SynthesisCPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology2016
Cardiovascular Safety Assessment in Early-Phase Clinical Studies: A Meta-Analytical Comparison of Exposure-Response Models.
Synthesis in CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Applications of Model-Based Meta-Analysis in Drug Development.Pharmaceutical research · 2022Pooled it
- Dose-Response Mixed Models for Repeated Measures - a New Method for Assessment of Dose-Response.Pharmaceutical research · 2020Article
- Models of Variability and Circadian Rhythm in Heart Rate, Blood Pressure, and QT Interval for Healthy Subjects Who Received Placebo in Phase I Trials.Clinical and translational science · 2019Article
- Dopamine Transporter Neuroimaging as an Enrichment Biomarker in Early Parkinson's Disease Clinical Trials: A Disease Progression Modeling Analysis.Clinical and translational science · 2018Article
- Evaluating cardiac risk: exposure response analysis in early clinical drug development.Drug, healthcare and patient safety · 2018Review
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
Exposure-response analysis of QT interval in clinical studies has been proposed as a thorough QT study alternative. Many exposure-response model structures have been proposed for cardiovascular (CV) safety markers, but few studies have compared models across multiple drugs. To recommend preferred drug-effect exposure-response models on vital signs and electrocardiogram (ECG) intervals, an individual-level model-based meta-analysis (39 studies and 1,291 subjects) compared 90 model structures. Models were selected to describe the data and cross-validate studies on the same drug. The most commonly selected baseline model was an unstructured model (estimation of a value at each study nominal time) for all measures but blood pressure. The unstructured model estimated a better cross-validated drug-effect when considering all markers. A linear model was the most commonly selected to characterize drug-effect on all markers. We propose these models as a starting point assisting with CV safety exposure-response assessment in nondedicated small studies with healthy subjects.
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.