The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Uncertainty Analysis in Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics: Application to Naratriptan
Abstract
Purpose The aim of the study was to predict pain relief of migraine in patients following naratriptan oral (tablet) administration by using uncertainty analysis. The analysis was based on phase I pharmacokinetic naratriptan data, sumatriptan pharmacodynamic data, and naratriptan preclinical (animal) potency information, together with general knowledge as to how migraine affects oral absorption. Methods A previously developed pharmacokinetic (PK)/pharmacodynamic (PD) model for naratriptan disposition and effect was used. The uncertain parameters in the model, which were associated with absorption and scaling between first-in-class compound sumatriptan and naratriptan, were modeled using fuzzy sets theory. Global sensitivity analysis was then used to investigate the impact of each PK/PD parameter on the responses. Results Acknowledging parametric uncertainty did not improve prediction of the probability of pain relief. Global sensitivity analysis demonstrated that predictions were heavily influenced by interindividual variability in pharmacodynamics, as the dose response relationship was relatively insensitive to the pharmacokinetics. Conclusions To predict the probability of pain relief following oral (tablet) administration of naratriptan, a simple dose response, instead of the PK/PD model, would have yielded very similar predictions. The naratriptan PK/PD model may be improved by either refining the PD model or better still by specifying the interindividual error by additional data collecting with an improved design.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The pharmacokinetics of Naratriptan can be characterized by a two-compartment model.
“The pharmacokinetics of Naratriptan, a small molecule 5‐HT1 agonist, can be characterized by a two‐compartment model.”
From Sobol Sensitivity Analysis: A Tool to Guide the Development and Evaluation of Systems Pharmacology Models (2015) · cites this paper as [49]
In Naratriptan, bioavailability is the dominant parameter governing pharmacokinetics, followed by central compartment volume of distribution and systemic clearance.
“The sensitivity analysis shows that bioavailability is the dominant parameter that primarily governs Naratriptan's pharmacokinetics, followed by volume of distribution of the central compartment and systemic clearance.49”
From Sobol Sensitivity Analysis: A Tool to Guide the Development and Evaluation of Systems Pharmacology Models (2015) · cites this paper as [49]
Citations
Cites
No references could be resolved yet.
Research works printed but not linked: 37
- C. Peck, 1996, Appl. Clin. Trials, 5, 30
- M. Hale, 1996, Appl. Clin. Trials, 5, 35
- L. Lesko, 2000, Eur. J. Pharm. Biopharm., 10, iv
- R. Krall, 1998, Drug Inf. J., 32, 971, 10.1177/009286159803200415 · DOI
- C. Peck, 1997, Food Drug Law J., 52, 163
- I. Nestorov, 2001, Pharm. Res., 18, 1210, 10.1023/A:1010943430471 · DOI · Paper page
- T. Ross, 1995, Fuzzy Logic with Engineering Applications
- I. Gueorguieva, I. Nestorov, and M. Rowland. Reducing whole body physiologically based models using global sensitivity analysis: diazepam case study. J Pharmacokin. Pharmacodyn. Accepted (2005) · DOI
- E. Fuseau, 1997, The Integration of the Population Approach into Drug Development: A Case Study, Naratriptan
- V. Cosson, 1998, J. Pharmacokinet. Biopharm., 26, 149
- L. F. Lacey, 1995, Eur. J. Clin. Pharmacol., 47, 543, 10.1007/BF00193709 · DOI
- H. J. Zimmermann. Uncertainty modelling and fuzzy sets. In H. G. Natke and Y. Ben-Haim (eds.), Uncertainty Models and Measures, Akademie-Verlag, 1997, pp. 84–100.
- C. Dahlof, 1998, Eur. J. Neurol., 5, 469, 10.1046/j.1468-1331.1998.550469.x · DOI
- H. E. Connor, 1997, Cephalalgia, 17, 145, 10.1046/j.1468-2982.1997.1703145.x · DOI
- O. Petricoul and E. Fuseau. Meta-analysis of the exposure/efficacy relationship for sumatriptan nasal spray. Poster at the Population Approach Groupe in Europe (PAGE), Saintes, France (1999). · DOI
- N. Cutler, 1991, Cephalalgia, 11, 222, 10.1177/0333102491011S11120 · DOI
- I. Gueorguieva, 2004, J. Pharmacokinet. Pharmacodyn., 31, 185, 10.1023/B:JOPA.0000039564.35602.78 · DOI
- E. K. Hussey, 1991, Clin. Pharmacol. Ther., 49, PI-46
- R. Boyle, 1990, Br. J. Clin. Pharmacol., 30, 405, 10.1111/j.1365-2125.1990.tb03791.x · DOI
- G. N. Volans, 1978, Clin. Pharmacokin., 3, 313, 10.2165/00003088-197803040-00004 · DOI
- G. Bojadziev, 1995, Advances in Fuzzy Systems—Applications and Theory, 41
- D. Dubois, 1983, Fuzzy Sets Syst., 10, 15, 10.1016/S0165-0114(83)80099-2 · DOI
- Y. Lu, 2001, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf., 72, 275, 10.1016/S0951-8320(01)00020-5 · DOI
- A. Salteli, 2001, SimLab 1.1, User Manual
- N. T. Mathew, 1997, Neurology, 49, 1485, 10.1212/WNL.49.6.1485 · DOI
- M. Civanlar, 1986, Fuzzy Sets Syst., 18, 1, 10.1016/0165-0114(86)90024-2 · DOI
- T. Tomovic, 1964, Dynamic Systems Sensitivity Analysis
- A. Saltelli, 2000, Sensitivity Analysis
- D. Anderson, 1983, Compartmental Modeling and Tracer Kinetics. Lecture Notes in Biomathematics, 10.1007/978-3-642-51861-4 · DOI
- K. Godfrey, 1983, Compartmental Models and Their Applications
- G. Wu, 2000, Pharm. Res., 41, 445, 10.1006/phrs.1999.0602 · DOI
- W. Meurs, 1998, IEEE Trans. Biomed. Eng., 45, 582, 10.1109/10.668748 · DOI
- I. Nestorov. System sensitivity analysis in pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic modelling, In: International Conference on Health Sciences Simulation, San Diego, USA, pp 117–122, 2000.
- H. Clewell, 1996, Toxicology, 111, 315, 10.1016/0300-483X(96)03385-9 · DOI
- H. J. Clewell, 1994, Risk Anal., 14, 521, 10.1111/j.1539-6924.1994.tb00268.x · DOI
- I. Nestorov, 1997, J. Pharmacokinet. Biopharm., 25, 413, 10.1023/A:1025740909016 · DOI
- A. Atkinson, 1992, Optimal Experimental Design, 10.1093/oso/9780198522546.001.0001 · DOI
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Zhang, X., Trame, M., Lesko, L., & Schmidt, S. (2015) · CPT: Pharmacometrics & Systems Pharmacology · doi:10.1002/psp4.6 · Cited by 467
“interpret compared to the eFast method (Naratriptan) previously published in accordingly, we encourage the simplifier yet powerful Sobol sensitivity analysis for model building and evaluation.(49)”
MethodInfluential
Metadata
- Authors
- Gueorguieva, I., Nestorov, I. A., Aarons, L., & Rowland, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Manchester (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Gueorguieva, Ivelina
- Venue
- Pharmaceutical Research
- Published
- 2005-09-22
- Volume
- 22
- Issue
- 10
- Pages
- 1614-1626
- ISSN
- 0724-8741 (ISSN-L)
- 1573-904X
- OpenAlex
- W2062657490
- Cited by
- 18
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2016: 1 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 2 · 2013: 2 · 2012: 3
- FWCI
- 0.60
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- www.springer.com/tdm (tdm)
- Locations
- Pharmaceutical Research (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Pfizer
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Clinical Neurology › Migraine and Headache Studies
- Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Clinical Trials
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Pediatrics, Perinatology and Child Health › Pharmaceutical studies and practices
- Keywords
- naratriptan, migraine, uncertainty analysis, pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modeling, global sensitivity analysis, fuzzy sets, interindividual variability, sumatriptan, oral absorption, pain relief prediction, dose-response relationship, triptans
- MeSH terms
- Algorithms, Analgesics, Female, Humans, Male, Migraine Disorders, Models, Biological, Piperidines, Software, Tryptamines, Vasoconstrictor Agents, Serotonin Receptor Agonists, Sumatriptan
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review