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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Hassing, Gerardus J., van Esdonk, Michiel J., van Westen, Gerard J. P., Cohen, Adam F., Burggraaf, Jacobus, Gal, Pim
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