ArticleJournal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics2020
Evaluation of non-linear-mixed-effect modeling to reduce the sample sizes of pediatric trials in type 2 diabetes mellitus.
Article in Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, 2020. 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.
- Improved Decision-Making Confidence Using Item-Based Pharmacometric Model: Illustration with a Phase II Placebo-Controlled Trial.The AAPS journal · 2021Trial
- Model-Informed Approaches for Pediatric Type 2 Diabetes Evidence Generation: Insights from a Model-Based Longitudinal HbA1c Meta-Analysis from EMA Marketing Authorization Applications.Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics · 2026Article
- Mathematical Modelling for Optimal Vaccine Dose Finding: Maximising Efficacy and Minimising Toxicity.Vaccines · 2022Article
- Developing and Evaluating Behaviour Change Interventions for People with Younger-Onset Type 2 Diabetes: Lessons and Recommendations from Existing Programmes.Current diabetes reports · 2021Review
- Sweet/Fat Preference Taste in Subjects Who are Lean, Obese and Very Obese.Pharmaceutical research · 2020Article
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
Recruitment for pediatric trials in Type II Diabetes Mellitus (T2DM) is very challenging, necessitating the exploration of new approaches for reducing the sample sizes of pediatric trials. This work aimed at assessing if a longitudinal Non-Linear-Mixed-Effect (NLME) analysis of T2DM trial could be more powerful and thus require fewer patients than two standard statistical analyses commonly used as primary or sensitivity efficacy analysis: Last-Observation-Carried-Forward (LOCF) followed by (co)variance (AN(C)OVA) analysis at the evaluation time-point, and Mixed-effects Model Repeated Measures (MMRM) analysis. Standard T2DM efficacy studies were simulated, with glycated hemoglobin (HbA1c) as the main endpoint, 24 weeks' study duration, 2 arms, assuming a placebo and a treatment effect, exploring three different scenarios for the evolution of HbA1c, and accounting for a dropout phenomenon. 1000 trials were simulated, then analyzed using the 3 analyses, whose powers were compared. As expected, the longitudinal modeling MMRM analysis was found to be more powerful than the LOCF + ANOVA analysis at week 24. The NLME analysis gave slightly more accurate drug-effect estimations than the two other methods, however it tended to slightly overestimate the magnitude of the drug effect, and it was more powerful than the MMRM analysis only in some scenarios of slow HbA1c decrease. The gain in power afforded by NLME was more apparent when two additional assessments enriched the design; however, the gain was not systematic for all scenarios. Finally, this work showed that NLME analyses may help to reduce significantly the required sample sizes in T2DM pediatric studies, but only for enriched designs and slow HbA1c decrease.
Indexed as
Identifiers
31907713What 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.