The effect of reporting methods for dosing times on the estimation of pharmacokinetic parameters of escitalopram

Yuyan Jin, Bruce G. Pollock, Ellen Frank, Jeff Florian, Margaret Kirshner, Andrea Fagiolini, David J. Kupfer, Marc R. Gastonguay, Gail Kepple, Yan Feng, Robert Bies

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

The objective of this study was to compare population pharmacokinetic models of escitalopram developed from dosage times recorded by a medication event monitoring system (MEMS) versus the reported times from patients with diagnosed depression. Seventy-three patients were prescribed doses of 10, 15, or 20 mg escitalopram daily. Sparse blood samples were collected at weeks 4, 12, 24, and 36 with 185 blood samples obtained from the 73 patients. NONMEM was used to develop a population pharmacokinetic model based on dosing records obtained from MEMS prior to each blood sample time. A separate population pharmacokinetic analysis using NONMEM was performed for the same population using the patient-reported last dosing time and assuming a steady-state condition as the model input. Objective function values and goodness-of-fit plots were used as model selection criteria. The absolute mean difference in the last dosing time between MEMS and patient-reported times was 4.48 ± 10.12 hours. A 1-compartment model with first-order absorption and elimination was sufficient for describing the data. Estimated oral clearance (CL/F) to escitalopram was statistically insensitive to reported dosing methods (MEMS vs patient reported: 25.5 [7.0%] vs 26.9 [6.6%] L/h). However, different dosing report methods resulted in significantly different estimates on the volume of distribution (V/F; MEMS vs patient reported: 1000 [17.3%] vs 767 [17.5%] L) and the absorption rate constant Ka (MEMS vs patient reported: 0.74 [45.7%] vs 0.51 [35.4%] h-1) for escitalopram. Furthermore, the parameters estimated from the MEMS method were similar to literature reported values for V/F (∼1100 L) and Ka (∼0.8-0.9 h-1) arising from traditional pharmacokinetic approaches.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)176-184
Number of pages9
JournalJournal of Clinical Pharmacology
Volume49
Issue number2
DOIs
StatePublished - Feb 2009
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Citalopram
Pharmacokinetics
Population
Physiologic Monitoring
Patient Selection

Keywords

  • Antidepressant
  • Escitalopram
  • Medication event monitoring system (MEMS)
  • Population pharmacokinetics
  • Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI)

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Pharmacology (medical)
  • Pharmacology

Cite this

The effect of reporting methods for dosing times on the estimation of pharmacokinetic parameters of escitalopram. / Jin, Yuyan; Pollock, Bruce G.; Frank, Ellen; Florian, Jeff; Kirshner, Margaret; Fagiolini, Andrea; Kupfer, David J.; Gastonguay, Marc R.; Kepple, Gail; Feng, Yan; Bies, Robert.

In: Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, Vol. 49, No. 2, 02.2009, p. 176-184.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Jin, Y, Pollock, BG, Frank, E, Florian, J, Kirshner, M, Fagiolini, A, Kupfer, DJ, Gastonguay, MR, Kepple, G, Feng, Y & Bies, R 2009, 'The effect of reporting methods for dosing times on the estimation of pharmacokinetic parameters of escitalopram', Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, vol. 49, no. 2, pp. 176-184. https://doi.org/10.1177/0091270008327538
Jin, Yuyan ; Pollock, Bruce G. ; Frank, Ellen ; Florian, Jeff ; Kirshner, Margaret ; Fagiolini, Andrea ; Kupfer, David J. ; Gastonguay, Marc R. ; Kepple, Gail ; Feng, Yan ; Bies, Robert. / The effect of reporting methods for dosing times on the estimation of pharmacokinetic parameters of escitalopram. In: Journal of Clinical Pharmacology. 2009 ; Vol. 49, No. 2. pp. 176-184.
@article{cbeefbecea00499db126b69afa5fdfb0,
title = "The effect of reporting methods for dosing times on the estimation of pharmacokinetic parameters of escitalopram",
abstract = "The objective of this study was to compare population pharmacokinetic models of escitalopram developed from dosage times recorded by a medication event monitoring system (MEMS) versus the reported times from patients with diagnosed depression. Seventy-three patients were prescribed doses of 10, 15, or 20 mg escitalopram daily. Sparse blood samples were collected at weeks 4, 12, 24, and 36 with 185 blood samples obtained from the 73 patients. NONMEM was used to develop a population pharmacokinetic model based on dosing records obtained from MEMS prior to each blood sample time. A separate population pharmacokinetic analysis using NONMEM was performed for the same population using the patient-reported last dosing time and assuming a steady-state condition as the model input. Objective function values and goodness-of-fit plots were used as model selection criteria. The absolute mean difference in the last dosing time between MEMS and patient-reported times was 4.48 ± 10.12 hours. A 1-compartment model with first-order absorption and elimination was sufficient for describing the data. Estimated oral clearance (CL/F) to escitalopram was statistically insensitive to reported dosing methods (MEMS vs patient reported: 25.5 [7.0{\%}] vs 26.9 [6.6{\%}] L/h). However, different dosing report methods resulted in significantly different estimates on the volume of distribution (V/F; MEMS vs patient reported: 1000 [17.3{\%}] vs 767 [17.5{\%}] L) and the absorption rate constant Ka (MEMS vs patient reported: 0.74 [45.7{\%}] vs 0.51 [35.4{\%}] h-1) for escitalopram. Furthermore, the parameters estimated from the MEMS method were similar to literature reported values for V/F (∼1100 L) and Ka (∼0.8-0.9 h-1) arising from traditional pharmacokinetic approaches.",
keywords = "Antidepressant, Escitalopram, Medication event monitoring system (MEMS), Population pharmacokinetics, Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI)",
author = "Yuyan Jin and Pollock, {Bruce G.} and Ellen Frank and Jeff Florian and Margaret Kirshner and Andrea Fagiolini and Kupfer, {David J.} and Gastonguay, {Marc R.} and Gail Kepple and Yan Feng and Robert Bies",
year = "2009",
month = "2",
doi = "10.1177/0091270008327538",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "49",
pages = "176--184",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Pharmacology",
issn = "0091-2700",
publisher = "SAGE Publications Inc.",
number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - The effect of reporting methods for dosing times on the estimation of pharmacokinetic parameters of escitalopram

AU - Jin, Yuyan

AU - Pollock, Bruce G.

AU - Frank, Ellen

AU - Florian, Jeff

AU - Kirshner, Margaret

AU - Fagiolini, Andrea

AU - Kupfer, David J.

AU - Gastonguay, Marc R.

AU - Kepple, Gail

AU - Feng, Yan

AU - Bies, Robert

PY - 2009/2

Y1 - 2009/2

N2 - The objective of this study was to compare population pharmacokinetic models of escitalopram developed from dosage times recorded by a medication event monitoring system (MEMS) versus the reported times from patients with diagnosed depression. Seventy-three patients were prescribed doses of 10, 15, or 20 mg escitalopram daily. Sparse blood samples were collected at weeks 4, 12, 24, and 36 with 185 blood samples obtained from the 73 patients. NONMEM was used to develop a population pharmacokinetic model based on dosing records obtained from MEMS prior to each blood sample time. A separate population pharmacokinetic analysis using NONMEM was performed for the same population using the patient-reported last dosing time and assuming a steady-state condition as the model input. Objective function values and goodness-of-fit plots were used as model selection criteria. The absolute mean difference in the last dosing time between MEMS and patient-reported times was 4.48 ± 10.12 hours. A 1-compartment model with first-order absorption and elimination was sufficient for describing the data. Estimated oral clearance (CL/F) to escitalopram was statistically insensitive to reported dosing methods (MEMS vs patient reported: 25.5 [7.0%] vs 26.9 [6.6%] L/h). However, different dosing report methods resulted in significantly different estimates on the volume of distribution (V/F; MEMS vs patient reported: 1000 [17.3%] vs 767 [17.5%] L) and the absorption rate constant Ka (MEMS vs patient reported: 0.74 [45.7%] vs 0.51 [35.4%] h-1) for escitalopram. Furthermore, the parameters estimated from the MEMS method were similar to literature reported values for V/F (∼1100 L) and Ka (∼0.8-0.9 h-1) arising from traditional pharmacokinetic approaches.

AB - The objective of this study was to compare population pharmacokinetic models of escitalopram developed from dosage times recorded by a medication event monitoring system (MEMS) versus the reported times from patients with diagnosed depression. Seventy-three patients were prescribed doses of 10, 15, or 20 mg escitalopram daily. Sparse blood samples were collected at weeks 4, 12, 24, and 36 with 185 blood samples obtained from the 73 patients. NONMEM was used to develop a population pharmacokinetic model based on dosing records obtained from MEMS prior to each blood sample time. A separate population pharmacokinetic analysis using NONMEM was performed for the same population using the patient-reported last dosing time and assuming a steady-state condition as the model input. Objective function values and goodness-of-fit plots were used as model selection criteria. The absolute mean difference in the last dosing time between MEMS and patient-reported times was 4.48 ± 10.12 hours. A 1-compartment model with first-order absorption and elimination was sufficient for describing the data. Estimated oral clearance (CL/F) to escitalopram was statistically insensitive to reported dosing methods (MEMS vs patient reported: 25.5 [7.0%] vs 26.9 [6.6%] L/h). However, different dosing report methods resulted in significantly different estimates on the volume of distribution (V/F; MEMS vs patient reported: 1000 [17.3%] vs 767 [17.5%] L) and the absorption rate constant Ka (MEMS vs patient reported: 0.74 [45.7%] vs 0.51 [35.4%] h-1) for escitalopram. Furthermore, the parameters estimated from the MEMS method were similar to literature reported values for V/F (∼1100 L) and Ka (∼0.8-0.9 h-1) arising from traditional pharmacokinetic approaches.

KW - Antidepressant

KW - Escitalopram

KW - Medication event monitoring system (MEMS)

KW - Population pharmacokinetics

KW - Selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI)

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=58849151269&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=58849151269&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1177/0091270008327538

DO - 10.1177/0091270008327538

M3 - Article

C2 - 19179296

AN - SCOPUS:58849151269

VL - 49

SP - 176

EP - 184

JO - Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

JF - Journal of Clinical Pharmacology

SN - 0091-2700

IS - 2

ER -