ArticleJournal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics2013
Model based design and analysis of phase II HIV-1 trials.
Article in Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 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
5 citing papers in PubMed.
- Drug Effect of Clofazimine on Persisters Explains an Unexpected Increase in Bacterial Load in Patients.Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy · 2020Trial
- Application of a Stochastic Simulation-estimation Approach to Optimize Pharmacokinetic Study Design in the Context of Paediatric Extrapolation: A Tool to Support Decision-making by Drug Sponsors and Regulators.Pharmaceutical research · 2026Article
- Analysis of opioid consumption in clinical trials: a simulation based analysis of power of four approaches.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2017Article
- Improved power for TB Phase IIa trials using a model-based pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic approach compared with commonly used analysis methods.The Journal of antimicrobial chemotherapy · 2017Article
- Evaluation of optimized bronchoalveolar lavage sampling designs for characterization of pulmonary drug distribution.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2015Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This work explores the advantages of a model based drug development (MBDD) approach for the design and analysis of antiretroviral phase II trials. Two different study settings were investigated: (1) a 5-arm placebo-controlled parallel group dose-finding/proof of concept (POC) study and (2) a comparison of investigational drug and competitor. Studies were simulated using a HIV-1 dynamics model in NONMEM. The Monte-Carlo Mapped Power method determined the sample size required for detecting a dose-response relationship and a significant difference in effect compared to the competitor using a MBDD approach. Stochastic simulation and re-estimation were used for evaluation of model parameter precision and bias given different sample sizes. Results were compared to those from an unpaired, two-sided t test and ANOVA (p ≤ 0.05). In all scenarios, the MBDD approach resulted in smaller study sizes and more precisely estimated treatment effect than conventional statistical analysis. Using a MBDD approach, a sample size of 15 patients could be used to show POC and estimate ED50 with a good precision (relative standard error, 25.7 %). A sample size of 10 patients per arm was needed using the MBDD approach for detecting a difference in treatment effect of ≥20 % at 80 % power, a 3.4-fold reduction in sample size compared to a t test. The MBDD approach can be used to achieve more precise dose-response characterization facilitating decision making and dose selection. If necessitated, the sample size needed to reach a desired power can potentially be reduced compared to traditional statistical analyses. This may allow for comparison against competitors already in early clinical studies.
Indexed as
Identifiers
23843051What 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.