ArticleCPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology2024
Power to identify exposure-response relationships in phase IIa pulmonary tuberculosis trials with multi-dimensional bacterial load modeling.
Article in CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
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
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Power to identify exposure-response relationships in phase IIa pulmonary tuberculosis trials with multi-dimensional bacterial load modeling.CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology · 2024Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Adequate power to identify an exposure-response relationship in a phase IIa clinical trial for pulmonary tuberculosis (TB) is important for dose selection and design of follow-up studies. Currently, it is not known what response marker provides the pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) model more power to identify an exposure-response relationship. We simulated colony-forming units (CFU) and time-to-positivity (TTP) measurements for four hypothetical drugs with different activity profiles for 14 days. The power to identify exposure-response relationships when analyzing CFU, TTP, or combined CFU + TTP data was determined at 60 total participants, or with 25 out of 60 participants in the lowest and highest dosing groups (unbalanced design). For drugs with moderate bactericidal activity, power was low (<59%), irrespective of the data analyzed. Power was 1.9% to 29.4% higher when analyzing TTP data compared to CFU data. Combined analysis of CFU and TTP further improved the power, on average by 4.2%. For a drug with a medium-high activity, the total sample size needed to achieve 80% power was 136 for CFU, 72 for TTP, and 68 for combined CFU + TTP data. The unbalanced design improved the power by 16% over the balanced design. In conclusion, the power to identify an exposure-response relationship is low for TB drugs with moderate bactericidal activity or with a slow onset of activity. TTP provides the PK-PD model with more power to identify exposure-response relationships compared to CFU, and combined analysis or an unbalanced dosing group study design offers modest further improvement.
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.