4.3 Article

Efficient simulation of clinical target response surfaces

期刊

CPT-PHARMACOMETRICS & SYSTEMS PHARMACOLOGY
卷 11, 期 4, 页码 512-523

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/psp4.12779

关键词

-

资金

  1. German Federal Ministry of Education and Research grant LiSyM [BMBF 031L0048]
  2. Baden-Wurttemberg Ministry of Science, Research and Art
  3. University of Freiburg

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Simulation of combination therapies is challenging due to computational complexity. Existing methods either neglect parameter variability and uncertainty or are limited to a few selected doses. In this study, we propose new algorithms to efficiently search for combination doses that achieve a predefined efficacy target, taking into account parameter uncertainty, resulting in a response surface of confidence levels.
Simulation of combination therapies is challenging due to computational complexity. Either a simple model is used to simulate the response for many combinations of concentration to generate a response surface but parameter variability and uncertainty are neglected and the concentrations are constant-the link to the doses to be administered is difficult to make-or a population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic model is used to predict the response to combination therapy in a clinical trial taking into account the time-varying concentration profile, interindividual variability (IIV), and parameter uncertainty but simulations are limited to only a few selected doses. We devised new algorithms to efficiently search for the combination doses that achieve a predefined efficacy target while taking into account the IIV and parameter uncertainty. The result of this method is a response surface of confidence levels, indicating for all dose combinations the likelihood of reaching the specified efficacy target. We highlight the importance to simulate across a population rather than focus on an individual. Finally, we provide examples of potential applications, such as informing experimental design.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据