Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37740206›Full record

ReviewOrphanet journal of rare diseases2023

Innovative thinking of clinical investigation for rare disease drug development.

Peijin Wang, Shein-Chung Chow

Abstract readReview
In one paragraph

Review in Orphanet journal of rare diseases, 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. Article
  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

2 authors.

Peijin WangDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA. pj.wang@duke.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0003-0381-132X
Shein-Chung ChowDepartment of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics, Duke University School of Medicine, Durham, NC, USA.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

For the development of a test treatment or drug product, it is necessary to conduct composite hypothesis testing to test for effectiveness and safety simultaneously, since some approved drug products have been recalled due to safety concerns. One of the major issues in conducting a composite hypothesis testing for effectiveness and safety is the requirement of a huge sample size to achieve the desired power for detecting clinically meaningful differences in both safety and effectiveness. Situation can be much difficult in orphan drug development. In this article, a generalized two-stage innovative approach to test for effectiveness and safety simultaneously is proposed. Additionally, to alleviate the requirement of a large randomized clinical trial (RCT) and revealing effectiveness, real-world data is suggested to use in conjunction with RCT data for orphan drug development. The proposed approach can help investigators test for effectiveness and safety at the same time without worrying about the sample size. It also helps reduce the probability of approving a drug product with safety concerns.

Indexed as

Drug DevelopmentRare DiseasesHumansRandomized Controlled Trials as TopicResearch DesignSample SizeComposite hypothesesDemonstrating effectiveness and safetyOrphan drug developmentReal-world data (RWD)

Identifiers

PMID37740206
PMCPMC10517458

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.