Literature DB >> 24872360

Dose-finding studies, MCP-Mod, model selection, and model averaging: Two applications in the real world.

Dominique Verrier1, Sïndou Sivapregassam2, Anne-Catherine Solente3.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Phase II clinical trials are important milestones to determine whether a dose-effect exists and to decide on future doses to use in confirmatory studies. To take into account the overall shape of the dose-response curve, modeling the relationship by linear or non-linear models is preferable to the classical pair-wise comparisons of the effect of each dose versus the placebo or the comparator. The multiple comparisons and modeling approach has been developed within the last 10 years to address this important question in the clinical development of drugs. Despite some recent publications referring to this methodology, few detailed applications have been shown so far and several practical questions remain to be addressed.
METHODS: Starting from a set of candidate models, model selection using classical methods criteria is possible. However, it suffers some limitations, not taking into account the uncertainty of the selection process itself. An attractive solution is to use model averaging, which applies appropriate weights to the parameters (e.g., the minimum effective dose) obtained from each model.
RESULTS: A discussion of the selection criteria is first presented. Through two real examples, how to proceed with model selection and model averaging is presented and discussed. LIMITATIONS: The first multiple comparisons and modeling approach papers addressed normal responses. More recently, an extension of this methodology has been proposed to deal with other types of responses, in particular binary, time-to-event and longitudinal data. Questions that remain are concerned with the choice of the candidate models and of their parameters' guesstimates.
CONCLUSIONS: The analysis of clinical dose-finding studies using a modeling of the entire curve offers a promising alternative as compared with the classical multiple comparisons methods, while not compromising the necessary rigor of the analysis.
© The Author(s), 2014.

Entities:  

Year:  2014        PMID: 24872360     DOI: 10.1177/1740774514532723

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Clin Trials        ISSN: 1740-7745            Impact factor:   2.486


  7 in total

1.  A Model-Based Meta-Analysis Evaluating Gender Differences on Blood Flow Responses to Brachial Artery Infusions of Acetylcholine, Albuterol, ATP, Bradykinin, Estradiol, Glyceryl Trinitrate, L-NMMA, Nevibolol, Norepinephrine, Sodium Nitroprusside, Substance P, and Verapamil.

Authors:  Andy R Eugene
Journal:  MEDtube Sci       Date:  2016-06

2.  Estimation of QT interval prolongation through model-averaging.

Authors:  Peter L Bonate
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2017-04-18       Impact factor: 2.745

3.  Model selection and averaging of nonlinear mixed-effect models for robust phase III dose selection.

Authors:  Yasunori Aoki; Daniel Röshammar; Bengt Hamrén; Andrew C Hooker
Journal:  J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn       Date:  2017-11-04       Impact factor: 2.745

4.  The influences of nitric oxide, epinephrine, and dopamine on vascular tone: dose-response modeling and simulations.

Authors:  Andy R Eugene
Journal:  Hosp Chron       Date:  2016

5.  Advanced Methods for Dose and Regimen Finding During Drug Development: Summary of the EMA/EFPIA Workshop on Dose Finding (London 4-5 December 2014).

Authors:  F T Musuamba; E Manolis; N Holford; Sya Cheung; L E Friberg; K Ogungbenro; M Posch; Jwt Yates; S Berry; N Thomas; S Corriol-Rohou; B Bornkamp; F Bretz; A C Hooker; P H Van der Graaf; J F Standing; J Hay; S Cole; V Gigante; K Karlsson; T Dumortier; N Benda; F Serone; S Das; A Brochot; F Ehmann; R Hemmings; I Skottheim Rusten
Journal:  CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol       Date:  2017-07-19

6.  The Burden of the "False-Negatives" in Clinical Development: Analyses of Current and Alternative Scenarios and Corrective Measures.

Authors:  T Burt; K S Button; Hhz Thom; R J Noveck; M R Munafò
Journal:  Clin Transl Sci       Date:  2017-07-04       Impact factor: 4.689

7.  Adding flexibility to clinical trial designs: an example-based guide to the practical use of adaptive designs.

Authors:  Thomas Burnett; Pavel Mozgunov; Philip Pallmann; Sofia S Villar; Graham M Wheeler; Thomas Jaki
Journal:  BMC Med       Date:  2020-11-19       Impact factor: 8.775

  7 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.