Cargando…
Dose escalations in phase I studies: Feasibility of interpreting blinded pharmacodynamic data
AIMS: During phase I study conduct, blinded data are reviewed to predict the safety of increasing the dose level. The aim of the present study was to describe the probability that effects are observed in blinded evaluations of data in a simulated phase I study design. METHODS: An application was cre...
Autores principales: | , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
John Wiley and Sons Inc.
2022
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9805203/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35895751 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bcp.15473 |
_version_ | 1784862289943330816 |
---|---|
author | Hassing, Gerardus J. van Esdonk, Michiel J. van Westen, Gerard J. P. Cohen, Adam F. Burggraaf, Jacobus Gal, Pim |
author_facet | Hassing, Gerardus J. van Esdonk, Michiel J. van Westen, Gerard J. P. Cohen, Adam F. Burggraaf, Jacobus Gal, Pim |
author_sort | Hassing, Gerardus J. |
collection | PubMed |
description | AIMS: During phase I study conduct, blinded data are reviewed to predict the safety of increasing the dose level. The aim of the present study was to describe the probability that effects are observed in blinded evaluations of data in a simulated phase I study design. METHODS: An application was created to simulate blinded pharmacological response curves over time for 6 common safety/efficacy measurements in phase I studies for 1 or 2 cohorts (6 active, 2 placebo per cohort). Effect sizes between 0 and 3 between‐measurement standard deviations (SDs) were simulated. Each set of simulated graphs contained the individual response and mean ± SD over time. Reviewers (n = 34) reviewed a median of 100 simulated datasets and indicated whether an effect was present. RESULTS: Increasing effect sizes resulted in a higher chance of the effect being identified by the blinded reviewer. On average, 6% of effect sizes of 0.5 between‐measurement SD were correctly identified, increasing to 72% in 3.0 between‐measurement SD effect sizes. In contrast, on average 92–95% of simulations with no effect were correctly identified, with little effect of between‐measurement variability in single cohort simulations. Adding a dataset of a second cohort at half the simulated dose did not appear to improve the interpretation. CONCLUSION: Our analysis showed that effect sizes <2× the between‐measurement SD of the investigated outcome frequently go unnoticed by blinded reviewers, indicating that the weight given to these blinded analyses in current phase I practice is inappropriate and should be re‐evaluated. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-9805203 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2022 |
publisher | John Wiley and Sons Inc. |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-98052032023-01-06 Dose escalations in phase I studies: Feasibility of interpreting blinded pharmacodynamic data Hassing, Gerardus J. van Esdonk, Michiel J. van Westen, Gerard J. P. Cohen, Adam F. Burggraaf, Jacobus Gal, Pim Br J Clin Pharmacol Original Articles AIMS: During phase I study conduct, blinded data are reviewed to predict the safety of increasing the dose level. The aim of the present study was to describe the probability that effects are observed in blinded evaluations of data in a simulated phase I study design. METHODS: An application was created to simulate blinded pharmacological response curves over time for 6 common safety/efficacy measurements in phase I studies for 1 or 2 cohorts (6 active, 2 placebo per cohort). Effect sizes between 0 and 3 between‐measurement standard deviations (SDs) were simulated. Each set of simulated graphs contained the individual response and mean ± SD over time. Reviewers (n = 34) reviewed a median of 100 simulated datasets and indicated whether an effect was present. RESULTS: Increasing effect sizes resulted in a higher chance of the effect being identified by the blinded reviewer. On average, 6% of effect sizes of 0.5 between‐measurement SD were correctly identified, increasing to 72% in 3.0 between‐measurement SD effect sizes. In contrast, on average 92–95% of simulations with no effect were correctly identified, with little effect of between‐measurement variability in single cohort simulations. Adding a dataset of a second cohort at half the simulated dose did not appear to improve the interpretation. CONCLUSION: Our analysis showed that effect sizes <2× the between‐measurement SD of the investigated outcome frequently go unnoticed by blinded reviewers, indicating that the weight given to these blinded analyses in current phase I practice is inappropriate and should be re‐evaluated. John Wiley and Sons Inc. 2022-08-12 2022-12 /pmc/articles/PMC9805203/ /pubmed/35895751 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bcp.15473 Text en © 2022 The Authors. British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd on behalf of British Pharmacological Society. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/This is an open access article under the terms of the http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/) License, which permits use, distribution and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited and is not used for commercial purposes. |
spellingShingle | Original Articles Hassing, Gerardus J. van Esdonk, Michiel J. van Westen, Gerard J. P. Cohen, Adam F. Burggraaf, Jacobus Gal, Pim Dose escalations in phase I studies: Feasibility of interpreting blinded pharmacodynamic data |
title | Dose escalations in phase I studies: Feasibility of interpreting blinded pharmacodynamic data |
title_full | Dose escalations in phase I studies: Feasibility of interpreting blinded pharmacodynamic data |
title_fullStr | Dose escalations in phase I studies: Feasibility of interpreting blinded pharmacodynamic data |
title_full_unstemmed | Dose escalations in phase I studies: Feasibility of interpreting blinded pharmacodynamic data |
title_short | Dose escalations in phase I studies: Feasibility of interpreting blinded pharmacodynamic data |
title_sort | dose escalations in phase i studies: feasibility of interpreting blinded pharmacodynamic data |
topic | Original Articles |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9805203/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35895751 http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/bcp.15473 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT hassinggerardusj doseescalationsinphaseistudiesfeasibilityofinterpretingblindedpharmacodynamicdata AT vanesdonkmichielj doseescalationsinphaseistudiesfeasibilityofinterpretingblindedpharmacodynamicdata AT vanwestengerardjp doseescalationsinphaseistudiesfeasibilityofinterpretingblindedpharmacodynamicdata AT cohenadamf doseescalationsinphaseistudiesfeasibilityofinterpretingblindedpharmacodynamicdata AT burggraafjacobus doseescalationsinphaseistudiesfeasibilityofinterpretingblindedpharmacodynamicdata AT galpim doseescalationsinphaseistudiesfeasibilityofinterpretingblindedpharmacodynamicdata |