ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2018
Overall success rate of a safe and efficacious drug: Results using six phase 1 designs, each followed by standard phase 2 and 3 designs.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 6 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
6 citing papers in PubMed.
- Targeting oral squamous cell carcinoma with venom peptides: mechanisms, selectivity and translational potential.The protein journal · 2026Review
- Phase I clinical trial designs in oncology: A systematic literature review from 2020 to 2022.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2024Article
- An overview of the BOIN design and its current extensions for novel early-phase oncology trials.Contemporary clinical trials communications · 2022Review
- A comparative study of Bayesian optimal interval (BOIN) design with interval 3+3 (i3+3) design for phase I oncology dose-finding trials.Statistics in biopharmaceutical research · 2021Article
- Practical considerations for the implementation of adaptive designs for oncology Phase I dose-finding trials.Future drug discovery · 2019Review
- Model-Assisted Designs for Early-Phase Clinical Trials: Simplicity Meets Superiority.JCO precision oncology · 2019Review
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
To evaluate the overall success rate of a new drug, phase 1, 2, and 3 trials were simulated using eight toxicity and two non-decreasing efficacy profiles. Six phase 1 designs including the standard 3 + 3, CCD, BOIN, mTPI, mTPI-2, and CRM were considered with standard phase 2 and 3 designs. Based on our results, phase 1 design recommendations are provided when data informing the general shape of the dose-toxicity curve exist. If a large jump in toxicity between dose levels is expected, the standard 3 + 3 design is recommended; it more often recognized when the MTD was exceeded and had the highest overall success rates. If gradually increasing toxicity is expected, a nonstandard design other than the CRM is recommended. Nonstandard designs were more aggressive in dosing and MTD estimation than the standard 3 + 3 and had higher overall success rates, but the CRM was too aggressive and most frequently overestimated the true MTD. If fairly constant, safe toxicity is expected across dose levels, the BOIN or CRM designs are recommended; they escalated to the highest dose most frequently with superior overall success rates. Without data informing the shape of the dose-toxicity curve, nonstandard phase 1 designs with a modified excessive toxicity rule more easily eliminating unsafe dose levels are recommended. With this modification, MTD overestimation error decreased and overall success rates were similar or higher with nonstandard designs. Among nonstandard designs, the modified CCD and BOIN perform well and are as transparent and simple to implement as the standard 3 + 3 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.