Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24788562›Full record

ArticleInvestigational new drugs2014

Design of informative renal impairment studies: evaluation of the impact of design stratification on bias, precision and dose adjustment error.

J G Coen van Hasselt, Jan H M Schellens, Jos H Beijnen, Alwin D R Huitema

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Investigational new drugs, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

J G Coen van HasseltDepartment of Clinical Pharmacology, The Netherlands Cancer Institute, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, jgc.vanhasselt@gmail.com.
Jan H M Schellens
Jos H Beijnen
Alwin D R Huitema

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

purposeRenal impairment (RI) studies are conducted to estimate the impact of RI on pharmacokinetics (PK). In some disease areas, these studies can be difficult to conduct, for instance due to the limited number of eligible patients. The objective of this analysis was to evaluate bias and precision of population PK parameters, and the dose adjustment error (DAE) for RI studies i) with different levels of study design imbalance in the stratification of subjects across RI categories, and ii) that include additional patients in the control arm of RI studies, that may be available from previously conducted PK studies.

methodsStudy designs were simulated and re-estimated using a hypothetical 2-compartmental PK model with varying magnitude of the fraction of renal elimination (FR) and magnitude of between-subject variability (BSV). The DAE was computed based on the difference between the theoretical necessary dose adjustment versus the empirical estimated dose adjustment to reach a similar exposure as controls.

resultsAlthough some design imbalance may still lead to DAEs of acceptable magnitude (DAE < -11.05-14.44 inter-quartile range, IQR), at least some patients are necessary in the more severe RI groups. When 100 additional patients with normal renal function were included in a sub-informative design, the DAE changed from < -7.63-16.64 IQR to < -8.89-8.69 IQR.

conclusionsWe quantified the impact of study design imbalance on bias and precision of PK parameters and DAE, as may occur for RI studies in some indications. Adding additional data from earlier studies to the analysis dataset improves the bias and precision of PK parameters.

Indexed as

Models, BiologicalPharmacokineticsResearch DesignDose-Response Relationship, DrugHumansRenal Insufficiency

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.