The Influence of Normalization Weight in Population Pharmacokinetic Covariate Models

9Citations
Citations of this article
38Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

In covariate (sub)models of population pharmacokinetic models, most covariates are normalized to the median value; however, for body weight, normalization to 70 kg or 1 kg is often applied. In this article, we illustrate the impact of normalization weight on the precision of population clearance (CL pop ) parameter estimates. The influence of normalization weight (70, 1 kg or median weight) on the precision of the CL pop estimate, expressed as relative standard error (RSE), was illustrated using data from a pharmacokinetic study in neonates with a median weight of 2.7 kg. In addition, a simulation study was performed to show the impact of normalization to 70 kg in pharmacokinetic studies with paediatric or obese patients. The RSE of the CL pop parameter estimate in the neonatal dataset was lowest with normalization to median weight (8.1%), compared with normalization to 1 kg (10.5%) or 70 kg (48.8%). Typical clearance (CL) predictions were independent of the normalization weight used. Simulations showed that the increase in RSE of the CL pop estimate with 70 kg normalization was highest in studies with a narrow weight range and a geometric mean weight away from 70 kg. When, instead of normalizing with median weight, a weight outside the observed range is used, the RSE of the CL pop estimate will be inflated, and should therefore not be used for model selection. Instead, established mathematical principles can be used to calculate the RSE of the typical CL (CL TV ) at a relevant weight to evaluate the precision of CL predictions.

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Goulooze, S. C., Völler, S., Välitalo, P. A. J., Calvier, E. A. M., Aarons, L., Krekels, E. H. J., & Knibbe, C. A. J. (2019). The Influence of Normalization Weight in Population Pharmacokinetic Covariate Models. Clinical Pharmacokinetics, 58(1), 131–138. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40262-018-0652-7

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free