ArticleClinical trials (London, England)2013
Discordant minimum inhibitory concentration analysis: a new path to licensure for anti-infective drugs.
Article in Clinical trials (London, England), 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
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
Abstract
backgroundEvaluation of anti-infective drugs for licensure often relies on a noninferiority (NI) design where new drug B is noninferior to comparator drug A if the difference in success rates is reliably not worse than some fixed margin. The margin must be based on historical studies that estimate the magnitude of the benefit of drug A over placebo. This approach hampers drug development because the obligatory evidence for margin determination is often nonexistent. PURPOSE: To develop a new method for licensure of anti-infective drugs when there is no historical evidence for reliable construction of the NI margin.
methodsThe minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) measures the minimum amount of drug that it takes to inhibit growth of bacteria in vitro. Patients who are infected with bacteria that have a low MIC to a given drug are expected to have good outcomes when treated with that drug. Thus, a differential effect of drug B versus drug A, if it exists, is likely to occur in patients whose pathogens have discordant MICs (e.g., low MIC for drug B, high MIC for drug A, or vice versa). A new paradigm for licensure of anti-infective drugs is proposed where a clinically acceptable NI margin is selected and licensure supported if the NI margin is met and B is reliably demonstrated superior to A in a subset of patients whose paired MICs favor B. The requirement for some evidence of superiority encourages a study that is carefully designed and executed.
resultsSimulations indicate that the approach shows promise in realistic settings, provided adequate data are available. A simulated example illustrates use of the methods. LIMITATIONS: If the data have small sample size, weak MIC/success relationship, or high correlation between MIC-A, MIC-B, this procedure will have poor power.
conclusionDiscordant MIC analysis may offer a novel path to licensure for certain anti-infective drugs.
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.