Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28722322›Full record

ArticleCPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology2017

Advanced Methods for Dose and Regimen Finding During Drug Development: Summary of the EMA/EFPIA Workshop on Dose Finding (London 4-5 December 2014).

F T Musuamba, E Manolis, N Holford, Sya Cheung, L E Friberg, K Ogungbenro, M Posch, Jwt Yates, S Berry, N Thomas and 18 more

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
36citing 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

36 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Trial
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Design, synthesis, and biochemical and computational screening of novel oxindole derivatives as inhibitors of Aurora A kinase and SARS-CoV-2 spike/host ACE2 interaction.Medicinal chemistry research : an international journal for rapid communications on design and mechanisms of action of biologically active agents · 2024
    Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Review
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. The Immunopathobiology of SARS-CoV-2 Infection.FEMS microbiology reviews · 2021
    Article
  19. A framework to guide dose & regimen strategy for clinical drug development.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2021
    Article
  20. Analysis of COVID-19 vaccines: Types, thoughts, and application.Journal of clinical laboratory analysis · 2021
    Review
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

28 authors.

F T MusuambaEMA Modelling and Simulation Working Group, London, UK.
E ManolisEMA Modelling and Simulation Working Group, London, UK.
N HolfordDepartment of Pharmacology & Clinical Pharmacology, University of Auckland, Auckland, New Zealand.
Sya CheungAstraZeneca UK Limited, London, UK.
L E FribergUppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
K OgungbenroManchester University, Manchester, UK.
M PoschCenter for Medical Statistics, Informatics and Intelligent Systems, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
Jwt YatesAstraZeneca UK Limited, London, UK.
S BerryBerry consultants, Austin, Texas, USA.
N ThomasPfizer, London, UK.
S Corriol-RohouAstraZeneca UK Limited, London, UK.
B BornkampNovartis, London, UK.
F BretzCenter for Medical Statistics, Informatics and Intelligent Systems, Medical University of Vienna, Vienna, Austria.
A C HookerUppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden.
P H Van der GraafLeiden Academic Centre for Drug Research, Leiden, The Netherlands.
J F StandingEMA Modelling and Simulation Working Group, London, UK.
J HayEMA Modelling and Simulation Working Group, London, UK.
S ColeEMA Modelling and Simulation Working Group, London, UK.
V GiganteEMA Modelling and Simulation Working Group, London, UK.
K KarlssonEMA Modelling and Simulation Working Group, London, UK.
T DumortierNovartis, London, UK.
N BendaEMA Modelling and Simulation Working Group, London, UK.
F SeroneEMA Modelling and Simulation Working Group, London, UK.
S DasAstraZeneca UK Limited, London, UK.
A BrochotABLYNX, Gent, Belgium.
F EhmannEuropean Medicines Agency, London, UK.
R HemmingsMedicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, London, UK.
I Skottheim RustenEMA Modelling and Simulation Working Group, London, UK.

Funding

Medical Research Council MR/M008665/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Inadequate dose selection for confirmatory trials is currently still one of the most challenging issues in drug development, as illustrated by high rates of late-stage attritions in clinical development and postmarketing commitments required by regulatory institutions. In an effort to shift the current paradigm in dose and regimen selection and highlight the availability and usefulness of well-established and regulatory-acceptable methods, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in collaboration with the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries Association (EFPIA) hosted a multistakeholder workshop on dose finding (London 4-5 December 2014). Some methodologies that could constitute a toolkit for drug developers and regulators were presented. These methods are described in the present report: they include five advanced methods for data analysis (empirical regression models, pharmacometrics models, quantitative systems pharmacology models, MCP-Mod, and model averaging) and three methods for study design optimization (Fisher information matrix (FIM)-based methods, clinical trial simulations, and adaptive studies). Pairwise comparisons were also discussed during the workshop; however, mostly for historical reasons. This paper discusses the added value and limitations of these methods as well as challenges for their implementation. Some applications in different therapeutic areas are also summarized, in line with the discussions at the workshop. There was agreement at the workshop on the fact that selection of dose for phase III is an estimation problem and should not be addressed via hypothesis testing. Dose selection for phase III trials should be informed by well-designed dose-finding studies; however, the specific choice of method(s) will depend on several aspects and it is not possible to recommend a generalized decision tree. There are many valuable methods available, the methods are not mutually exclusive, and they should be used in conjunction to ensure a scientifically rigorous understanding of the dosing rationale.

Indexed as

Dose-Response Relationship, DrugDrug DiscoveryModels, TheoreticalAnimalsClinical Trials as TopicHumansPharmaceutical PreparationsResearch DesignPharmaceutical Preparations

Identifiers

PMID28722322
PMCPMC5529745

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
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.