Volume 33, Issue 10
Research Article

Model‐based dose finding under model uncertainty using general parametric models

José Pinheiro

Janssen Research & Development, Raritan, NJ, USA

Search for more papers by this author
Björn Bornkamp

Corresponding Author

Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland

Correspondence to: Björn Bornkamp, Novartis Pharma AG, CH‐4002 Basel, Switzerland

E‐mail: bjoern.bornkamp@novartis.com

Search for more papers by this author
Ekkehard Glimm

Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland

Search for more papers by this author
Frank Bretz

Novartis Pharma AG, Basel, Switzerland

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 03 December 2013
Citations: 51

Abstract

The statistical methodology for the design and analysis of clinical Phase II dose‐response studies, with related software implementation, is well developed for the case of a normally distributed, homoscedastic response considered for a single timepoint in parallel group study designs. In practice, however, binary, count, or time‐to‐event endpoints are encountered, typically measured repeatedly over time and sometimes in more complex settings like crossover study designs. In this paper, we develop an overarching methodology to perform efficient multiple comparisons and modeling for dose finding, under uncertainty about the dose‐response shape, using general parametric models. The framework described here is quite broad and can be utilized in situations involving for example generalized nonlinear models, linear and nonlinear mixed effects models, Cox proportional hazards models, with the main restriction being that a univariate dose‐response relationship is modeled, that is, both dose and response correspond to univariate measurements. In addition to the core framework, we also develop a general purpose methodology to fit dose‐response data in a computationally and statistically efficient way. Several examples illustrate the breadth of applicability of the results. For the analyses, we developed the R add‐on package DoseFinding, which provides a convenient interface to the general approach adopted here. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Number of times cited according to CrossRef: 51

  • Daridorexant, a New Dual Orexin Receptor Antagonist to Treat Insomnia Disorder, Annals of Neurology, 10.1002/ana.25680, 87, 3, (347-356), (2020).
  • Model Averaging in Viral Dynamic Models, The AAPS Journal, 10.1208/s12248-020-0426-7, 22, 2, (2020).
  • Effects of the dual sodium–glucose linked transporter inhibitor, licogliflozin vs placebo or empagliflozin in patients with type 2 diabetes and heart failure, British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology, 10.1111/bcp.14248, 86, 7, (1346-1356), (2020).
  • Dose‐dependent reduction in body weight with LIK066 (licogliflozin) treatment in Japanese patients with obesity, Diabetes, Obesity and Metabolism, 10.1111/dom.14006, 22, 7, (1102-1110), (2020).
  • Licogliflozin, a Novel SGLT1 and 2 Inhibitor: Body Weight Effects in a Randomized Trial in Adults with Overweight or Obesity, Obesity, 10.1002/oby.22764, 28, 5, (870-881), (2020).
  • Statistical considerations on implementing the MCP-Mod method for binary endpoints in clinical trials, Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications, 10.1016/j.conctc.2020.100641, (100641), (2020).
  • Randomized Dose-Response Study of the New Dual Endothelin Receptor Antagonist Aprocitentan in Hypertension, Hypertension, 10.1161/HYPERTENSIONAHA.119.14504, (2020).
  • Motor Imagery Training During Arm Immobilization Prevents Corticomotor Idling: An EEG Resting-State Analysis, Brain Topography, 10.1007/s10548-020-00763-8, (2020).
  • Design optimization for dose-finding trials: a review, Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 10.1080/10543406.2020.1730874, (1-12), (2020).
  • Efficient adaptive designs for clinical trials of interventions for COVID-19, Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research, 10.1080/19466315.2020.1790415, (1-26), (2020).
  • Sample Size Allocation in Multiregional Dose-Finding Study Using MCP-Mod, Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research, 10.1080/19466315.2020.1752298, (1-10), (2020).
  • Generalized multiple contrast tests in dose‐response studies, Statistics in Medicine, 10.1002/sim.8444, 39, 6, (757-772), (2019).
  • A multiple comparison procedure for dose‐finding trials with subpopulations, Biometrical Journal, 10.1002/bimj.201800111, 62, 1, (53-68), (2019).
  • Ligelizumab for Chronic Spontaneous Urticaria, New England Journal of Medicine, 10.1056/NEJMoa1900408, 381, 14, (1321-1332), (2019).
  • Study design aspects and inter‐subject variability in longitudinal clinical phase II dose‐finding trials, Pharmaceutical Statistics, 10.1002/pst.1921, 18, 2, (248-259), (2019).
  • Effect of Neladenoson Bialanate on Exercise Capacity Among Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction, JAMA, 10.1001/jama.2019.6717, 321, 21, (2101), (2019).
  • New Insights in Computational Methods for Pharmacovigilance: E-Synthesis, a Bayesian Framework for Causal Assessment, International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 10.3390/ijerph16122221, 16, 12, (2221), (2019).
  • In Vivo Assessment of Antibody-Dependent Enhancement of Influenza B Infection, Toxicological Sciences, 10.1093/toxsci/kfz053, (2019).
  • Robust designs in longitudinal studies accounting for parameter and model uncertainties – application to count data, Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 10.1080/10543406.2019.1607367, (1-15), (2019).
  • Power and sample size for dose‐finding studies with survival endpoints under model uncertainty, Biometrics, 10.1111/biom.12968, 75, 1, (308-314), (2018).
  • Comparison of different approaches for dose response analysis, Biometrical Journal, 10.1002/bimj.201700276, 61, 1, (83-100), (2018).
  • BMA‐Mod: A Bayesian model averaging strategy for determining dose‐response relationships in the presence of model uncertainty, Biometrical Journal, 10.1002/bimj.201700211, 61, 5, (1141-1159), (2018).
  • Pan-Cancer Metabolic Signature Predicts Co-Dependency on Glutaminase and De Novo Glutathione Synthesis Linked to a High-Mesenchymal Cell State, Cell Metabolism, 10.1016/j.cmet.2018.06.003, 28, 3, (383-399.e9), (2018).
  • Comparison of Model Averaging and Model Selection in Dose Finding Trials Analyzed by Nonlinear Mixed Effect Models, The AAPS Journal, 10.1208/s12248-018-0205-x, 20, 3, (2018).
  • PFIM 4.0, an extended R program for design evaluation and optimization in nonlinear mixed-effect models, Computer Methods and Programs in Biomedicine, 10.1016/j.cmpb.2018.01.008, 156, (217-229), (2018).
  • Key Aspects of Modern, Quantitative Drug Development, Statistics in Biosciences, 10.1007/s12561-017-9203-2, 10, 2, (283-296), (2018).
  • A proposal for a new PhD level curriculum on quantitative methods for drug development, Pharmaceutical Statistics, 10.1002/pst.1873, 17, 5, (593-606), (2018).
  • Bayesian learning of dose–response parameters from a cohort under response-guided dosing, European Journal of Operational Research, 10.1016/j.ejor.2017.07.034, 265, 1, (328-343), (2018).
  • Anatomic and Biomechanical Comparison of the Classic and Congruent-Arc Techniques of the Latarjet Procedure, The American Journal of Sports Medicine, 10.1177/0363546516685318, 45, 6, (1252-1260), (2017).
  • A Simple and Efficient Statistical Approach for Designing an Early Phase II Clinical Trial: Ordinal Linear Contrast Test, New Advances in Statistics and Data Science, 10.1007/978-3-319-69416-0_11, (179-196), (2017).
  • Dose Titration Algorithm Tuning (DTAT) should supersede ‘the’ Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD) in oncology dose-finding trials, F1000Research, 10.12688/f1000research.10624.2, 6, (112), (2017).
  • A rule-based, dose-finding design for use in stroke rehabilitation research: methodological development, Physiotherapy, 10.1016/j.physio.2016.10.393, 103, 4, (414-422), (2017).
  • Dose-ranging design and analysis methods to identify the minimum effective dose (MED), Contemporary Clinical Trials, 10.1016/j.cct.2017.08.005, 63, (59-66), (2017).
  • Model selection and averaging of nonlinear mixed-effect models for robust phase III dose selection, Journal of Pharmacokinetics and Pharmacodynamics, 10.1007/s10928-017-9550-0, 44, 6, (581-597), (2017).
  • Dose Titration Algorithm Tuning (DTAT) should supersede the Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD) concept in oncology dose-finding trials, F1000Research, 10.12688/f1000research.10624.1, 6, (112), (2017).
  • Dose Titration Algorithm Tuning (DTAT) should supersede ‘the’ Maximum Tolerated Dose (MTD) in oncology dose-finding trials, F1000Research, 10.12688/f1000research.10624.3, 6, (112), (2017).
  • Understanding MCP‐MOD dose finding as a method based on linear regression, Statistics in Medicine, 10.1002/sim.7424, 36, 27, (4401-4413), (2017).
  • Bayesian penalized log-likelihood ratio approach for dose response clinical trial studies, Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 10.1080/10543406.2017.1293081, 27, 6, (975-989), (2017).
  • Split-Plot and Multi-Stratum Designs for Statistical Inference, Technometrics, 10.1080/00401706.2017.1316315, 59, 4, (446-457), (2017).
  • Likelihood ratio tests for a dose‐response effect using multiple nonlinear regression models, Biometrics, 10.1111/biom.12563, 73, 1, (197-205), (2016).
  • Analysis of Clinical Dose–Response in Small-Molecule Drug Development: 2009–2014, Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research, 10.1080/19466315.2016.1256229, 9, 2, (137-146), (2016).
  • The multiple sclerosis susceptibility genes TAGAP and IL2RA are regulated by vitamin D in CD4+ T cells, Genes & Immunity, 10.1038/gene.2015.61, 17, 2, (118-127), (2016).
  • Effect of Irradiation on Tumor Microenvironment and Bone Marrow Cell Migration in a Preclinical Tumor Model, International Journal of Radiation Oncology*Biology*Physics, 10.1016/j.ijrobp.2016.04.028, 96, 1, (170-178), (2016).
  • Multiple comparison procedure and modeling: a versatile tool for evaluating dose–response relationships in veterinary pharmacology – a case study with furosemide, Journal of Veterinary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, 10.1111/jvp.12313, 39, 6, (539-546), (2016).
  • Model selection versus model averaging in dose finding studies, Statistics in Medicine, 10.1002/sim.6991, 35, 22, (4021-4040), (2016).
  • The Evolution of Clinical Development: From Technical Success to Clinical Value Creation, Value Creation in the Pharmaceutical Industry, 10.1002/9783527693405, (202-223), (2016).
  • Dose response signal detection under model uncertainty, Biometrics, 10.1111/biom.12357, 71, 4, (996-1008), (2015).
  • Translational Science Biostatistics, Principles of Translational Science in Medicine, 10.1016/B978-0-12-800687-0.00029-3, (267-280), (2015).
  • Characterization of dose‐response for count data using a generalized MCP‐Mod approach in an adaptive dose‐ranging trial, Pharmaceutical Statistics, 10.1002/pst.1693, 14, 4, (359-367), (2015).
  • Viewpoint: model selection uncertainty, pre‐specification, and model averaging, Pharmaceutical Statistics, 10.1002/pst.1671, 14, 2, (79-81), (2015).
  • Dose-Response Analysis Using R, PLOS ONE, 10.1371/journal.pone.0146021, 10, 12, (e0146021), (2015).

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.