MétaCan
Menu
← Retour à la cohorte
Enregistrement W2923671895 · doi:10.1182/blood-2018-99-115308

Creating a Population Model for PK-Tailored Dosing Using Real-World Data from the Web-Accessible Population Pharmacokinetic Service-Hemophilia (WAPPS-Hemo) Platform

2018· article· en· W2923671895 sur OpenAlexaff
Pierre Chelle, Cindy H. T. Yeung, Santiago Bonanad, Juan Cristóbal Morales, Margareth C. Ozelo, Juan Eduardo Megías‐Vericat, Alfonso Iorio, Jeffrey Spears, Roser Mir, Andrea N. Edginton

Notice bibliographique

RevueBlood · 2018
Typearticle
Langueen
DomaineMedicine
ThématiqueHemophilia Treatment and Research
Établissements canadiensImpactMcMaster UniversityUniversity of Waterloo
Organismes subventionnairesnon disponible
Mots-clésMedicineNONMEMDosingPopulationPharmacokineticsClotting factorPediatricsInternal medicine

Résumé

récupéré en direct d'OpenAlex

Abstract Objective: The Web-Accessible Population Pharmacokinetic Service-Hemophilia (WAPPS-Hemo) platform allows hemophilia treaters to estimate individual PK parameters for clotting factor concentrates using only a few blood samples drawn from their patients. Population pharmacokinetic (PopPK) models used with WAPPS-Hemo are usually built using clinical trial data provided by drug manufacturers. These trials can be restrictive with respect to patient covariates such as age and body weight. On the other hand, real-world pharmacokinetic data submitted to WAPPS captures the breadth of hemophilia patients. We tested the use of post-infusion clotting factor concentrate measurements collected through routine use of WAPPS-Hemo to develop a plasma-derived FVIII (Fanhdi/Alphanate)-specific model for which no trial data was available. Methods: Plasma factor activity measurements and information on hemophilia A patients were extracted from the WAPPS database. PopPK modeling was completed in NONMEM (ver 7.3, Icon, PLC). Evaluation of model-based Bayesian forecasting to derive the individual PK parameters included 10-fold internal cross validation, limited sampling analysis, and external validation using WAPPS data collected subsequently. The ability of the model to capture age related changes in PK was assessed through separate examination of predictive accuracy for children ≤ 12 yrs and for children and adults >12 yrs of age. Results: Post-infusion FVIII activity levels from 92 patients were used to derive and internally validate the model. Two-thirds of the patients originated from three centres (Campinas, Brazil; Valencia, Spain; and Santiago, Chile) with the remaining patients from 9 other WAPPS centers. Patients were 1-71 yrs (~33.7% ≤12 yrs) with a body weight range between 9 and 119 kg. Each patient provided between 1-8 activity levels up to 72 hours post infusion (386 data points in total). The final PopPK model followed 2-compartment kinetics with fat-free mass and age as covariates. Clearance was consistent across age until 25 years where clearance declined. The ability of the model to capture the PK in children ≤ 12 yrs was similar in accuracy to patients >12 yrs (Figure 1). Limited sampling analysis demonstrated that sampling strategies using two to three samples with one sample being a 72 hour post-infusion sample produced time-above-2% activity estimates, on average, <5% different than a sampling strategy using 16 post-infusion samples. Bayesian forecasting with additional WAPPS data collected following the model development process (n=10 patients) demonstrated that half-life, clearance, central volume and time-above-2% estimates were within those of the original patient population. Conclusions: Use of routine clinical care data for model development was feasible and expanded the covariate space (e.g. age) from what is traditionally included in trials. A promising approach would be to supplement clinical trial data with routine clinical data in order to build future PopPK models. On one hand, dense data from clinical trials brings stability to the model and provides a good description of the PK curve and may reduce random error if measured in a central lab; on the other hand, sparse data from routine practice widens the possible observations, inputs and covariates of the model, and could better perform the scope of individual Bayesian forecasting. Our analysis has demonstrated that collecting a few real world samples per patient not only allows accurately determining individual PK parameters, but was also effective for developing a model for a specific brand. This research was supported by Grifols, a manufacturer of plasma-derived FVIII/VWF concentrates. The WAPPS-Hemo team independently performed the derivation and validation of the model. All authors reviewed and approved the abstract as submitted. Disclosures Ozelo: BioMarin: Honoraria, Speakers Bureau; Grifols: Honoraria; Novo Nordisk: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Pfizer: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Shire: Honoraria, Research Funding, Speakers Bureau; Bioverativ: Honoraria, Research Funding. Iorio:Shire: Other: Alfonso Iorio's Institution has received project based funding via research or service agreements with Shire; Pfizer: Other: Alfonso Iorio's Institution has received project based funding via research or service agreements with Pfizer; NovoNordisk: Other: Alfonso Iorio's Institution has received project based funding via research or service agreements with Novo Nordisk; Grifols: Other: Alfonso Iorio's Institution has received project based funding via research or service agreements with Grifols; Octapharma: Other: Alfonso Iorio's Institution has received project based funding via research or service agreements with Octapharma; CSL: Other: Alfonso Iorio's Institution has received project based funding via research or service agreements with CSL; Bayer: Other: Alfonso Iorio's Institution has received project based funding via research or service agreements with Bayer; Roche: Other: Alfonso Iorio's Institution has received project based funding via research or service agreements with Roche. Spears:Grifols: Employment. Mir:Grifols: Employment. Edginton:Bayer: Honoraria.

Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.

Comment cette classification a été obtenuedéplier

Prédiction machine sur la base complète

Imitation des enseignants

Ni prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Le volet Gemma est une étiquette directe du modèle pour chaque travail de la base, lue sur la notice réduite au titre. Le volet Codex est un classifieur appris des 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et calibré sur les taux pondérés de l'échantillon; les champs sans appui suffisant ne portent aucun appel Codex. Le mode candidate est l'union des deux volets; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont pas des étiquettes humaines.

score de la tête « metaresearch » (Codex)0,002
score de la tête « metaresearch » (Gemma)0,004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cStatut de validation: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Catégories candidatesaucune
Catégories consensuellesaucune
DomaineSignal candidat: aucune · Signal consensuel: aucune
Devis d'étudeSignal candidat: Simulation ou modélisation · Signal consensuel: Simulation ou modélisation
GenreSignal candidat: Empirique · Signal consensuel: aucune
Score de désaccord entre enseignants0,019
Score d'incertitude au seuil0,038

Scores du classifieur distillé par catégorie (deux têtes)

CatégorieCodexGemma
Métarecherche0,0020,004
Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict)0,0010,000
Méta-épidémiologie (sens large)0,0010,001
Bibliométrie0,0010,000
Études des sciences et des technologies0,0000,000
Communication savante0,0010,001
Science ouverte0,0010,000
Intégrité de la recherche0,0010,001
Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger)0,0030,001

Scores machine (provisoires)

Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.

Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.

Tête enseignante Opus0,181
Tête enseignante GPT0,408
Écart entre enseignants0,228 · la distance entre les deux têtes enseignantes sur ce seul travail
Statut de validationscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle

Classification

machine, non validée

Prédiction automatique; un appel candidat d’une seule source (Gemma direct ou Codex distillé), pas un consensus.

Les modèles n’ont appliqué aucune catégorie : rien dans la taxonomie ne correspondait à ce travail.
Devis d'étudeSimulation ou modélisation
Domainenon disponible
GenreEmpirique

Le détail, modèle par modèle et score par score, se trouve en fin de page sous « Comment cette classification a été obtenue ».

En bref

Citations0
Publié2018
Routes d'admission1
Résumé présentoui

Explorer davantage

Même revueBlood→Même sujetHemophilia Treatment and Research→Travaux en français237 207→