ArticleThe AAPS journal2020
Facilitating Longitudinal Exposure-Response Modeling of a Composite Endpoint Using the Joint Modeling of Sparsely and Frequently Collected Subcomponents.
Article in The AAPS journal, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 3 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
3 citing papers in PubMed.
- Application of Beta-Distribution and Combined Uniform and Binomial Methods in Longitudinal Modeling of Bounded Outcome Score Data.The AAPS journal · 2020Trial
- Indirect modeling of derived outcomes: Are minor prediction discrepancies a cause for concern?CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2024Article
- Improving categorical endpoint longitudinal exposure-response modeling through the joint modeling with a related endpoint.Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Longitudinal exposure-response modeling plays an important role in optimizing dose and dosing regimens in clinical drug development. Certain clinical trials contain induction and maintenance phases where the maintenance treatment depends on the subjects' achieving the main endpoint outcome in the induction phase. Due to logistic difficulties and cost considerations, the main endpoint is usually collected more sparsely than a subcomponent (or other related endpoints). The sparse collection of the main endpoint hampers its longitudinal modeling. In principle, the frequent collection of a subcomponent allows its longitudinal modeling. However, the model evaluation via the visual predictive check (VPC) in the maintenance phase is difficult due to the requirement of the main-endpoint model to identify the treatment subgroups. This manuscript proposes a solution to this dilemma via the joint modeling of the main endpoint and the subcomponent. The challenges are illustrated by analyzing the data collected up to 60 weeks from a phase III trial of ustekinumab in patients with moderate-to-severe ulcerative colitis (UC). The main endpoint Mayo score, a commonly used composite endpoint to measure the severity of UC, was collected only at baseline, the end of the induction phase, and the end of the maintenance phase. The partial Mayo score, which is a major subset of the Mayo score, was collected at nearly every 4 weeks. A longitudinal joint exposure-response model, developed under a latent-variable Indirect Response modeling framework, described the Mayo score time course and facilitated the VPC model evaluation under a response-adaptive trial design.
Indexed as
Identifiers
32700158What 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.