O6-alkylguanine DNA alkyltransferase.

Pharmacodynamic interaction between the new selective cholesterol absorption inhibitor ezetimibe and simvastatin.

AIMS: The primary aims of these two single-centre, randomized, evaluator-blind, placebo/positive-controlled, parallel-group studies were to evaluate the potential for pharmacodynamic and pharmacokinetic interaction between ezetimibe 0.25, 1, or 10 mg and simvastatin 10 mg (Study 1), and a pharmacodynamic interaction between ezetimibe 10 mg and simvastatin 20 mg (Study 2). Evaluation of the tolerance of the coadministration of ezetimibe and simvastatin was a secondary objective. METHODS: Eighty-two healthy men with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) >or=130 mg dl-1 received study drug once daily in the morning for 14 days. In Study 1 (n=58), five groups of 11-12 subjects received simvastatin 10 mg alone, or with ezetimibe 0.25, 1, or 10 mg or placebo. In Study 2 (n=24), three groups of eight subjects received simvastatin 20 mg alone, ezetimibe 10 mg alone, or the combination. Blood samples were collected to measure serum lipids in both studies. Steady-state pharmacokinetics of simvastatin and its beta-hydroxy metabolite were evaluated in Study 1 only. RESULTS: In both studies, reported side-effects were generally mild, nonspecific, and similar among treatment groups. In Study 1, there were no indications of pharmacokinetic interactions between simvastatin and ezetimibe. All active treatments caused statistically significant (P<0.01) decreases in LDL-C concentration vs placebo from baseline to day 14. The coadministration of ezetimibe and simvastatin caused a dose-dependent reduction in LDL-C and total cholesterol, with no apparent effect on high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C) or triglycerides. The coadministration of ezetimibe 10 mg and simvastatin 10 mg or 20 mg caused a statistically (P<0.01) greater percentage reduction (mean -17%, 95% CI -27.7, -6.2, and -18%, -28.4, -7.4, respectively) in LDL-C than simvastatin alone. CONCLUSIONS: The coadministration of ezetimibe at doses up to 10 mg with simvastatin 10 or 20 mg daily was well tolerated and caused a significant additive reduction in LDL-C compared with simvastatin alone. Additional clinical studies to assess the efficacy and safety of coadministration of ezetimibe and simvastatin are warranted.