Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

Impact of censoring data below an arbitrary quantification limit on structural model misspecification

  • Published:
Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It is not uncommon in pharmacokinetic (PK) studies that some concentrations are censored by the bioanalytical laboratory and reported qualitatively as below the lower limit of quantification (LLOQ). Censoring concentrations below the quantification limit (BQL) has been shown to adversely affect bias and precision of parameter estimates; however, its impact on structural model decision has not been studied. The current simulation study investigated the impact of the percentage of data censored as BQL on the PK structural model decision; evaluated the effect of different coefficient of variation (CV) values to define the LLOQ; and tested the maximum conditional likelihood estimation method in NONMEM VI (YLO). Using a one-compartment intravenous model, data were simulated with 10–50% BQL censoring, while maintaining a 20% CV at LLOQ. In another set of experiments, the LLOQ was chosen to attain CVs of 10, 20, 50 and 100%. Parameters were estimated with both one- and two-compartment models using NONMEM. A type I error was defined as a significantly lower objective function value for the two-compartment model compared to the one-compartment model using the standard likelihood ratio test at α  =  0.05 and α  =  0.01. The type I error rate substantially increased to as high as 96% as the median of percent censored data increased at both the 5% and 1% alpha levels. Restricting the CV to 10% caused a higher type I error rate compared to the 20% CV, while the error rate was reduced to the nominal value as the CV increased to 100%. The YLO option prevented the type I error rate from being elevated. This simulation study has shown that the practice of assigning a LLOQ during analytical methods development, although well intentioned, can lead to incorrect decisions regarding the structure of the pharmacokinetic model. The standard operating procedures in analytical laboratories should be adjusted to provide a quantitative value for all samples assayed in the drug development setting where sophisticated modeling may occur. However, the current level of precision may need to be maintained when laboratory results are to be used for direct patient care in a clinical setting. Finally, the YLO option should be considered when more than 10% of data are censored as BQL.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. FDA guidance for industry bioanalytical method validation. Available from http://www.fda.gov/cder/guidance/4252fnl.pdf Accessed on may 2001

  2. Shah VP, Midha KK, Findlay JW, Hill HM, Hulse JD, McGilveray IJ, McKay G, Miller KJ, Patnaik RN, Powell ML, Tonelli A, Viswanathan CT and Yacobi A (2000). Bioanalytical method validation—a revisit with a decade of progress. Pharm Res 17(12): 1551–1557

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Hing JP, Woolfrey SG, Greenslade D and Wright PM (2001). Analysis of toxicokinetic data using NONMEM: impact of quantification limit and replacement strategies for censored data. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 28(5): 465–479

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. Beal SL (2001). Ways to fit a PK model with some data below the quantification limit. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 28(5): 481–504

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Duval V and Karlsson MO (2002). Impact of omission or replacement of data below the limit of quantification on parameter estimates in a two-compartment model. Pharm Res 19(12): 1835–1840

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  6. Beal SL (2005). Conditioning on certain random events associated with statistical variability in PK/PD. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 32(2): 213–243

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  7. Fletcher CV, Anderson PL, Kakuda TN, Schacker TW, Henry K, Gross CR and Brundage RC (2002). Concentration-controlled compared with conventional antiretroviral therapy for HIV infection. AIDS 16(4): 551–560

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Kakuda TN, Page LM, Anderson PL, Henry K, Schacker TW, Rhame FS, Acosta EP, Brundage RC and Fletcher CV (2001). Pharmacological basis for concentration-controlled therapy with zidovudine, lamivudine, and indinavir. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 45(1): 236–242

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Zhou XJ, Sheiner LB, D’Aquila RT, Hughes MD, Hirsch MS, Fischl MA, Johnson VA, Myers M and Sommadossi JP (1999). Population pharmacokinetics of nevirapine, zidovudine, and didanosine in human immunodeficiency virus-infected patients. The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases AIDS Clinical Trials Group Protocol 241 Investigators. Antimicrob Agents Chemother 43(1): 121–128

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Mirochnick M, Capparelli E and Connor J (1999). Pharmacokinetics of zidovudine in infants: a population analysis across studies. Clin Pharmacol Ther 66(1): 16–24

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Capparelli EV, Englund JA, Connor JD, Spector SA, McKinney RE, Palumbo P and Baker CJ (2003). Population pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of zidovudine in HIV-infected infants and children. J Clin Pharmacol 43(2): 133–140

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. RETROVIR® prescribing information. Available from http://us.gsk.com/products/assets/us_retrovir.pdf Accessed on Nov 2006

  13. Beal SL, Sheiner LB, Boeckmann AJ (eds) (1989–2006) NONMEM users guides. Icon development solutions. Ellicott City

  14. Stram DO and Lee JW (1994). Variance components testing in the longitudinal mixed effects model. Biometrics 50(4): 1171–1177

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Sheiner LB and Beal SL (1981). Some suggestions for measuring predictive performance. J Pharmacokinet Biopharm 9(4): 503–512

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  16. ICH harmonized tripartitie guideline: validation of analytical procedures Q2(R1). Available from http://www.ich.org/LOB/media/MEDIA417.pdf

  17. Fitzmaurice GM, Laird NM, Ware JH (2004) Applied longitudinal analysis. Wiley

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Richard C. Brundage.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Byon, W., Fletcher, C.V. & Brundage, R.C. Impact of censoring data below an arbitrary quantification limit on structural model misspecification. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 35, 101–116 (2008). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10928-007-9078-9

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10928-007-9078-9

Keywords

Navigation