Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37644910›Full record

ArticleCPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology2023

Pharmacometrics enhanced Bayesian borrowing approach to improve clinical trial efficiency: Case of empagliflozin in type 2 diabetes.

Lucie Fayette, Martin Oliver Sailer, Alejandro Perez-Pitarch

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
2citing 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

2 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Trial
  2. Article
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

3 authors.

Lucie FayetteBoehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, Ingelheim, Germany.ORCID 0009-0001-0048-5998
Martin Oliver SailerBoehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, Biberach, Germany.
Alejandro Perez-PitarchBoehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, Ingelheim, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

We report use of a pharmacometrics enhanced Bayesian borrowing (PEBB) approach to leverage historical clinical trial data on a drug product to build models, project the outcome of future clinical trials, and borrow information from these projections to improve the efficiency of future target trials. This design takes a two-stage approach. First, a design phase is performed before target trial data are available to determine the operating characteristics and an appropriate tuning parameter that will be used in the subsequent analysis phase of a chosen target trial. Second, once the target trial data are available, the analysis phase is performed with the determined tuning parameter. This step is where borrowing is applied from these projections to inform the results for the target trial. To illustrate how a PEBB could improve the efficiency of clinical trials, we apply our design to trials with empagliflozin for treating patients with type 2 diabetes. We performed a retrospective evaluation applying the method to a phase III target trial and a hypothetical smaller trial. The type I error could be kept below 10% while increasing the trial power and effective sample size. Our findings suggest that a PEBB has the potential to increase the power of clinical trials, while controlling for type I error, by leveraging the information from previous trials through population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling and simulation.

Indexed as

Diabetes Mellitus, Type 2Research DesignBayes TheoremBenzhydryl CompoundsComputer SimulationGlucosidesHumansModels, StatisticalRetrospective StudiesSample SizeBenzhydryl CompoundsempagliflozinGlucosides

Identifiers

PMID37644910
PMCPMC10583245

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.