Pharmaceutical Statistics最新文献

For topical, dermatological drug products, an in vitro option to determine bioequivalence (BE) between test and reference products is recommended. In particular, in vitro permeation test (IVPT) data analysis uses a reference-scaled approach for two primary endpoints, cumulative penetration amount (AMT) and maximum flux (J_max), which takes the within donor variability into consideration. In 2022, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) published a draft IVPT guidance that includes statistical analysis methods for both balanced and unbalanced cases of IVPT study data. This work presents a comprehensive evaluation of various methodologies used to estimate critical parameters essential in assessing BE. Specifically, we investigate the performance of the FDA draft IVPT guidance approach alongside alternative empirical and model-based methods utilizing mixed-effects models. Our analyses include both simulated scenarios and real-world studies. In simulated scenarios, empirical formulas consistently demonstrate robustness in approximating the true model, particularly in effectively addressing treatment-donor interactions. Conversely, the effectiveness of model-based approaches heavily relies on precise model selection, which significantly influences their results. The research emphasizes the importance of accurate model selection in model-based BE assessment methodologies. It sheds light on the advantages of empirical formulas, highlighting their reliability compared to model-based approaches and offers valuable implications for BE assessments. Our findings underscore the significance of robust methodologies and provide essential insights to advance their understanding and application in the assessment of BE, employed in IVPT data analysis.

This tutorial describes single-step low-dimensional simultaneous inference with a focus on the availability of adjusted p values and compatible confidence intervals for more than just the usual mean value comparisons. The basic idea is, first, to use the influence of correlation on the quantile of the multivariate t-distribution: the higher the less conservative. In addition, second, the estimability of the correlation matrix using the multiple marginal models approach (mmm) using multiple models in the class of linear up to generalized linear mixed models. The underlying maxT-test using mmm is discussed by means of several real data scenarios using selected R packages. Surprisingly, different features are highlighted, among them: (i) analyzing different-scaled, correlated, multiple endpoints, (ii) analyzing multiple correlated binary endpoints, (iii) modeling dose as qualitative factor and/or quantitative covariate, (iv) joint consideration of several tuning parameters within the poly-k trend test, (v) joint testing of dose and time, (vi) considering several effect sizes, (vii) joint testing of subgroups and overall population in multiarm randomized clinical trials with correlated primary endpoints, (viii) multiple linear mixed effect models, (ix) generalized estimating equations, and (x) nonlinear regression models.

Stochastic curtailment tests for Phase II two-arm trials with time-to-event end points are traditionally performed using the log-rank test. Recent advances in designing time-to-event trials have utilized the Weibull distribution with a known shape parameter estimated from historical studies. As sample size calculations depend on the value of this shape parameter, these methods either cannot be used or likely underperform/overperform when the natural variation around the point estimate is ignored. We demonstrate that when the magnitude of the Weibull shape parameters changes, unblinded interim information on the shape of the survival curves can be useful to enrich the final analysis for reestimation of the sample size. For such scenarios, we propose two Bayesian solutions to estimate the natural variations of the Weibull shape parameter. We implement these approaches under the framework of the newly proposed relative time method that allows nonproportional hazards and nonproportional time. We also demonstrate the sample size reestimation for the relative time method using three different approaches (internal pilot study approach, conditional power, and predictive power approach) at the interim stage of the trial. We demonstrate our methods using a hypothetical example and provide insights regarding the practical constraints for the proposed methods.

The ICH E9(R1) guideline outlines the estimand framework, which aligns planning, design, conduct, analysis, and interpretation of a clinical trial. The benefits and value of using this framework in clinical trials have been outlined in the literature, and guidance has been provided on how to choose the estimand and define the estimand attributes. Although progress has been made in the implementation of estimands in clinical trials, to the best of our knowledge, there is no published discussion on the basic principles that estimands in clinical trials should fulfill to be well defined and consistent with the ideas presented in the ICH E9(R1) guideline. Therefore, in this Viewpoint article, we propose four key principles for defining an estimand. These principles form a basis for well-defined treatment effects that reflect the estimand thinking process. We hope that this Viewpoint will complement ICH E9(R1) and stimulate a discussion on which fundamental properties an estimand in a clinical trial should have and that such discussions will eventually lead to an improved clarity and precision for defining estimands in clinical trials.

In oncology, Phase II studies are crucial for clinical development plans as such studies identify potent agents with sufficient activity to continue development in the subsequent Phase III trials. Traditionally, Phase II studies are single-arm studies, with the primary endpoint being short-term treatment efficacy. However, drug safety is also an important consideration. In the context of such multiple-outcome designs, predictive probability-based Bayesian monitoring strategies have been developed to assess whether a clinical trial will provide enough evidence to continue with a Phase III study at the scheduled end of the trial. Therefore, we propose a new simple index vector to summarize the results that cannot be captured by existing strategies. Specifically, we define the worst and most promising situations for the potential effect of a treatment, then use the proposed index vector to measure the deviation between the two situations. Finally, simulation studies are performed to evaluate the operating characteristics of the design. The obtained results demonstrate that the proposed method makes appropriate interim go/no-go decisions.

Preclinical studies are broad and can encompass cellular research, animal trials, and small human trials. Preclinical studies tend to be exploratory and have smaller datasets that often consist of biomarker data. Logistic regression is typically the model of choice for modeling a binary outcome with explanatory variables such as genetic, imaging, and clinical data. Small preclinical studies can have challenging data that may include a complete separation or quasi-complete separation issue that will result in logistic regression inflated coefficient estimates and standard errors. Penalized regression approaches such as Firth's logistic regression are a solution to reduce the bias in the estimates. In this tutorial, a number of examples with separation (complete or quasi-complete) are illustrated and the results from both logistic regression and Firth's logistic regression are compared to demonstrate the inflated estimates from the standard logistic regression model and bias-reduction of the estimates from the penalized Firth's approach. R code and datasets are provided in the supplement.

Mixture experimentation is commonly seen in pharmaceutical formulation studies, where the relative proportions of the individual components are modeled for effects on product attributes. The requirement that the sum of the component proportions equals 1 has given rise to the class of designs, known as mixture designs. The first mixture designs were published by Quenouille in 1953 but it took nearly 40 years for the earliest mixture design applications to be published in the pharmaceutical sciences literature by Kettaneh-Wold in 1991 and Waaler in 1992. Since then, the advent of efficient computer algorithms to generate designs has made this class of designs easily accessible to pharmaceutical statisticians, although the use of these designs appears to be an underutilized experimental strategy even today. One goal of this tutorial is to draw the attention of experimental statisticians to this class of designs and their advantages in pursuing formulation studies such as excipient compatibility studies. We present sufficient materials to introduce the novice practitioner to this class of design, associated models, and analysis strategies. An example of a mixture-process variable design is given as a case study.

In preclinical drug discovery, at the step of lead optimization of a compound, in vivo experimentation can differentiate several compounds in terms of efficacy and potency in a biological system of whole living organisms. For the lead optimization study, it may be desirable to implement a dose-response design so that compound comparisons can be made from nonlinear curves fitted to the data. A dose-response design requires more thought relative to a simpler study design, needing parameters for the number of doses, the dose values, and the sample size per dose. This tutorial illustrates how to calculate statistical power, choose doses, and determine sample size per dose for a comparison of two or more dose-response curves for a future in vivo study.

Chemistry, manufacturing, and control (CMC) statisticians play a key role in the development and lifecycle management of pharmaceutical and biological products, working with their non-statistician partners to manage product quality. Information used to make quality decisions comes from studies, where success is facilitated through adherence to the scientific method. This is carried out in four steps: (1) an objective, (2) design, (3) conduct, and (4) analysis. Careful consideration of each step helps to ensure that a study conclusion and associated decision is correct. This can be a development decision related to the validity of an assay or a quality decision like conformance to specifications. Importantly, all decisions are made with risk. Conventional statistical risks such as Type 1 and Type 2 errors can be coupled with associated impacts to manage patient value as well as development and commercial costs. The CMC statistician brings focus on managing risk across the steps of the scientific method, leading to optimal product development and robust supply of life saving drugs and biologicals.

During the drug development process, testing potency plays an important role in the quality assessment required for the manufacturing and marketing of biologics. Due to multiple operational and biological factors, higher variability is usually observed in bioassays compared with physicochemical methods. In this paper, we discuss different sources of bioassay variability and how this variability can be statistically estimated. In addition, we propose an algorithm to estimate the variability of reportable results associated with different numbers of runs and their corresponding OOS rates under a given specification. Numerical experiments are conducted on multiple assay formats to elucidate the empirical distribution of bioassay variability.