ArticleJournal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics2017
The effect of using a robust optimality criterion in model based adaptive optimization.
Article in Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, 2017. 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.
- Optimizing the design of a pharmacokinetic trial to evaluate the dosing scheme of a novel tuberculosis drug in children living with or without HIV.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2024Article
- Statistical recommendations for count, binary, and ordinal data in rare disease cross-over trials.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2023Article
- Reduced and optimized trial designs for drugs described by a target mediated drug disposition model.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2018Article
- Lessons learned from IDeAl - 33 recommendations from the IDeAl-net about design and analysis of small population clinical trials.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2018Review
- Feasibility of Exposure-Response Analyses for Clinical Dose-Ranging Studies of Drug Combinations.The AAPS journal · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Optimizing designs using robust (global) optimality criteria has been shown to be a more flexible approach compared to using local optimality criteria. Additionally, model based adaptive optimal design (MBAOD) may be less sensitive to misspecification in the prior information available at the design stage. In this work, we investigate the influence of using a local (lnD) or a robust (ELD) optimality criterion for a MBAOD of a simulated dose optimization study, for rich and sparse sampling schedules. A stopping criterion for accurate effect prediction is constructed to determine the endpoint of the MBAOD by minimizing the expected uncertainty in the effect response of the typical individual. 50 iterations of the MBAODs were run using the MBAOD R-package, with the concentration from a one-compartment first-order absorption pharmacokinetic model driving the population effect response in a sigmoidal EMAX pharmacodynamics model. The initial cohort consisted of eight individuals in two groups and each additional cohort added two individuals receiving a dose optimized as a discrete covariate. The MBAOD designs using lnD and ELD optimality with misspecified initial model parameters were compared by evaluating the efficiency relative to an lnD-optimal design based on the true parameter values. For the explored example model, the MBAOD using ELD-optimal designs converged quicker to the theoretically optimal lnD-optimal design based on the true parameters for both sampling schedules. Thus, using a robust optimality criterion in MBAODs could reduce the number of adaptations required and improve the practicality of adaptive trials using optimal design.
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.