TABLE 2.
Discrimination criteria between PK modelsa
Model | Mean value for ELV
|
|||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Alone
|
With ritonavir
|
|||||||
ECV | AIC | r2 | Residual variability (%) | ECV | AIC | r2 | Residual variability (%) | |
2 CPT; 1 ka; 1 lag time per dose | 33.3 | 82.6 | 0.983 | 8.1 | 35.1 | 86.2 | 0.872 | 14.3 |
2 CPT; 1 ka; 2 lag time per dose; including alpha | 28.4 | 76.9 | 0.991 | 7.6 | 29.1 | 78.1 | 0.937 | 12.6 |
2 CPT; 2kaand 2 lag time per dose; including alpha | 25.2 | 72.3 | 0.992 | 6.2 | 26.9 | 75.9 | 0.932 | 11.3 |
3 CPT; 1 ka; 1 lag time per dose | 30.7 | 81.5 | 0.984 | 8.3 | 33.9 | 87.7 | 0.810 | 15.9 |
3 CPT; 1 ka; 2 lag time per dose; including alpha | 27.7 | 79.4 | 0.992 | 6.6 | 30.9 | 85.7 | 0.832 | 15.9 |
3 CPT; 2 ka and 2 lag time per dose; including alpha | 25.6 | 77.1 | 0.991 | 5.7 | 28.3 | 82.6 | 0.912 | 11.5 |
Bold type indicates the selected model. ELV, elvucitabine; CPT, compartment; ECV, estimator criteria value; AIC, Akaike information criterion.