Cargando…

Model‐Based Assessment of Alternative Study Designs in Pediatric Trials. Part II: Bayesian Approaches

This study presents a pharmacokinetic‐pharmacodynamic based clinical trial simulation framework for evaluating the performance of a fixed‐sample Bayesian design (BD) and two alternative Bayesian sequential designs (BSDs) (i.e., a non‐hierarchical (NON‐H) and a semi‐hierarchical (SEMI‐H) one). Prior...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Smania, G, Baiardi, P, Ceci, A, Cella, M, Magni, P
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4999603/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27530374
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/psp4.12092
_version_ 1782450151641579520
author Smania, G
Baiardi, P
Ceci, A
Cella, M
Magni, P
author_facet Smania, G
Baiardi, P
Ceci, A
Cella, M
Magni, P
author_sort Smania, G
collection PubMed
description This study presents a pharmacokinetic‐pharmacodynamic based clinical trial simulation framework for evaluating the performance of a fixed‐sample Bayesian design (BD) and two alternative Bayesian sequential designs (BSDs) (i.e., a non‐hierarchical (NON‐H) and a semi‐hierarchical (SEMI‐H) one). Prior information was elicited from adult trials and weighted based on the expected similarity of response to treatment between the pediatric and adult populations. Study designs were evaluated in terms of: type I and II errors, sample size per arm (SS), trial duration (TD), and estimate precision. No substantial differences were observed between NON‐H and SEMI‐H. BSDs require, on average, smaller SS and TD compared to the BD, which, on the other hand, guarantees higher estimate precision. When large differences between children and adults are expected, BSDs can return very large SS. Bayesian approaches appear to outperform their frequentist counterparts in the design of pediatric trials even when little weight is given to prior information from adults.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4999603
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher John Wiley and Sons Inc.
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-49996032016-09-07 Model‐Based Assessment of Alternative Study Designs in Pediatric Trials. Part II: Bayesian Approaches Smania, G Baiardi, P Ceci, A Cella, M Magni, P CPT Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol Original Articles This study presents a pharmacokinetic‐pharmacodynamic based clinical trial simulation framework for evaluating the performance of a fixed‐sample Bayesian design (BD) and two alternative Bayesian sequential designs (BSDs) (i.e., a non‐hierarchical (NON‐H) and a semi‐hierarchical (SEMI‐H) one). Prior information was elicited from adult trials and weighted based on the expected similarity of response to treatment between the pediatric and adult populations. Study designs were evaluated in terms of: type I and II errors, sample size per arm (SS), trial duration (TD), and estimate precision. No substantial differences were observed between NON‐H and SEMI‐H. BSDs require, on average, smaller SS and TD compared to the BD, which, on the other hand, guarantees higher estimate precision. When large differences between children and adults are expected, BSDs can return very large SS. Bayesian approaches appear to outperform their frequentist counterparts in the design of pediatric trials even when little weight is given to prior information from adults. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2016-08-17 2016-08 /pmc/articles/PMC4999603/ /pubmed/27530374 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/psp4.12092 Text en © 2016 The Authors CPT: Pharmacometrics & Systems Pharmacology published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc. on behalf of American Society for Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics This is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution‐NonCommercial‐NoDerivs (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/) License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non‐commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.
spellingShingle Original Articles
Smania, G
Baiardi, P
Ceci, A
Cella, M
Magni, P
Model‐Based Assessment of Alternative Study Designs in Pediatric Trials. Part II: Bayesian Approaches
title Model‐Based Assessment of Alternative Study Designs in Pediatric Trials. Part II: Bayesian Approaches
title_full Model‐Based Assessment of Alternative Study Designs in Pediatric Trials. Part II: Bayesian Approaches
title_fullStr Model‐Based Assessment of Alternative Study Designs in Pediatric Trials. Part II: Bayesian Approaches
title_full_unstemmed Model‐Based Assessment of Alternative Study Designs in Pediatric Trials. Part II: Bayesian Approaches
title_short Model‐Based Assessment of Alternative Study Designs in Pediatric Trials. Part II: Bayesian Approaches
title_sort model‐based assessment of alternative study designs in pediatric trials. part ii: bayesian approaches
topic Original Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4999603/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27530374
http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/psp4.12092
work_keys_str_mv AT smaniag modelbasedassessmentofalternativestudydesignsinpediatrictrialspartiibayesianapproaches
AT baiardip modelbasedassessmentofalternativestudydesignsinpediatrictrialspartiibayesianapproaches
AT cecia modelbasedassessmentofalternativestudydesignsinpediatrictrialspartiibayesianapproaches
AT cellam modelbasedassessmentofalternativestudydesignsinpediatrictrialspartiibayesianapproaches
AT magnip modelbasedassessmentofalternativestudydesignsinpediatrictrialspartiibayesianapproaches