Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41240243›Full record

ArticleJournal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics2025

A note on phase I interleaved versus parallel group ascending dose designs for concentration-QTc analyses.

Günter Heimann, Thomas Dumortier, Karin Meiser

Abstract read
PubMed Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Journal of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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.

Günter HeimannAdvanced Quantitative Sciences / Pharmacometrics, Novartis Pharma AG, Fabrikstrasse 2, Basel, 4002, Switzerland. guenter.heimann@gmx.de.
Thomas DumortierAdvanced Quantitative Sciences / Pharmacometrics, Novartis Pharma AG, Fabrikstrasse 2, Basel, 4002, Switzerland.
Karin MeiserAdvanced Quantitative Sciences / Early Development Analytics, Novartis Pharma AG, Fabrikstrasse 2, Basel, 4002, Switzerland.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

PK-QTc analyses are an integral part of drug development programs. These analyses are often based on phase I study data, and the question may be asked whether the design of these phase I studies has an impact on the precision of the corresponding PK-QT analysis. More precisely, we are interested whether one can increase the power of such analyses when using interleaved ascending dose designs rather than parallel group ascending dose designs. Based on a simulation study, previous authors have concluded that this is the case. Their conclusions, however, are based on assumptions regarding the magnitude of the random effect variances, and on a very specific set-up of their simulation study. In this paper we provide a study re-analysis of historical QTc data. The resulting estimates of these random effect variances are much smaller than those used by the previous authors. We also propose a simulation set-up that adequately mimics the data generation process and the correlation between the primary endpoint change from baseline and the covariate baseline. We present a simulation study using the revised simulation set-up and random effect variances as observed in our study re-analysis. We did not find major differences in power between the different designs when the number of observations is the same. We also provide a justification based on causal analysis why we think our simulation set-up is more adequate for situations when change from baseline is the primary endpoint, specifically when baseline is used as a covariate.

Indexed as

Clinical Trials, Phase I as TopicElectrocardiographyResearch DesignComputer SimulationDose-Response Relationship, DrugHumansClinical trial simulationsConcentration-QTc analysesPhase I study designsPower

Identifiers

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
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.