Cargando…

Improved power for TB Phase IIa trials using a model-based pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic approach compared with commonly used analysis methods

Background: The demand for new anti-TB drugs is high, but development programmes are long and costly. Consequently there is a need for new strategies capable of accelerating this process. Objectives: To explore the power to find statistically significant drug effects using a model-based pharmacokine...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Svensson, Robin J., Gillespie, Stephen H., Simonsson, Ulrika S. H.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: Oxford University Press 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5890728/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28520930
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkx129
_version_ 1783312912726622208
author Svensson, Robin J.
Gillespie, Stephen H.
Simonsson, Ulrika S. H.
author_facet Svensson, Robin J.
Gillespie, Stephen H.
Simonsson, Ulrika S. H.
author_sort Svensson, Robin J.
collection PubMed
description Background: The demand for new anti-TB drugs is high, but development programmes are long and costly. Consequently there is a need for new strategies capable of accelerating this process. Objectives: To explore the power to find statistically significant drug effects using a model-based pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic approach in comparison with the methods commonly used for analysing TB Phase IIa trials. Methods: Phase IIa studies of four hypothetical anti-TB drugs (labelled A, B, C and D), each with a different mechanism of action, were simulated using the multistate TB pharmacometric (MTP) model. cfu data were simulated over 14 days for patients taking once-daily monotherapy at four different doses per drug and a reference (10 mg/kg rifampicin). The simulated data were analysed using t-test, ANOVA, mono- and bi-exponential models and a pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic model approach (MTP model) to establish their respective power to find a drug effect at the 5% significance level. Results: For the pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic model approach, t-test, ANOVA, mono-exponential model and bi-exponential model, the sample sizes needed to achieve 90% power were: 10, 30, 75, 20 and 30 (drug A); 30, 75, 245, 75 and 105 (drug B); 70, >1250, 315, >1250 and >1250 (drug C); and 30, 110, 710, 170 and 185 (drug D), respectively. Conclusions: A model-based design and analysis using a pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic approach can reduce the number of patients required to determine a drug effect at least 2-fold compared with current methodologies. This could significantly accelerate early-phase TB drug development.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-5890728
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher Oxford University Press
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-58907282018-04-13 Improved power for TB Phase IIa trials using a model-based pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic approach compared with commonly used analysis methods Svensson, Robin J. Gillespie, Stephen H. Simonsson, Ulrika S. H. J Antimicrob Chemother Original Research Background: The demand for new anti-TB drugs is high, but development programmes are long and costly. Consequently there is a need for new strategies capable of accelerating this process. Objectives: To explore the power to find statistically significant drug effects using a model-based pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic approach in comparison with the methods commonly used for analysing TB Phase IIa trials. Methods: Phase IIa studies of four hypothetical anti-TB drugs (labelled A, B, C and D), each with a different mechanism of action, were simulated using the multistate TB pharmacometric (MTP) model. cfu data were simulated over 14 days for patients taking once-daily monotherapy at four different doses per drug and a reference (10 mg/kg rifampicin). The simulated data were analysed using t-test, ANOVA, mono- and bi-exponential models and a pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic model approach (MTP model) to establish their respective power to find a drug effect at the 5% significance level. Results: For the pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic model approach, t-test, ANOVA, mono-exponential model and bi-exponential model, the sample sizes needed to achieve 90% power were: 10, 30, 75, 20 and 30 (drug A); 30, 75, 245, 75 and 105 (drug B); 70, >1250, 315, >1250 and >1250 (drug C); and 30, 110, 710, 170 and 185 (drug D), respectively. Conclusions: A model-based design and analysis using a pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic approach can reduce the number of patients required to determine a drug effect at least 2-fold compared with current methodologies. This could significantly accelerate early-phase TB drug development. Oxford University Press 2017-08 2017-05-16 /pmc/articles/PMC5890728/ /pubmed/28520930 http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkx129 Text en © The Author 2017. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Society for Antimicrobial Chemotherapy. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Non-Commercial License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/), which permits non-commercial re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. For commercial re-use, please contact journals.permissions@oup.com
spellingShingle Original Research
Svensson, Robin J.
Gillespie, Stephen H.
Simonsson, Ulrika S. H.
Improved power for TB Phase IIa trials using a model-based pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic approach compared with commonly used analysis methods
title Improved power for TB Phase IIa trials using a model-based pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic approach compared with commonly used analysis methods
title_full Improved power for TB Phase IIa trials using a model-based pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic approach compared with commonly used analysis methods
title_fullStr Improved power for TB Phase IIa trials using a model-based pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic approach compared with commonly used analysis methods
title_full_unstemmed Improved power for TB Phase IIa trials using a model-based pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic approach compared with commonly used analysis methods
title_short Improved power for TB Phase IIa trials using a model-based pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic approach compared with commonly used analysis methods
title_sort improved power for tb phase iia trials using a model-based pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic approach compared with commonly used analysis methods
topic Original Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5890728/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28520930
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jac/dkx129
work_keys_str_mv AT svenssonrobinj improvedpowerfortbphaseiiatrialsusingamodelbasedpharmacokineticpharmacodynamicapproachcomparedwithcommonlyusedanalysismethods
AT gillespiestephenh improvedpowerfortbphaseiiatrialsusingamodelbasedpharmacokineticpharmacodynamicapproachcomparedwithcommonlyusedanalysismethods
AT simonssonulrikash improvedpowerfortbphaseiiatrialsusingamodelbasedpharmacokineticpharmacodynamicapproachcomparedwithcommonlyusedanalysismethods