TABLE 7

Comparison of model fits

PerformanceHHEPsHLMHLMHLMHHEPsHLMHHEPs
R2 x 3Model 1Model 2Model 3R1R2 x 3Model 1 (Reversible Inhibition Only)Model 1 (Same Data-Set)Model 3 (Same Data-Set)
GMFE (90% CI)9.42 (8.75–10.1)1.12 (0.89–1.34)1.16 (0.9–1.4)0.90 (0.70–1.14)0.55 (0.22–0.88)4.02 (3.26–4.78)0.475 (0.21–0.74)0.98 (0.67–1.30)1.0 (0.71–1.35)0.67 (0.26–1.07)0.84 (0.46–1.21)
RMSE2842.763.633.6717.35.2816.51.040.4262.710.508
% within bioequivalence (0.8–1.25)2.753.848.745.413.93.015.153.057.648.556.1
% within twofold14.391.690.884.952.210.650.487.989.468.274.2
% within threefold21.497.597.598.373.934.875.697.095.580.386.4
# over twofold9678365014424
# below twofold0331549958431913
# of FN20031304400133
  • Model 1 incorporates the reported inhibitor specific parameters to derive the unbound hepatic inlet concentration, whereas Model 1 default inputs Ka = 0.03 min−1 and Fa:Fg = 1, and Model 2 incorporates the Cmax,ss,u into the equation rather than hepatic inlet concentration.