Trial reportAntimicrobial agents and chemotherapy2012
Frequentist and Bayesian pharmacometric-based approaches to facilitate critically needed new antibiotic development: overcoming lies, damn lies, and statistics.
Trial report in Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
8 citing papers in PubMed.
- Could simulation methods solve the curse of sparse data within clinical studies of antibiotic resistance?JAC-antimicrobial resistance · 2021Review
- Influence of severity of infection on the effect of appropriate antimicrobial therapy for Acinetobacter baumannii bacteremic pneumonia.Antimicrobial resistance and infection control · 2020Article
- Multicenter Study of Clinical Features of Breakthrough Acinetobacter Bacteremia during Carbapenem Therapy.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2017Article
- The evolution of the regulatory framework for antibacterial agents.Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences · 2014Review
- EXpectation Propagation LOgistic REgRession (EXPLORER): distributed privacy-preserving online model learning.Journal of biomedical informatics · 2013Article
- Discordant minimum inhibitory concentration analysis: a new path to licensure for anti-infective drugs.Clinical trials (London, England) · 2013Article
- White paper: recommendations on the conduct of superiority and organism-specific clinical trials of antibacterial agents for the treatment of infections caused by drug-resistant bacterial pathogens.Clinical infectious diseases : an official publication of the Infectious Diseases Society of America · 2012Article
- Early endpoints for acute bacterial skin and skin structure infections.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2012Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Antimicrobial drug development has greatly diminished due to regulatory uncertainty about the magnitude of the antibiotic treatment effect. Herein we evaluate the utility of pharmacometric-based analyses for determining the magnitude of the treatment effect. Frequentist and Bayesian pharmacometric-based logistic regression analyses were conducted by using data from a phase 3 clinical trial of tigecycline-treated patients with hospital-acquired pneumonia (HAP) to evaluate relationships between the probability of microbiological or clinical success and the free-drug area under the concentration-time curve from time zero to 24 h (AUC(0-24))/MIC ratio. By using both the frequentist and Bayesian approaches, the magnitude of the treatment effect was determined using three different methods based on the probability of success at free-drug AUC(0-24)/MIC ratios of 0.01 and 25. Differences in point estimates of the treatment effect for microbiological response (method 1) were larger using the frequentist approach than using the Bayesian approach (Bayesian estimate, 0.395; frequentist estimate, 0.637). However, the Bayesian credible intervals were tighter than the frequentist confidence intervals, demonstrating increased certainty with the former approach. The treatment effect determined by taking the difference in the probabilities of success between the upper limit of a 95% interval for the minimal exposure and the lower limit of a 95% interval at the maximal exposure (method 2) was greater for the Bayesian analysis (Bayesian estimate, 0.074; frequentist estimate, 0.004). After utilizing bootstrapping to determine the lower 95% bounds for the treatment effect (method 3), treatment effect estimates were still higher for the Bayesian analysis (Bayesian estimate, 0.301; frequentist estimate, 0.166). These results demonstrate the utility of frequentist and Bayesian pharmacometric-based analyses for the determination of the treatment effect using contemporary trial endpoints. Additionally, as demonstrated by using pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic data, the magnitude of the treatment effect for patients with HAP is large.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.