1 / 32

Dissolution stability of a modified release product 32 nd MBSW May 19, 2009

Dissolution stability of a modified release product 32 nd MBSW May 19, 2009. David.LeBlond@abbott.com. Outline. Multivariate data set Mixed model (static view) Hierarchical model (dynamic view) Why a Bayesian approach? Selecting priors Model selection Parameter estimates

vinson
Download Presentation

Dissolution stability of a modified release product 32 nd MBSW May 19, 2009

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. Dissolution stability of a modified release product 32nd MBSW May 19, 2009 David.LeBlond@abbott.com

  2. Outline • Multivariate data set • Mixed model (static view) • Hierarchical model (dynamic view) • Why a Bayesian approach? • Selecting priors • Model selection • Parameter estimates • Latent parameter (“BLUP”) estimates • Posterior prediction • Estimating future batch failure and level testing rates

  3. Dissolution profilesN=378 tablets from B=10 batches

  4. Dissolution Instability

  5. FDA Guidance Guidance for Industry Extended Release Oral Dosage Forms: Development, Evaluation, and Application of In Vitro/In Vivo Correlations CDER, Sept 1997 • “VII.B. Setting Dissolution Specifications • A minimum of three time points … • … should cover the early, middle, and late stages of the dissolution profile. • The last time point … at least 80% of drug has dissolved …. [or] … when the plateau of the dissolution profile has been reached.”

  6. Proposed dissolution limits 80 60 30 25 14

  7. L1 (n1=6) Xi X12 X24 L2 (n2=n1+6) Xi Xi L3 (n3=n2+12) #(Xi)<3 USP <724> Drug Release L-20 L-10 L U U+10 U+20

  8. Tablet residuals from fixed model:Correlation among time points r = 0.36 r = 0.79 r = 0.54 All p-values < 0.0001

  9. Batch slopes:Correlations among time points r = 0.76 p = 0.01 r = 0.21 p = 0.57 r = -0.37 p = 0.30

  10. Batch intercepts:Correlations among time points r = 0.92 p = 0.0002 r = 0.83 p = 0.003 r = 0.65 p = 0.04

  11. Mixed (static) modeling viewN tablets (i) from B batches (j), testing at month xi

  12. Random intercept & slope for each batch: j=1:B Dissolution result for each tablet: i=1:N Hierarchical (dynamic) Modeling view Data:

  13. UN 6 param HAR1 4 param HCS 4 param Tablet residual covariance (Ve)

  14. PD Ve: Acceptable range of r

  15. Why a Bayesian approach? • Asymptotic approximations may not be valid • Allows quantification of prior information • Properly accounts for estimation uncertainty • Lends itself to dynamic modeling viewpoint • Requires fewer mathematical distractions • Estimates quantities of interest easily • Provides distributional estimates • Fewer embarrassments (e.g., negative variance estimates) • Is a good complement to likelihood (only) methods • WinBUGS is fun to use

  16. UN 6 param HAR1 or HCS 4 param Tablet residual covariance (Ve) Priors

  17. c=1 c=3 c=10 c=30 c=100 0.4-31 0.8-54 1.4-98 2.4-164 4.4-299 si InvWishart PriorComponent marginal prior distributions 40,000 draws rij

  18. UN 12 params VC 6 params Batch intercept & slope covariance (Vu)

  19. Process mean 6 param VC 6 param VC Common slope 3 param Batch intercept & slope Priors UN 12 param

  20. Effect of Covariance Choice:Deviance Information Criterion

  21. a b Va Vb Ve Parameter EstimatesProc MIXED vs WinBUGS

  22. WARNING: Posterior sampling is not performed because the parameter transformation is not of full rank. Posterior from Proc Mixed(SAS 8.2) 391 proc mixed covtest; 392 class batch tablet time; 393 model y= time time*month/ noint s; 394 random time time*month/ type=un(1) subject=batch G s; 395 repeated / type=un subject=tablet R; 396 prior /out=posterior nsample=1000; NOTE: Convergence criteria met. • Runs in SAS 9.2, however… • SAS only strictly “supports” the posterior if • random type=VC with no repeated, or • random and repeated types both = VC

  23. WinBUGS dynamic modeling # Prior InvVe[1:T,1:3]~dwish(R[,],3) acent[1]~dnorm(0.0,0.0001) acent[2]~dnorm(50,0.0001) acent[3]~dnorm(100,0.0001) for ( j in 1:3) { b[ j ]~dnorm(0.0,0.001) gacent[ j ]~dgamma(0.001,0.001) gb[ j ]~dgamma(0.001,0.001) } # Likelihood # Draw the T intercepts and slopes for each batch for ( i in 1:B) { for ( j in 1:3) { alpha[i, j] ~ dnorm(acent[ j ], gacent[ j ]) beta[i, j] ~ dnorm(b[ j ], gb[ j ]) } } # Draw vector of results from each tablet for (obs in 1:N){ for ( j in 1:3){ mu[obs,j]<-alpha[Batch[obs],j]+beta[Batch[obs],j]*(Month[obs]-xbar)} y[obs,1:T ]~dmnorm(mu[obs, ], InvVe[ , ])}

  24. Intercept (dissolution near batch release %LC) Slope (rate of change in dissolution %LC/month) Shrinkage of Bayesian and mixed model batch intercept and slope estimates

  25. Intercepts Slopes WinBUGS Batch intercept and slope estimates: Bayesian “BLUPs”

  26. Predicting future results Posterior predictive sample Posterior sample

  27. WinBUGS posterior predictions # Predict int & slope for future batches for (j in 1:3){ b_star[ j ]~dnorm(b[ j ], gb[ j ]) acent_pred[ j ]~dnorm(acent[ j ], gacent[ j ]) a_star[ j ]<-acent[ j ] - b[ j ]*xbar} # Obtain the Ve components Ve[1:3,1:3] <- invVe[ , ]) for (j in 1:3){ sigma[ j ] <- sqrt(Ve[j,j])} rho12 <- Ve[1,2]/sigma[1]/sigma[2] rho13 <- Ve[1,3]/sigma[1]/sigma[3] rho23 <- Ve[2,3]/sigma[2]/sigma[3]

  28. Predicting testing results Estimate Probabilities USP <724>

  29. Semi-parametric bootstrap prediction • “Fixed model” prediction (no shrinkage) • 10 intercept and 10 slope vectors via SLR • 378 tablet residual vectors • -or- • “Mixed model” prediction (shrinkage) • 10 intercept vector BLUPs • 10 slope vector BLUPs • 378 tablet residual vectors • Sample with replacement to construct future results

  30. Level testing and failure rate predictions

  31. Summary • A multivariate, hierarchical, Bayesian approach to dissolution stability illustrated • Some options for specifying the covariance priors • Estimation and shrinkage of the latent batch slope and intercept parameters • Posterior prediction of future data • Prediction of future failure and level testing rates • “Fixed” most pessimistic… (no shrinkage?) • “Mixed” lowest failure rate… (non-asymptotic?) • Give WinBUGS a try

  32. Thank you too! David.LeBlond@abbott.com Acknowledgements The invaluable suggestions of, encouragement from, and helpful discussions with John Peterson, GSK Oscar Go, J&J Jyh-Ming Shoung, J&J Stan Altan, J&J are greatly appreciated.

More Related