ArticleOrphanet journal of rare diseases2018
Applicability and added value of novel methods to improve drug development in rare diseases.
Article in Orphanet journal of rare diseases, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 10 papers, 2 of them syntheses 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
10 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Bayesian Approaches for Confirmatory Trials in Rare Diseases: Opportunities and Challenges.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021Pooled it
- Systematic review of statistical methods for safety data in malaria chemoprevention in pregnancy trials.Malaria journal · 2020Pooled it
- Trial
- TRUST4RD: tool for reducing uncertainties in the evidence generation for specialised treatments for rare diseases.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2020Trial
- Regulatory Convergence in Cell and Gene Therapy: Harmonizing Quality, CMC, and Approval Pathways Across the FDA, EMA, PMDA, and Emerging Markets.Biotech (Basel (Switzerland)) · 2026Review
- Innovative methodologies for rare diseases clinical trials.Orphanet journal of rare diseases · 2024Article
- Designs used in published therapeutic studies of rare superficial vascular anomalies: a systematic literature search.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Review
- How are health technology assessment bodies responding to the assessment challenges posed by cell and gene therapy?BMC health services research · 2023Review
- Study design challenges and strategies in clinical trials for rare diseases: Lessons learned from pantothenate kinase-associated neurodegeneration.Frontiers in neurology · 2023Review
- N-of-1 Trials in Pediatric Oncology: From a Population-Based Approach to Personalized Medicine-A Review.Cancers · 2021Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
18 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundThe ASTERIX project developed a number of novel methods suited to study small populations. The objective of this exercise was to evaluate the applicability and added value of novel methods to improve drug development in small populations, using real world drug development programmes as reported in European Public Assessment Reports.
methodsThe applicability and added value of thirteen novel methods developed within ASTERIX were evaluated using data from 26 European Public Assessment Reports (EPARs) for orphan medicinal products, representative of rare medical conditions as predefined through six clusters. The novel methods included were 'innovative trial designs' (six methods), 'level of evidence' (one method), 'study endpoints and statistical analysis' (four methods), and 'meta-analysis' (two methods) and they were selected from the methods developed within ASTERIX based on their novelty; methods that discussed already available and applied strategies were not included for the purpose of this validation exercise. Pre-requisites for application in a study were systematized for each method, and for each main study in the selected EPARs it was assessed if all pre-requisites were met. This direct applicability using the actual study design was firstly assessed. Secondary, applicability and added value were explored allowing changes to study objectives and design, but without deviating from the context of the drug development plan. We evaluated whether differences in applicability and added value could be observed between the six predefined condition clusters. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION: Direct applicability of novel methods appeared to be limited to specific selected cases. The applicability and added value of novel methods increased substantially when changes to the study setting within the context of drug development were allowed. In this setting, novel methods for extrapolation, sample size re-assessment, multi-armed trials, optimal sequential design for small sample sizes, Bayesian sample size re-estimation, dynamic borrowing through power priors and fall-back tests for co-primary endpoints showed most promise - applicable in more than 40% of evaluated EPARs in all clusters. Most of the novel methods were applicable to conditions in the cluster of chronic and progressive conditions, involving multiple systems/organs. Relatively fewer methods were applicable to acute conditions with single episodes. For the chronic clusters, Goal Attainment Scaling was found to be particularly applicable as opposed to other (non-chronic) clusters.
conclusionNovel methods as developed in ASTERIX can improve drug development programs. Achieving optimal added value of these novel methods often requires consideration of the entire drug development program, rather than reconsideration of methods for a specific trial. The novel methods tested were mostly applicable in chronic conditions, and acute conditions with recurrent episodes.
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.