Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Pharmacokinetic Modelling and Stochastic Control Methods for
Personalised Dosing
Caroline HurleyUniversity of Liverpool
May 16, 2016
Contents
1 Introduction 2
1.1 Definitions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21.2 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31.3 Aims . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2 Pharmacokinetic Modelling 5
2.1 Compartmental Modelling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52.2 Bolus Injection Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 62.3 Oral Dose Model . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 92.4 Modelling with NONMEM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3 Results 14
3.1 Imatinib . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 143.2 Metformin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 173.3 Lamotrigine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4 Discussion 21
4.1 Imatinib . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 214.2 Metformin . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 224.3 Lamotrigine . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
5 Stochastic Control Methods 24
5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 245.2 Results . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 325.3 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
6 Conclusion 36
1
Chapter 1
Introduction
1.1 Definitions
Pharmacokinetics is the study of how the body works on a drug. More specifically, it is thestudy of the rates at which a drug is absorbed, distributed, metabolised and eliminated withinthe body (Bourne, 2012).
Pharmacokinetic (PK) modelling, then, refers to the systems of equations used to model theseprocesses mathematically. The NONMEM software used in this project is the industry standardsoftware to run PK models and estimate parameter values.
Closely linked with PK modelling is pharmacodynamic modelling, which studies how a drugworks on the body (Lees, Cunningham and Elliott, 2004). PD modelling uses PK parametersto estimate things such as the maximum and minimum concentration of drug in the plasma ata time t. This links the dose to a required response, for example the plasma concentration ofdrug. PD modelling is not discussed in this project, but is important to dose estimation.
Absorption is the movement of a drug into the bloodstream. Distribution is the movementof a drug between the blood and various tissues such as the lung or liver. Elimination is themovement of a drug out of the body, also referred to as excretion (Rayman et al., 2006).
Metabolism is the chemical alteration of a drug by the body. This occurs most often in theliver and can make a drug inactive or alter its toxicity (Le, n.d.).
The rate at which elimination occurs is called the clearance rate and is defined as the amountof drug eliminated from the body per unit of time (Bourne, 2012).
The volume of distribution is a theoretical value and refers to the total amount of fluid thatwould be necessary to contain the initial dose of a drug in the same concentration as it is foundin the plasma (Lymn, 2007).
The dose of a drug is the amount of drug administered to a patient. This can be either asa bolus dose, where the entire dose enters the body at once, or as a continuous IV drip. In thisproject, only bolus doses are considered.
Covariates, or confounding factors are factors that could have an e↵ect on how the drug workson an individual. These can include, but are not limited to, the sex, age and weight of a pa-
2
tient, how long they’ve been on a drug, their genetic make-up, or any other medications theyare taking at the same time.
They are important when the impact of a covariate is significant. For example, the anti-coagulating drug Warfarin requires lower doses in older patients (Lane et al., 2011). Particularlyimportant is body weight - paediatric drug doses are often scaled down from adult doses by thismeasure.
An adverse drug reaction is a side e↵ect that is assumed to be as a direct result of taking a drug.
The random e↵ect describes how much of the di↵erences in clearance rates and volume ofdistribution among patients on the same drug are due to ’unexplained variation’ (Davidian,2010). This is used to explain how, for example, two patients with identical confounding factorscan eliminate a drug at di↵erent speeds.
1.2 Background
When a clinician is prescribing a drug to a patient, what is important to consider is the rate atwhich the patient will clear the medication from the body, and particularly from the plasma.This will dictate the dosage that is required to reach a therapeutic e↵ect. As already discussed,there are a number of confounding factors that might a↵ect this rate, for example body-weightor age.
Consider a patient being prescribed an antibiotic. For the antibiotic to work (i.e. treat thepatient’s illness) its concentration in the plasma must reach above a certain level. The drug ise↵ective for as long as it exceeds that level. Therefore, the aim of the clinician is to prescribethe optimum dose to ensure the plasma concentration is above the therapeutic level for as longas possible (Kajbaf, De Broe and Lalau, 2015).
At the same time, an excessively high concentration of the drug in the plasma can lead toadverse drug reactions, which should be avoided. The range of values for which the drug willwork is known as the therapeutic range (Drugs.com, 2016).
Next consider two patients, A and B. Patient A has a relatively low clearance rate, whilePatient B has a relatively high clearance rate. In Patient A, the concentration of antibiotic inthe plasma is likely to stay within the therapeutic range for a longer period of time than inPatient B.
As a consequence, the clinician should prescribe a higher dose to Patient B than to PatientA in order for B to get a similar length of treatment. Patient A should also be monitored moreclosely for adverse drug reactions as a result of their lower clearance rate.
This does not happen in practice, as it is time consuming to build individual models for eachpatient requiring a drug, which is why research into dose estimation techniques is important.
Pharmacokinetic modelling is used to estimate the extent to which various confounding fac-tors a↵ect the clearance rate and other parameters such as volume of distribution. Using thisand other predictive models, it can then be decided whether a patient requires a di↵erent doseto the standard, and by how much (Clairambault, 2013).
3
In this way, the ultimate goal of PK modelling and dose estimation is to find the optimaldosage for each individual patient which results in the e↵ective treatment of their disease whileavoiding most of the unpleasant symptoms associated with adverse drug reactions (Kajbaf, DeBroe and Lalau, 2015).
A number of di↵erent methods are available for estimating individual dosing, including regres-sion. This project will look at the more novel technique based on stochastic control methods tocalculate the optimal dose for each individual patient, discussed in detail in Chapter 5.
1.3 Aims
The aims of this project are:
• To explore the di↵erential equations used in PK modelling.
• To estimate parameter values for the drugs Imatinib, Metformin and Lamotrigine usingNONMEM.
• To demonstrate the use of stochastic control methods in individualised dose estimation.
4
Chapter 2
Pharmacokinetic Modelling
2.1 Compartmental Modelling
The body can be modelled as a system of compartments (Bourne, 2012). For the simplestpossible model, let one compartment represent the plasma and a second compartment representperipheral tissue and muscle.
If a drug enters the body intravenously, it enters the plasma compartment directly and itis assumed that the drug is instantly equally distributed there (The Hamner Institute, 2006).For this, a one-compartment model can be used.
Figure 2.1: Dots represent drug concentration equally distributed throughout the body after anintravenous injection (Niazi, 1979)
In compartmental modelling, the key assumption is linearity (Bourne, 2012). It is assumed thatthe rate of elimination and the distribution of the drug follow first-order kinetics.
Therefore, the amount of drug leaving a compartment per unit of time is proportional to theamount of drug in the compartment to begin with. This is in contrast to zero-order kinetics inwhich the amount eliminated remains constant (Rao, 2011).
5
Example. Example adapted from (Rx Kinetics, n.d. a)
Consider a drug which clears the compartment at a rate of 10% of its volume per hour. Let theinitial concentration of the drug in the compartment be C0 = 200 mg/L. Letting t denote time,the amount of drug in the compartment can be estimated using:
C0 ⇥ 0.1t
Hence over a period of 5 hours, the concentration of drug in the compartment can be calculatedas below.
Time Since Dose (Hrs) Concentration in Compartment (mg/L)0 2001 1802 1623 1464 1315 118
Table 2.1: Estimates of concentrations of drug in a compartment following first-order kinetics.All values rounded to the nearest integer.
2.2 Bolus Injection Model
Recall the definition of a bolus dose as one which distributes the drug around the body instantlyand evenly. Note that a dose by injection will enter the bloodstream immediately.
Under these two conditions, it is therefore possible to model a bolus injection by a one-compartment model (Rx Kinetics, n.d. b). In this case, that one compartment is the plasma.
Represent the compartment as a box. The amount of drug in the box at time t = 0 is equal tothe initial dose. At each time t after this, a percentage of the drug is leaving the box due tothe assumption of linearity.
Figure 2.2: Box diagram showing drug entrance and clearance of compartment in a one-compartment model (Van Peer, 2007).
Let the percentage of drug eliminated from the box be represented by the elimination rate con-stant k
e
.
Letting Cl denote the clearance rate and Vd
the volume of distribution, then:
6
Cl = ke
Vd
(2.1)
From the definition of the volume of distribution as the volume of fluid required to hold theinitial dosage in the same concentration as it is found in the plasma, it is possible to express V
d
as
Vd
=D
C0(2.2)
where D is the initial dose and C0 is the concentration of drug in the compartment at timet = 0 (Huang, 2010).
Example. An adult is given a 200mg dose of Ibuprofen by bolus injection. It is known fromprevious studies that the elimination rate constant is 0.6h�1 and that the concentration of drugin the patient’s body at t = 0 is 40mg/L .
So D = 200, ke
= 0.6 and C0 = 40.
By Eq. (2.2) ,
Vd
=200
40= 5L
Hence by Eq. (2.1) ,
Cl = 0.6⇥ 5 = 3L/h
Next consider the rate of change of concentration of drug in the compartment over time, repre-sented by (Bourne, 2012):
dC
dt= �k
e
Ct
The solution to this is:
dCt
dt= �k
e
Ct
) dCt
Ct
= �ke
t
)Z
dCt
Ct
= �ke
Zdt
) ln(Ct
) = �ke
t+ a ( a a constant)
) Ct
= Ae�ket
7
So at time t = 0 , then C0 = A
) Ct
= C0e�ket (2.3)
Using Eq. (2.3) it is possible to estimate the concentration of a drug in the plasma at any timeafter the initial dose by bolus injection.
Example. A patient is given a 200mg dose of a drug as a bolus injection. The elimination rateconstant is known to be 0.3h�1.
Then Ct
= 200e�0.3t and the concentration of drug in the plasma over 24 hours can be cal-culated as:
Time Since Dose (Hrs) Concentration in Plasma Compartment (mg/L)0.5 1721 1482 1096 3312 524 0.15
Table 2.2: Estimations for concentration of drug in plasma at 6 points in time after bolusinjection.
From the table it can be seen that Ct
is a monotonically decreasing function for this method ofdosing. After 1 day, the body has almost entirely cleared the drug.
The points can be plotted as a time-concentration curve:
Figure 2.3: Time concentration curve for example drug using points in Table 2.2 and the rela-tionship between rate of change and concentration.
In Figure 2.3, plotting the concentration of drug against its rate of change results in a straightline - reflecting the assumption of first-order kinetics in compartmental modelling (Bourne,2001a).
8
2.3 Oral Dose Model
When a drug is administered as a pill, it first passes through the gut before reaching the plasmaand, for some drugs, continuing into the peripheral tissue (Gateway Coalition, 2016). In thePK sense, this remains a one-compartment model. When considering the problem through dif-ferential equations, however, two compartments are needed.
Let the first compartment be an absorption compartment representing the gut, and let thesecond compartment represent the plasma as before.
After a dose is taken, it enters the gut. It is eliminated from the gut and absorbed into theplasma, where it is finally eliminated from the body.
Figure 2.4: Model for drug taken as oral pill, in which drug enters gut before being absorbed intoplasma compartment (Bourne, 2001b).
As before, there is an assumption that elimination follows first-order kinetics.
Let Ca
(t) be the concentration of drug in the gut at time t and let D be the initial dose.Then:
dCa
dt= D � k
a
Ca
Hence after a dose D is administered, the amount of drug leaving the gut into the plasma isequal to some proportion of the gut’s concentration, k
a
Ca
, where ka
is the elimination rateconstant for the absorption compartment.
This amount - ka
Ca
- enters the plasma compartment and is eliminated in the same way as ina one-compartment model for bolus injection doses. Its rate of change of concentration can bedescribed then by:
dC
dt= k
a
Ca
� ke
C (2.4)
where C is the concentration of drug in the body at time t and ke
the elimination rate constantfor the plasma compartment.
Solving Eq. (2.4) by Laplace transforms gives (Gateway Coalition, 2016):
Ct
=ka
C0
Vd
(ke
� ka
)(1� e�kat)
9
A time concentration curve for a drug administered as an oral dose might look as below:
Figure 2.5: Sketch of time concentration curve for oral dose of a drug (Twitchett and Grimsey,2012)
Compare this to Fig. 2.3. For an oral dose, the concentration of drug in the plasma increasesinitially as it is absorbed into the blood from the gut. This is in contrast to the curve for anIV bolus dose, which begins at its peak concentration because the drug enters directly into thebloodstream.
As the drug is eliminated from the plasma, the curve for both the oral dose and IV bolusdose both decrease to a minimum concentration. The gradient of each curve tends to 0 as thedrug is eliminated - this reflects that the amount of drug eliminated at a time t is proportionalto the amount in the plasma immediately before.
The uses of these time concentration curves are discussed in Section (5.2). Note that theseformulae can be used to find algebraic solutions for the various parameters, but it is of moreuse practically to find analytical solutions. An analytical solution gives much more informationabout the model and its behaviour over time (Neumann, 2016). This is where the use of theNONMEM software comes in.
2.4 Modelling with NONMEM
In order to run dose estimation using a PK model in NONMEM, it is first necessary to decidewhich covariates should be included. The model should only include covariates that have asignificant impact on how the body works on a drug (seen in parameters like clearance rate).
Building a PK model in NONMEM is similar to the forward selection method used in buildingmultiple linear regression models. Here the model for clearance rate will be constructed.
The initial model is the controlCl = ✓1 ⇥ exp(�
i
)
where ✓1 represents the clearance rate of the standard patient and exp(�i
) is the random e↵ectfor a particular patient, both computed by NONMEM (Menon-Andersen et al., 2008).
10
The next model considers exactly one confounding factor, for example,
Cl = ✓1 ⇥ ✓age
⇥ exp(�i
)
Again, ✓age
is given in the NONMEM output for each covariate model (Holford, 2009a).
Note that, unlike in multiple linear regression modelling, the PK model is log additive - ✓values are multiplied by each other rather than added (Lane et al., 2011).
Here, the patient’s age will change the e↵ectiveness of the drug by
100(✓age
� 1)%
If this change is not statistically significant, then the covariate for age is removed from the modeland not used again. If it is significant, it is carried forward for testing in the multivariate model.
A multivariate model is tested if more than one single-covariate model is shown to signifi-cantly a↵ect the clearance rate.
For example, if age and weight are both shown to have an e↵ect on the way the body workson a drug when considered individually, the next step is to test whether there is still an e↵ectwhen they are considered in combination. It could be that the change brought by one of thecovariates cancels out the e↵ect of the other - implying both covariates are explaining the sameproportion of variability - meaning the multivariate model can be discarded as insignificant andonly one covariate should be included in the model.
Thus to build the PK model, single-variate models for all possible confounding factors aretested one-by-one, with significant covariates retained. Multivariate models are then tested forthe confounding factors that were not removed.
With NONMEM, the e↵ect of a covariate on the model can be assessed using the minimumvalue of the objective function (Holford, 2009a). This is a measure of the fit of a model to theobserved data.
The statistical significance of the objective function value is assessed using a �2 test at the1% level to 1 degree of freedom, the tabulated value for which is 6.635 (Lane et al., 2011).
If the objective function value for one model di↵ers from that of the control model by more than6.635, it is said to be significant. The overall aim is to reduce the objective function (Widmeret al., 2006).
11
Example. The minimum value of the objective function for the control model for a drug is1300. Single-covariate models are run for 3 confounding factors: age, weight and sex. Theminimum values of the objective functions for these models are:
Model Objective Function Value (OBJ) 1300�OBJ
Control 1300 -Age 1297 3
Weight 1299 1Sex 1292 8
Table 2.3: Minimum values of objective function for control model and single-covariate models.
From the table, it is clear that the sex of a patient is significant, since
1300� 1292 > 6.635
This is the only confounding factor for which the minimum value of the objective function ismore than 6.635 di↵erent from the control model, so the final model for this drug is:
Cl = ✓1 ⇥ ✓sex
⇥ exp(�)
This model gives the population average only - the clearance rate of the average male or femalepatient - until the � value for a patient is included.
When this model is run through NONMEM, the value of ✓sex
can be plugged in as below:
Example. Consider the drug in the previous example, for which the only significant confound-ing factor was the sex of a patient. When the single variate model that includes the patient’ssex is run through NONMEM, it is estimated that ✓1 = 35.6L/h and ✓
sex
= 1.14.
Hence for the average male patient (where ’average’ is relative to the patients in the study),
Cl = 35.6⇥ 1.14
= 40.584L/h
and for the average female patient
Cl = 35.6⇥ 1
= 35.6L/h
It can be seen, then, that the clearance rate for male patients is 14% higher than that of femalepatients - reflecting the covariate coe�cient of 1.14.
To account for variability, use the standard error values for PK parameters to form confidenceintervals. Standard error is a measure of how precise the values for ✓ values were, an indication of
12
how close the estimations to the true population clearance rates and volumes (Holford, 2009b).The 95% confidence interval is found by
↵± 1.96⇥ s.e.(↵)
where:
• ↵ is the parameter being estimated
• 1.96 is the Normal value corresponding to the 95% significance level
• s.e.(✓) is the standard error of the parameter ↵
Example. The clearance rate of the drug in the previous example is given as ✓Cl
= 35.6L/hwith standard error s.e.( ✓
Cl
) = 2.4. The 95% confidence interval for the clearance rate is:
✓Cl
± 1.96⇥ s.e.(Cl)
= 35.6± 1.96⇥ 2.4
= (30.9, 40.3)
Hence it can be said with 95% certainty that the true clearance level of the average patient isbetween 30.9 L/h and 40.3 L/h. This is before taking into account the 14% increase in clearancerate for male patients.
13
Chapter 3
Results
3.1 Imatinib
The drug Imatinib is used to treat several types of cancers, in particular chronic myeloidleukaemia (Peng et al., 2004). In this study, it was taken as an oral pill in doses of 400mg,600mg or 800mg.
In this study, 4 confounding factors were of interest in modelling the drug:
• Age (years)
• Sex
• Weight (kg)
• Months a patient has been on treatment
Note that age, weight and months on drug were all standardised:
age ! age� 48
weight ! weight
70months ! months� 48.7
so that a patient aged 52 and weighing 120kg would be recorded as having age 52 � 48 = 4years and weight 120
70 = 1.71 kg.
The Imatinib study featured 83 patients whose characteristics are summarised on in Table3.1.
14
Characteristic PatientsPlasma Samples
Total 714Range per Individual (1, 16)
Dose (mg)400 (%) 65 (76)600 (%) 11 (13)800 (%) 7 (7)Sex
Male (%) 45 (54)Female (%) 38 (46)Age (years)
Mean 48.5Standard Deviation 13.8Body Weight (kg)
Mean 80.5Standard Deviation 20.5Months on Treatment
Median 24Range (0.5, 74.4)
Table 3.1: Summary statistics for 83 patients on Imatinib study.
For each observation, the concentration of plasma can be plotted against time to produce thefollowing graph:
Figure 3.1: Plasma concentration of Imatinib over time.
There was insu�cient data to plot a dose curve because the samples were taken opportunisti-cally when patients attended the clinic, often several months apart. Therefore to estimate theabsorption rate constant, so a fixed value of k
e
= 0.8h�1 was used from a previously publishedpaper.
In total, 5 models were tested: the control model (with no covariates), and a single-variatemodel for each confounding factor of interest.
15
Model Objective Function Value Di↵erence to Control ModelControl 9468.409 -Age 9465.645 2.764Sex 9459.89 8.519
Weight 9467.609 0.8Months 9468.379 0.03
Table 3.2: To assess significance of covariates, compare objective function values of single-variate model to control.
By the �2 test at the 1% level to 1 degree of freedom, only sex is a significant covariate:8.519 > 6.635, where 6.635 is the tabulated value for the test.
Using values computed by NONMEM and the methods discussed in Section (2.4), the finalmodel for Imatinib is:
Objective Function Parameter Estimate Standard Error 95% Confidence IntervalCL(L/h) 11.8 0.596 (10.6, 13.0)V (L) 648 199 (258, 1038)ka
0.8 Fixed -✓sex
Female 1Male 1.21 0.0789 (1.06, 1.36)
Table 3.3: Final covariate model for Imatinib.
16
3.2 Metformin
Metformin is a drug used to control blood sugar levels in people with Type 2 diabetes (Drugs.com,2012). It is given as an oral pill in doses of 500mg, 850mg or 1000mg.
There were 75 patients in the Metformin study:
Characteristic PatientsPlasma Samples
Total 293Range per Individual (2, 4)
Dose (mg)500 (%) 26 (34)850 (%) 17 (23)1000 (%) 32 (43)
SexMale (%) 43 (57)Female (%) 32 (43)Age (years)
Mean 64.8Standard Deviation 9.7Body Weight (kg)
Mean 89.6Standard Deviation 18.5
Table 3.4: Summary statistics for 75 patients on Metformin study.
The plasma concentration vs time plot for Metformin is:
Figure 3.2: Plasma concentration of Metformin over time.
The absorption rate constant was taken as 0.6h�1. There were 4 covariate models tests: oneeach for sex, age, weight and BMI. None of these models were found to have a significant influ-ence on the clearance rate or the volume of distribution of a patient, so the final model is the
17
control model:
Objective Function Parameter EstimateCL(L/h) 52V (L) 363ka
0.6
Table 3.5: Final model for Metformin.
Denoting by �i
the random e↵ect for a patient i, estimates for the clearance rate and volumeof distribution of that patient are:
• Cl = 52⇥ exp(�i
)
• V = 363⇥ exp(�i
)
18
3.3 Lamotrigine
Lamotrigine is a drug used to treat seizures, and as a mood-stabiliser in the treatment of bipolardisorder (Malik, Arif and Hirsch, 2006).
Most patients on this study took two doses of Lamotrigine per observation. There was a lot ofvariability in the combinations of doses patients took, although the most common combinationwas to take a 100mg dose followed by a 50mg dose. In the summary table below, the proportionof patients taking this combination has been recorded, with all other possibilities combinedunder ’Other’.
There were 50 patients on the Lamotrigine study.
Characteristic PatientsPlasma Samples
Total 157Range per Individual (1 , 4)
Dose (mg)100, 50 (%) 94 (60%)Other (%) 63 (40%)
SexMale (%) 26 (52)Female (%) 24 (48)Age (years)
Mean 39.7Standard Deviation 16.3Body Weight (kg)
Mean 74.8Standard Deviation 16.5
Table 3.6: Summary statistics for 50 patients on Lamotrigine study.
The plasma concentration vs time plot for Lamotrigine is:
Figure 3.3: Plasma concentration of Lamotrigine over time.
The elimination rate constant was taken as 3.5h�1. There were 5 covariate models tested: one
19
each for sex, age, weight, and for the two genotypes SNP1 and SNP2. Of these, only weightwas found to be significant.
Note that weight was standardised and recorded as W = weight� 71kg.
Objective Function Parameter Estimate Standard Error 95% Confidence IntervalCL(L/h) 2.38 0.165 (2.06, 2.70)V (L) 1.29 0.996 (-0.66, 3.24)ka
3.5 Fixed -✓W
0.0163 per kg 0.00271 (0.01, 0.02)
Table 3.7: Final covariate model for Lamotrigine.
Letting �i
denote the random e↵ect for a patient i and letting Wi
denote the standardisedweight for that same patient, their clearance and volume are found as:
• Cl = 2.38⇥ exp(�i
)⇥ (1 +Wi
)
• V = 1.29⇥ exp(�i
)⇥Wi
20
Chapter 4
Discussion
All three studies in this project involved opportunistic sampling. Measurements were taken asand when it was possible, over a period of many months, rather than at regular intervals overa 24 hour period under controlled conditions.
The impact of this can be seen in the three time-concentration plots (Fig. 3.1, Fig. 3.2 andFig. 3.3).
There is no discernible pattern in these graphs, especially compared to what is expected ofa time-concentration curve for an orally administered drug (see Fig. 2.5) and we cannot fit atrend line over the plotted points.
PK analysis showed that a one-compartment model for oral dosing is appropriate for Imatiniband Lamotrigine.
4.1 Imatinib
The final model for Imatinib says that the clearance rate of a male patient is 21% higher thanthat of a female patient. The confidence interval indicates that the di↵erence between the clear-ance of men and women is significant, as it does not cross 0. It is 95% certain that a man’sclearance rate is between 6% and 36% higher than a woman’s.
It is interesting to note that, in the final model for volume - V = 648 ⇥ �i
, where �i
repre-sents the random e↵ect for a patient i - the covariate coe�cient 1.21 is not included for Imatinib.
Despite its exclusion, when the covariate model results are compared to those of the controlmodel, there is a di↵erence between the volume of distribution values in each.
Compare the model in Section (3.1) to the following control model for the same drug andpatient data set:
Objective Function Parameter Estimate Standard Error 95% Confidence IntervalCL(L/h) 13.1 0.503 (12.1, 14.1 )V (L) 645 140 (371, 919)ka
0.8 Fixed -
Table 4.1: Control model for Imatinib.
21
Under this model, the covariate coe�cient for sex (1.21) is not taken into consideration.
In the control model, the volume of distribution is estimated as 645L, with a minimum possiblevalue of 371L and a maximum possible value of 919L. In the covariate model, these values are648L, 258L and 1038L respectively.
The covariate model has a wider confidence interval. This implies that including the sex ofa patient in the calculations increases the variability of the result - it can no longer be said with95% certainty that the volume lies within the same width range as before. This can be seenin the standard error of the control model for volume being less than that of the covariate model.
Consider again the clearance rates in the covariate and the control models. When sex is ac-counted for, the point estimate is 1.3 L/h lower than when it isn’t. Similarly, the minimum andmaximum clearance rates of the covariate model are both lower than respective values in thecontrol model.
This is because the control model considers the group of patients as a whole, whereas thecovariate model distinguishes between males and females. Since we know that male patientshave a clearance rate approximately 21% higher than females’, it can be concluded that thesehigher values of males are what push up the estimates of the control model.
Conversely, it could be considered that the covariate model describes explicitly only the fe-male patients, as for females the model for the population average is Cl = 11.8 ⇥ 1. This isobviously a lower data set on average than if males were included too.
4.2 Metformin
Unlike Imatinib, there were no confounding factors found to have a significant e↵ect on the waythe body works on Metformin. It can be concluded that a patient’s clearance rate and volumeare not impacted by their sex, age, weight or BMI.
As a result, the final models for a patient’s clearance and volume involve only the popula-tion estimate and an individual’s random e↵ect �
i
. The standard errors for Metformin couldnot be calculated so it is not possible to calculate a 95% confidence interval for each parameter.The point estimate for clearance rate is 52L/h and for volume of distribution is 363L.
4.3 Lamotrigine
In the final model for Lamotrigine, the point estimate for the e↵ect of weight on how the bodyworks on a drug is 0.0163% per kg. If a patient puts on 1kg in the time between measurements,their volume of distribution will have risen 0.0163% and their clearance rate by 1.0163% (from(1 +W
i
)).
There is 95% certainty that the amount by which parameters increase per kg is between 0.01%
22
at the lower limit, and 0.02% at the upper limit. The result is significant as the confidenceinterval doesn’t cross 0, so it can be concluded that there is a definite increase in parameterswhen a patient puts on weight.
This can have an e↵ect on the drug dose required by a patient, and is an example of where thestochastic control methods discussed in Chapter 5 would be useful. If a patient goes throughsudden dramatic weight loss, the rate at which the drug is eliminated from their system willdecrease, which potentially raises the risk of adverse drug reactions.
Similarly, a patient who puts on a lot of weight over a short period of time may find theirusual dose of Lamotrigine does not have as a great a therapeutic e↵ect.
The point estimate for the volume of distribution is 1.29L, with a 95% certainty that thetrue value lies between �0.66L and 3.24L. This is an interesting result as it implies, at thelower limit, that a theoretical volume of �0.66L is required (multiplied by the random e↵ectand weight of a patient) to hold the drug in the same concentration as it is found in the plasma.
Interpreting the results for the clearance rate is more straightforward. The point estimateis 2.38L/h and it is 95% certain that the clearance rate is between 2.06L/h and 2.7L/h.
23
Chapter 5
Stochastic Control Methods
5.1 Introduction
When a clinician prescribes a drug to a patient, the dose is chosen based on the average PKvalues of the patients who have been involved in studies of that drug (Munk, 2001).
For example, it might be known that for a certain antibiotic, patients who weigh less than60kg clear the drug relatively slowly, while patients over 100kg do so quite quickly. The recom-mended doses could therefore be:
• 200mg for patients weighing under 60kg
• 400mg for patients weighing between 60kg and 100kg
• 800mg for patients weighing above 100kg
So if a patient comes in who weights 75kg, the clinician will be recommended to prescribe a400mg dose.
There are limitations to this approach. Consider a 75kg patient who has an uncommon geno-type that increases their clearance rate by 30%. This could be a large enough rise that theantibiotic clears the patient’s plasma too quickly to e↵ectively treat their disease. They wouldtherefore require a higher dose than the recommended amount.
By applying stochastic control methods, it is possible to calculate an individualised dose thattakes into account all significant confounding factors in a patient (Jeli↵e et at., 1998). This dosecan continually be updated as new data is recorded for a patient and avoids the prescription ofa dose too low (no treatment e↵ect) or too high (increased risk of side e↵ects) (Tod et al., 1997).
So far in this project, the way in which the concentration of a drug in the plasma changeswith time has been found using systems of di↵erential equations. This doesn’t account for noise,that is, for the unexplained variation in a sample (up until now referred to as the random e↵ect).
Including noise in the model requires a system of discrete time stochastic di↵erential equationsinstead, made possible due to dose administration happening at discrete time points rather thancontinuously (Schumitzky, 1991). This reduces a lot of the uncertainty in the model caused byunexplained variation between patients (Kristensen, Madsen and Ingwersen, 2005).
24
The aim now is to be able to solve these systems analytically to obtain better estimates forthe plasma concentration of a drug at a point k. One method for finding these solutions is touse a Kalman Filter. (Faragher, 2012)
Kalman Filters find an estimate at stage k using a previous estimate for stage k � 1 andobservations about current conditions and noise. (Esme, 2009)
Example. Adapted from (Levy, n.d.).
Consider a car decelerating such that it loses 10% of its speed per minute. Ignoring for themoment all noise, if the car’s distance (m) from its starting point after k minutes is denoted byxk
, then the position of the car at any point can be defined as:
xk
= (1� 10%)⇥ xk�1 = 0.9x
k�1
Now observe that measurements taken as the car moves show that it has actually travelled adistance z
k
m in k minutes. This is because noise - unexplained variation due to things like airresistance and unexpected potholes - have changed the rate at which the car is decelerating bysome amount.
Letting the unexplained variation in the kth minute be denoted vk
. Then:
zk
= xk
+ vk
These two equations can be combined to give a recursive formula for the distance travelled bythe decelerating car:
xk
= 0.9xk�1 + w
k
where wk
represents the noise a↵ecting the car’s movement.
Applying this to individualised dose estimation, there are several variables needed in order toestimate the concentration over time:
• The inital estimate C0, which can be taken from a PD model.
• A noise vector wk
representing unexplained variation (e.g. from errors in dosing times).
Other variables that can be included in a stochastic model include:
• A control variable uk
to represent fixed values from the data set such as dose and sampletimes.
• The vector � to represent PK parameters like clearance and volume (Schumitzky, 1991).
Using C0, a better estimate for the concentration can be found for the subsequent state C1, andagain improved for C2 and so on, using information about the previous state and the randome↵ect to get closer to the true solution (Kleeman, 1996).
Every patient has di↵erent random e↵ect sizes and PK parameters, so using a concentrationestimated using stochastic methods results in personalised dose amounts that can change overtime as more observations are made (as k increases).
25
Example
Consider a gene that is known to a↵ect how the body works on a particular drug. In the generalpopulation, it is known that 97% of people have the wild type of the gene; 2% of people have 1mutation of the gene; and 1% of people have 2 mutations.
A patient being prescribed the drug is chosen at random. The probabilities of the patienthaving each type of drug are:
P (wild type) = 0.97
P (1 mutation) = 0.02
P (2 mutations) = 0.01
Until the patient’s genotype is known for certain - found from a blood test - a final modelcannot be built to calculate the best dose for them as an individual. However, it is possible tobuild a model that takes into account all 3 possible genotypes and their probabilities, in orderto estimate an optimal dose.
For example, if this gene is the only significant covariate for the drug, and each mutationfrom the wild type increases the clearance rate by 15%, the model for clearance would be
Cl = ✓1 ⇥✓(P (wild type)⇥ 1) + (P (1 mutation)⇥ 1.15) + (P (2 mutations)⇥ 1.3)
◆
= ✓1 ⇥ (0.97 + 0.023 + 0.013)
= ✓1 ⇥ 1.006
multiplied by the random e↵ects value for the patient. Note that ✓1 still defines the point esti-mate of the clearance rate as computed by NONMEM.
This model can be used to estimate the optimum first dose for the patient, as it accountsfor the uncertainty the clinician has over the patient’s true genotype.
Once the true genotype is known, the model can be refined as follows:
• If the patient has the wild type gene, Cl = ✓1 ⇥ 1 = ✓1
• If the patient has 1 mutation, Cl = ✓1 ⇥ 1.15
• If the patient has 2 mutations, Cl = ✓1 ⇥ 1.3
all multiplied by the random e↵ects value for the patient.
The models no longer include population probabilities as there is now su�cient data aboutthe patient.
In this example, the only significant covariate was categorical and impossible to change overtime: the patient could either have wild type, or 1 or 2 mutations. For a continuous covariatelike age or weight, using stochastic control methods for individualised dose estimations becomes
26
an iterative process (Kleeman, 1996).
For instance, consider a patient who is prescribed the drug Warfarin. Currently, a patienton Warfarin must monitor their levels of vitamin K daily to calculate the international nor-malised ratio (INR). If this ratio jumps above or below a certain fixed value, the patient’s doseof drug might be adjusted accordingly, to keep their response to treatment within the thera-peutic range (Bpac, 2010).
What if the INR was included as a significant covariate in the clearance and volume modelas the genotype was in the previous example?
Using probabilities from the general population (say 80% of Warfarin patients have an INRbetween 2.5 and 3, 12% above 3, and 8% below 2.5), a model can be constructed that allows aclinician to prescribe an optimal dose to a patient. As the INR is monitored, it can be fed backinto the model to estimate a new optimal dose base on the patient’s data rather than populationestimates. The longer the INR is measured, the more data is collected and therefore the betterthe dose estimate can be.
Cost Function
Of high importance to the application of stochastic control methods to individualised dose esti-mation is an understanding of what the drug is supposed to do - its target (Jelli↵e et al., 1998).Is the aim to keep the drug above a certain concentration in the plasma for a certain lengthof time? Is it preferred that the drug reach a certain concentration once per dose? Or for thetotal amount of drug in the plasma over the dosing period to exceed a certain value?
These aims can all be visualised in the time concentration curves of a drug administered orally(see Section (2.2)). As the dose amount changes, so does the position of the curve, meaning itsminimum and maximum points shift along the y axis (Begg, 2008).
Figure 5.1: Time concentration curve for a drug which has therapeutic e↵ect if concentration inplasma stays about 4mg/l.
Consider a drug which requires its concentration in the plasma to stay above a concentration of
27
4mg/L at all times in order to have a therapeutic e↵ect. Then the part of the time-concentrationcurve of the drug that is most important is its trough, labelled A in Fig. 5.1. This is the mini-mum concentration (Mullan, 2006).
The ideal dose amount for a patient prescribed this drug, then, would be one for which thetrough is above 4mg/L as this is the lowest point of the curve. Di↵erent doses will naturallyhave di↵erent troughs as the rate at which the concentration changes follows first-order kinetics(see Section (2.1)).
For each of the three drugs studied in this project - Imatinib, Metformin and Lamotrigine- it is the trough that is used to establish the optimal dose for individual patients.
Figure 5.2: Time concentration curve for a drug which has therapeutic e↵ect is concentrationreaches 12mg/l.
Alternatively, the peak concentration of drug in the plasma can be used (Mullan, 2006). In Fig.5.2, the peak is a B and the concentration it must exceed is 12mg/L in order to be e↵ective. Aswith the trough, it is possible for individual patients to have very di↵erent peak concentrationsdespite both being prescribed the same dose.
Figure 5.3: Time concentration curve for a drug which requires the total amount in plasma overthe dosing interval exceed a certain value. Total amount indicated by shaded area under curve(AUC).
28
Finally, if it is the total amount of drug in the plasma over the dosing period that is important,then the area under the curve can be used as in Fig. 5.3 (Mullan, 2006). This takes into accountthe peak, the trough, and the rate at which a drug is eliminated.
Example. Consider a patient prescribed an antibiotic administered as an IV bolus dose. Forthe antibiotic to have a positive e↵ect, it must be in a concentration in the plasma that is con-sistently above 3mg/L.
It is known that the minimum concentration of the drug (the trough of the time-concentrationcurve) occurs at t = 12 hours and that the elimination rate constant for the patient is
ke
= 0.44h�1
The equation for the concentration of drug in the plasma after t hours for an IV bolus drug is:
Ct
= C0e�ket
Use this to find the concentration of antibiotic in the patient’s plasma after 12 hour for 5 doseamounts: 200mg, 400mg, 600mg, 800mg and 1000mg.
Dose Conc. at t = 12 ( mg/L )200 1.01400 2.03600 3.06800 4.071000 5.09
These can be represented graphically as in Fig. 5.4.
29
Figure 5.4: Sketch of time concentration curves for 5 doses, with dashed line at 3mg/L.
Here, 3 di↵erent doses will keep the concentration of antibiotic above the required 3mg/L:600mg, 800mg, 1000mg. These are the three doses whose curves all have a trough falling abovethe dashed target line. If the minimum concentration was the only restriction, any of these doseamounts would su�ce.
However, the best dose for the patient is the one which causes the fewest adverse drug re-actions while providing e↵ective treatment. To account for this, all doses which fall outside thesafety range should be eliminated (Jelli↵e et al., 1998).
The safety range is the range of doses which provide therapeutic e↵ect but do not usuallycoincide with harmful side e↵ects. If a dose of 1000mg lies outside the safety range for theantibiotic in the example, it should not be prescribed, despite satisfying the condition of havingits minimum concentration above 3mg/L.
A patient’s optimum dose, it turns out, is that which has its trough closest to the targetvalue - in the case of the example, to 3mg/L. To identify the dose which gets the closest, thecost function is used.
The cost function J(d) describes how far away a concentration is from the target when a patientis given a dose d.
Let Cmin
denote the minimum concentration of drug in the plasma. The ’distance’ of thisnumber from the target is:
J(d) = (Cmin
� Ctarget
)2
The aim is to minimise J(d).
30
Note that when it is the peak of the curve that is of interest, Cmax
is used in place ofCmin
. Similarly, when looking at the area under the curve, the cost function can be written asJ(d) = (AUC
dose
� AUCtarget
)2 where AUCd
is the area when a particular dose is prescribedand AUC
target
is the area for which the drug has the desired treatment e↵ect.
Example. For the data from the previous example, the cost functions are:
Dose d 200 400 600 800 1000J(d) 3.96 0.94 0.004 1.14 4.37
Clearly the dose amount that has the smallest cost function value is 600mg, suggesting thispatient should be given 600mg of antibiotic by IV bolus to maintain a plasma concentrationof the drug above 3mg/L and therefore treat their illness with minimum adverse drug reactions.
This is reflected in Fig. 5.4, in which it is the green curve of the 600mg dose whose trough at12 hours is the closest to the dashed line without dipping below it.
31
5.2 Results
Individualised doses were computed for 3 patients per drug. Patients were chosen such that oneof the 3 had low parameter values relative to the population rates estimated by the PK model,while another had high parameter values and the third fell roughly near the average.
For each drug, it is the minimum concentration that is of interest, so the trough is used.The aim is to find the dose for which the di↵erence between a target trough and the plasmaconcentration is minimal.
In the following results tables, any doses which fall outside the drug’s safety range are high-lighted in red.
Imatinib
Recall that the elimination rate constant for Imatinib is taken as 0.8h�1.
There were two troughs targeted for this drug, measured in nanograms per millilitre: 1000ng/mland 1500ng/ml. The aim was to find the minimal doses necessary for the patient’s plasma con-centration to remain above these.
Patient Number Volume Clearance Dose for Dose for(L) (L/h) 1000ng/ml trough 1500 ng/ml trough
3 1160 0.01 300 6006 873 0.01 200 40076 274 0.06 900 1400
Table 5.1: Optimal doses for patients 3, 6 and 76.
Figure 5.5: Time concentration graphs for patients 3, 6 and 76.
32
Metformin
Recall that the elimination rate constant for Metformin is taken as 3.5h�1.
The two target troughs for this drug were 1500ng/ml and 2000ng/ml.
Patient Number Volume Clearance Dose for Dose for(L) (L/h) 1500ng/ml trough 2000 ng/ml trough
1 423 0.01 1500 20003 555 0.01 2500 350076 179 0.06 500 500
Table 5.2: Optimal doses for patients 1, 3 and 76.
Figure 5.6: Time concentration graphs for patients 1, 3 and 76.
Lamotrigine
Recall that the elimination rate constant for Lamotrigine is taken as 3.5h�1.
This time there were three target troughs, measured in micrograms per millilitre: 3µ/ml,4µ/ml and 5µ/ml.
Patient Number Volume Clearance Dose for Dose for Dose for(L) (L/h) 3 µ/ml trough 4 µ/ml trough 5 µ /ml trough
1 129 0.02 200 250 32511 1290 0.05 750 1000 125034 99 0.01 75 100 125
Table 5.3: Optimal doses for patients 1, 11 and 34.
33
Figure 5.7: Time concentration graphs for patients 1, 11 and 34.
5.3 Discussion
Imatinib
In order to maintain a concentration of Imatinib in their plasma over 1000ng/ml, Patient 3 re-quires a dose of 300mg. For a minimum concentration of 1500ng/ml, that dose doubles to 600mg.
Compare these to the other two patients. Of the three, Patient 3 has by far the great-est volume of distribution. They also have a low clearance rate at 0.01L/h. Patient 6, who hasthe same clearance rate but a lower volume of distribution, requires only 200mg of Imatinib tokeep their plasma concentration above 1000ng/ml, and 400mg for 1500ng/ml.
Both these values are lower than the respective doses for Patient 3. This does not,however, mean a lower volume correlates to a lower dose.
Patient 76 has the lowest volume of the three at 274L, but needs the biggest doses:900mg for a 1000ng/L trough and 1400mg for 1500ng/ml. One possible explanation for 76’smuch higher dose requirements is their clearance rate: Imatinib leaves their system 6x quickerthan it does for 3 and 6.
In fact, 76 requires a higher dose of Imatinib - for both minimum concentrations - thanhas been declared safe: 900 and 1400 fall outside the safety range for the drug.
In Fig. 5.5, it is notable that the bigger the dose, the greater the di↵erence betweenminimum and maximum concentrations. For each patient, the lower dose (in green) has alower amplitude than the bigger dose (in red).
Metformin
As for Imatinib, two patients here have the same clearance rate at 0.01L/h. Of these, Patient1 has the lower volume and also requires a lower dose of the drug to stay above the targettroughs. For a trough of 1500ng/ml, Patient 1’s optimal dose is 1500mg whereas Patient3’s is
34
2000mg. Similarly, for a trough of 2000ng/ml, Patient 1’s dose is 2500mg while Patient’s 3’sbest dose is outside the safety range at 3500mg.
In this case, Patient 3 could maybe be prescribed the maximum possible dose withinthe safety range in order to get as close as possible to the target minimum concentration, butthis would not give them the same therapeutic e↵ect as patients whose best doses fall withinthe range.
The patient with the smallest optimal doses also has the lowest volume of distributionand the lowest clearance rate. For a trough of 1500ng/ml, Patient 76 requires 500mg, whichalso satisfies a minimum dose of 2000ng/ml.
In Fig. 5.6, Patient 76’s time-concentration curves are interesting. They both representthe concentration of Metformin in 76’s plasma after a dose of 500mg, but the green curve showsthat the drug has not fully cleared the patient’s system before the next dose is administered(Hartford, 2012), while the red curve shows the drug clearing too quickly. This comes as aresult of the di↵erent target troughs, with the green curve representing the 1500ng/ml.
Lamotrigine
The drug Lamotrigine was slightly di↵erent to Imatinib and Metformin in that patients usuallytake 2 doses of di↵erent amounts in 1 observation (e.g. 100mg and then 50mg). The optimaldoses found using stochastic control methods were all in the form of a singular dose.
Patient 34, with the smallest volume and slowest clearance rate, had predictably thesmallest optimal doses. For a targeted minimum concentration of 3µ/ml, Patient 34’s best dosewas 75mg, increasing to 100mg for a trough of 4µ/ml and to 125mg for a trough of 5µ/ml.
The patient with the next smallest parameter values was Patient 1, who also had thenext smallest dose estimations: 200mg for 3µ/ml, 250mg for 4µ/ml and 325mg for 5µ/ml.
The di↵erences in doses for Patient 1 were not as uniform as for Patient 34, insteadgetting bigger with each 1µ/ml increase in trough.
Finally, Patient 11 - with a clearance rate 5x that of Patient 34 and by far the largestvolume - has optimal doses outside the safety range for all three target troughs.
In Fig. 5.7 there is evidence of the same relationship between dose amount and ampli-tude as seen for Imatinib: for each patient, the green curve (the smallest dose) has the smallestdi↵erence between maximum and minimum concentrations.
It is likely due to this relationship that Patient 11’s dose estimations are all amountsdeemed ’unsafe’, if the maximum concentrations for each dose is large enough to causetoxicological side e↵ects.
35
Chapter 6
Conclusion
By applying stochastic control methods, then, it has been possible to find the ideal doseamount for patients from the 3 studies in this project.
In order to use these methods, it was first necessary to compute the PK parameters -clearance and volume. It was found that Imatinib and Lamotrigine supported the use of a one-compartment model (for oral doses), while for Metformin it is assumed that a one-compartmentmodel is appropriate, but di�culties in calculating standard errors meant a firm conclusioncould not be reached.
When optimal doses can be found for individuals, the advantage is the removal of riskof over- or under-prescription of a drug. Currently, it is possible a patient will be prescribed adose that is too small to provide them with a treatment e↵ect, which is of little use to them butstill costs the NHS, or is prescribed a dose too large that then increases their risk of adversedrug reactions. (Jeli↵e et al., 1998)
Using stochastic control methods, the clinician is able to pinpoint very quickly the bestdose for a patient - this reduces the need for trial and error dosing. Patients on Lamotrigine,for example, are recommended one single optimal dose using these methods, as opposed tohaving pairs of dose amounts to try for the same therapeutic e↵ect.
Clearly, then, the methods discussed in Chapter 5 of this project are of benefit to theclinician and the patient.
36
Bibliography
[1] Begg, E. (2008). Instant Clinical Pharmacology. 2nd ed. Wiley-Blackwell, pp.2 - 10.
[2] Bourne, D. (2001a). First-order kinetics. [online] Boomer. Available at:https://www.boomer.org/c/p1/Ch04/Ch0403.html [Accessed 15 May 2016].
[3] Bourne, D. (2001b). Pharmacokinetics of Oral Administration. [online] Boomer. Availableat: https://www.boomer.org/c/p3/c17/c1701.html [Accessed 15 May 2016].
[4] Bourne, D. (2012). Basic Pharmacokinetics: Truncated. 1st ed. David Bourne.
[5] Bpac, (2010). Use of INR for monitoring warfarin treatment. Best Tests, [online] (9).Available at:http://www.bpac.org.nz/bt/2010/november/docs/best tests nov2010 inr pages14-20.pdf[Accessed 15 May 2016].
[6] Clairambault, J. (2013). Pharmacokinetic Modeling. In: Encyclopaedia of Systems Biology,1st ed. New York: Springer-Verlag, pp.1685 - 1687.
[7] Davidian, M. (2010). An Introduction to Nonlinear Mixed E↵ects Models and PK/PDAnalysis. 1st ed. [ebook] North Carolina State University, p.35. Available at:http://www4.stat.ncsu.edu/ davidian/webinar.pdf [Accessed 15 May 2016].
[8] Drugs.com, (2012). Metformin. [online] Drugs.com. Available at:http://www.drugs.com/monograph/metformin-hydrochloride.html [Accessed 16 May 2016].
[9] Drugs.com, (2016). Therapeutic range definition — Drugs.com. [online] Drugs.com.Available at: http://www.drugs.com/dict/therapeutic-range.html [Accessed 15 May 2016].
[10] Esme, B. (2009). Kalman Filter For Dummies. [Blog] Bilgin’s Blog. Available at:http://bilgin.esme.org/BitsAndBytes/KalmanFilterforDummies [Accessed 15 May 2016].
[11] Faragher, R. (2012). Understanding the Basis of the Kalman Filter Via a Simple andIntuitive Derivation [Lecture Notes]. IEEE Signal Process. Mag., 29(5), pp.128-132.
[12] Gateway Coalition, (2016). 3.5. Pharmacokinetic Modeling. [online] Gatewaycoalition.org.Available at: http://www.gatewaycoalition.org/files/hidden/deliv/ch3/3 5f.htm [Accessed15 May 2016].
[13] Hartford, A. (2012). Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Modeling: Concepts andMethods. 1st ed. [ebook] p.54. Available at:http://www.amstat.org/sections/sbiop/webinars/2012/webinarslidesbw11-08-12.pdf[Accessed 15 May 2016].
[14] Holford, N. (2009b). Development of a population PKPD model using NONMEM - CaseStudy III. University of Auckland.
37
[15] Holford, N. (2009a). Development of a population PK model using NONMEM - CaseStudy I. University of Auckland.
[16] Huang, W. (2010). Useful Pharmacokinetic Equations. 1st ed. [ebook] Yuanpei University.Available at: http://mail.ypu.edu.tw/ wnhuang/Data%20Analysis/pharmacokinetics eq.pdf[Accessed 15 May 2016].
[17] Jelli↵e, R., Schumitzky, A., Bayard, D., Milman, M., Guilder, M., Wang, X., Jiang, F.,Barbaut, X. and Maire, P. (1998). Model-Based, Goal-Oriented, Individualised DrugTherapy. Clinical Pharmacokinetics, 34(1), pp.57-77.
[18] Kajbaf, F., De Broe, M. and Lalau, J. (2015). Therapeutic Concentrations of Metformin:A Systematic Review. Clin Pharmacokinet, 55(4), pp.439-459.
[19] Kleeman, L. (1996). Understanding and Applying Kalman Filtering. 1st ed. [ebook]Curtin University of Technology, Perth Western Australia, pp.2 - 15. Available at:http://www.ecse.monash.edu.au/centres/irrc/LKPubs/Kalman.PDF [Accessed 16 May2016].
[20] Kristensen, N., Madsen, H. and Ingwersen, S. (2005). Using Stochastic Di↵erentialEquations for PK/PD Model Development. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn, 32(1),pp.109-141.
[21] Lane, S., Al-Zubiedi, S., Hatch, E., Matthews, I., Jorgensen, A., Deloukas, P., Daly, A.,Park, B., Aarons, L., Ogungbenro, K., Kamali, F., Hughes, D. and Pirmohamed, M. (2011).The population pharmacokinetics of R- and S-warfarin: e↵ect of genetic and clinical factors.British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 73(1), pp.66-76.
[22] Le, J. (n.d.). Drug Metabolism. [online] Merck Manuals Consumer Version. Available at:http://www.merckmanuals.com/home/drugs/administration-and-kinetics-of-drugs/drug-metabolism [Accessed 15 May2016].
[23] Lees, P., Cunningham, F. and Elliott, J. (2004). Principles of pharmacodynamics andtheir applications in veterinary pharmacology. Journal of Veterinary Pharmacology andTherapeutics, 27(6), pp.397-414.
[24] Levy, S. (n.d.). The Extended Kalman Filter: An Interactive Tutorial. [online] EKFTutorial. Available at: http://home.wlu.edu/ levys/kalman tutorial/ [Accessed 15 May2016].
[25] Lymn, J. (2007). RLO : Volume of Distribution : Vd defined. [online] Nottingham.ac.uk.Available at: http://www.nottingham.ac.uk/nmp/sonet/rlos/bioproc/vd/ [Accessed 15May 2016].
[26] Malik, S., Arif, H. and Hirsch, L. (2006). Lamotrigine and its applications in thetreatment of epilepsy and other neurological and psychiatric disorders. Expert Review ofNeurotherapeutics, 6(11), pp.1609-1627.
[27] Menon-Andersen, D., Mondick, J., Jayaraman, B., Thompson, P., Blaney, S., Bernstein,M., Bond, M., Champagne, M., Fossler, M. and Barrett, J. (2008). Populationpharmacokinetics of imatinib mesylate and its metabolite in children and young adults.Cancer Chemotherapy and Pharmacology, 63(2), pp.229-238.
38
[28] Mullan, R. (2006). Pharmacokinetics v Pharmacodynamics. [online] Icr-global.org.Available at: http://www.icr-global.org/EasysiteWeb/getresource.axd?AssetID=1488[Accessed 16 May 2016].
[29] Munk, B. (2001). The Ups and Downs of Drug Levels: A Pharmacokinetics Primer.[online] The Body. Available at: http://thebody.com/content/art13513.com [Accessed 15May 2016].
[30] Neumann, E. (2016). Numerical vs. Analytical Solutions Physics Simulations.http://myphysicslab.com.
[31] Niazi, S. (1979). Textbook of biopharmaceutics and clinical pharmacokinetics. New York:Appleton-Century-Crofts, p.142.
[32] Peng, B., Hayes, M., Resta, D., Racine-Poon, A., Druker, B., Talpaz, M., Sawyers, C.,Rosamilia, M., Ford, J., Lloyd, P. and Capdeville, R. (2004). Pharmacokinetics andPharmacodynamics of Imatinib in a Phase I Trial With Chronic Myeloid leukaemiaPatients. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 22(5), pp.935-942.
[33] Rao, K. (2011). Di↵erences Between Zero-Order and First-Order Kinetic Processes. 1sted. RAGHU College of Pharmacy, p.1.
[34] Rayman, L., Davis, C., Nora, M., Trevor, A., Harris, S. and Ibsen, K. (2006). USMLE R�Step 1 Pharmacology Lecture Notes 2006-2007 Edition. Kaplan Medical, pp.6 - 18.
[35] Rx Kinetics, (n.d. a). Section 1 - Drug Elimination. [online] RxKinetics.com. Availableat: http://www.rxkinetics.com/pktutorial/1 4.html [Accessed 15 May 2016].
[36] Rx Kinetics, (n.d. b). Section 1 - Pharmacokinetic modeling. [online] Rxkinetics.com.Available at: http://www.rxkinetics.com/pktutorial/1 5.html [Accessed 16 May 2016].
[37] Schumitzky, A. (1991). Application of Stochastic Control Theory to Optimal Design ofDosage Regimens. In: D. D’Argenio, ed., Advanced Methods of Pharmacokinetic andPharmacodynamic Systems Analysis, 1st ed. Springer US, p.137.
[38] The Hamner Institute, (2006). Constructing PK Models. 1st ed. [ebook] The HamnerInstitutes for Health Sciences, Center for Human Health Assessment, p.5. Available at:http://www.thehamner.org/docs/Day2.Lecture1.Constructing%20Model.pdf [Accessed 15May 2016].
[39] Tod, M., Alet, P., Lortholary, O. and Petitjean, O. (1997). Implementation andEvaluatopm pf a Stochastic Control Strategy for Individualizing Teicoplanin DosageRegimen. Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Biopharmaceutics, 25(6), pp.695 - 697.
[40] Twitchett, H. and Grimsey, P. (2012). A Peak at PK: Introduction to Pharmacokinetics.
[41] Van Peer, A. (2007). Basic Concepts of Pharmacokinetics. 1st ed. [ebook] Johnson +Johnson Pharmaceutical Research & Development, pp.17-22. Available at:http://users.ugent.be/ lvbortel/Friday 1.pdf [Accessed 15 May 2016].
[42] Widmer, N., Decosterd, L., Csajka, C., Leyvraz, S., Duchosal, M., Rosselet, A., Rochat,B., Eap, C., Henry, H., Biollaz, J. and Buclin, T. (2006). Population pharmacokinetics ofimatinib and the role of alpha1-acid glycoprotein. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology,62(1), pp.97-112.
39
