PURPOSE: Pregabalin is being evaluated for the treatment of neuropathic pain. Two phase 2 studies were simulated to determine how precisely the dose that caused a one-point reduction in the pain score could be estimated. The likelihood of demonstrating at least a one-point change for each available dose strength was also calculated. METHODS: A pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) model relating pain relief to gabapentin plasma concentrations was derived from a phase 3 study. The PK component of the model was modified to reflect pregabalin PK. The PD component was modified by scaling the gabapentin concentration-effect relationship to reflect pregabalin potency, which was based on preclincal data. Uncertainty about the potency difference and the steepness of the concentration-response slope necessitated simulating a distribution of outcomes for a series of PK/PD models. RESULTS: Analysis of the simulated data suggested that after accounting for the uncertainty, there was an 80% chance that the dose defining the clinical feature was within 45% of the true value. The likelihood of estimating a dose that was within an acceptable predefined precision range relative to a known value approximated 60%. The minimum dose that should be studied to have a reasonable chance of estimating the dose that caused a one-point change was 300 mg. CONCLUSIONS: Doses that identify predefined response may be imprecisely estimated, suggesting that replication of a similar outcome may be elusive in a confirmatory study. Quantification of this precision provides a rationale for phase 2 trial design and dose selection for confirmatory studies.
PURPOSE: Pregabalin is being evaluated for the treatment of neuropathic pain. Two phase 2 studies were simulated to determine how precisely the dose that caused a one-point reduction in the pain score could be estimated. The likelihood of demonstrating at least a one-point change for each available dose strength was also calculated. METHODS: A pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK/PD) model relating pain relief to gabapentin plasma concentrations was derived from a phase 3 study. The PK component of the model was modified to reflect pregabalin PK. The PD component was modified by scaling the gabapentin concentration-effect relationship to reflect pregabalin potency, which was based on preclincal data. Uncertainty about the potency difference and the steepness of the concentration-response slope necessitated simulating a distribution of outcomes for a series of PK/PD models. RESULTS: Analysis of the simulated data suggested that after accounting for the uncertainty, there was an 80% chance that the dose defining the clinical feature was within 45% of the true value. The likelihood of estimating a dose that was within an acceptable predefined precision range relative to a known value approximated 60%. The minimum dose that should be studied to have a reasonable chance of estimating the dose that caused a one-point change was 300 mg. CONCLUSIONS: Doses that identify predefined response may be imprecisely estimated, suggesting that replication of a similar outcome may be elusive in a confirmatory study. Quantification of this precision provides a rationale for phase 2 trial design and dose selection for confirmatory studies.
Authors: James Cross; Howard Lee; Agnes Westelinck; Julie Nelson; Charles Grudzinskas; Carl Peck Journal: Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf Date: 2002-09 Impact factor: 2.890
Authors: M Backonja; A Beydoun; K R Edwards; S L Schwartz; V Fonseca; M Hes; L LaMoreaux; E Garofalo Journal: JAMA Date: 1998-12-02 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: R A Blum; T J Comstock; D A Sica; R W Schultz; E Keller; P Reetze; H Bockbrader; D Tuerck; J A Busch; P A Reece Journal: Clin Pharmacol Ther Date: 1994-08 Impact factor: 6.875
Authors: Ghada F Ahmed; Sai Praneeth R Bathena; Richard C Brundage; Ilo E Leppik; Jeannine M Conway; Janice B Schwartz; Angela K Birnbaum Journal: AAPS J Date: 2017-01-09 Impact factor: 4.009
Authors: Malte Selch Larsen; Ron Keizer; Gordon Munro; Arne Mørk; René Holm; Rada Savic; Mads Kreilgaard Journal: Pharm Res Date: 2016-01-15 Impact factor: 4.200