A Mechanistic Latent Variable Model for Estimating Drug Concentrations in the Male Genital Tract

The purpose of this study is to develop statistical methodology to facilitate indirect estimation of the concentration of antiretroviral drugs and viral loads in the prostate gland and the seminal vesicle. The differences in antiretroviral drug concentrations in these organs may lead to suboptimal concentrations in one gland compared to the other. Suboptimal levels of the antiretroviral drugs will not be able to fully suppress the virus in that gland, lead to a source of sexually transmissible virus and increase the chance of selecting for drug resistant virus. This information may be useful selecting antiretroviral drug regimen that will achieve optimal concentrations in most of male genital tract glands. Using fractionally collected semen ejaculates, Lundquist (1949) measured levels of surrogate markers in each fraction that are uniquely produced by specific male accessory glands. To determine the original glandular concentrations of the surrogate markers, Lundquist solved a simultaneous series of linear equations. This method has several limitations. In particular, it does not yield a unique solution, it does not address measurement error, and it disregards inter-subject variability in the parameters. To cope with these limitations, we developed a mechanistic latent variable model based on the physiology of the male genital tract and surrogate markers. We employ a Bayesian approach and perform a sensitivity analysis with regard to the distributional assumptions on the random effects and priors. The model and Bayesian approach is validated on experimental data where the concentration of a drug should be (biologically) differentially distributed between the two glands. In this example, the Bayesian model-based conclusions are found to be robust to model specification and this hierarchical approach leads to more scientifically valid conclusions than the original methodology. In particular, unlike existing methods, the proposed model based approach was not affected by a common form of outliers.

Studying Effects of Primary Care Physicians and Patients on the Trade-Off Between Charges for Primary Care and Specialty Care Using a Hierarchical Multivariate Two-Part Model

Objective. To examine effects of primary care physicians (PCPs) and patients on the association between charges for primary care and specialty care in a point-of-service (POS) health plan. Data Source. Claims from 1996 for 3,308 adult male POS plan members, each of whom was assigned to one of the 50 family practitioner-PCPs with the largest POS plan member-loads. Study Design. A hierarchical multivariate two-part model was fitted using a Gibbs sampler to estimate PCPs' effects on patients' annual charges for two types of services, primary care and specialty care, the associations among PCPs' effects, and within-patient associations between charges for the two services. Adjusted Clinical Groups (ACGs) were used to adjust for case-mix. Principal Findings. PCPs with higher case-mix adjusted rates of specialist use were less likely to see their patients at least once during the year (estimated correlation: –.40; 95% CI: –.71, –.008) and provided fewer services to patients that they saw (estimated correlation: –.53; 95% CI: –.77, –.21). Ten of 11 PCPs whose case-mix adjusted effects on primary care charges were significantly less than or greater than zero (p < .05) had estimated, case-mix adjusted effects on specialty care charges that were of opposite sign (but not significantly different than zero). After adjustment for ACG and PCP effects, the within-patient, estimated odds ratio for any use of primary care given any use of specialty care was .57 (95% CI: .45, .73). Conclusions. PCPs and patients contributed independently to a trade-off between utilization of primary care and specialty care. The trade-off appeared to partially offset significant differences in the amount of care provided by PCPs. These findings were possible because we employed a hierarchical multivariate model rather than separate univariate models.