A Bayesian dose-finding trial with adaptive dose expansion to flexibly assess efficacy and safety of an investigational drug

Clinical Trials

Volumn 7, Issue 2, 2010, Pages 121-135

  Berry, Scott M ^a   Spinelli, Walter ^b   Littman, Gary S ^c   Liang, John Z ^b   Fardipour, Parvin ^b   Berry, Donald A ^d   Lewis, Roger J ^e   Kramsb, Michael ^b  

^a Berry Consultants   (United States)

^b PFIZER INC   (United States)

^c Applied Clinical Intelligence   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS MD ANDERSON CANCER CENTER   (United States)

^e HARBOR UCLA MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

GLUCOSE; NEW DRUG; PLACEBO; ANTIDIABETIC AGENT;

ARTICLE; BAYESIAN LEARNING; DOSE RESPONSE; DRUG EFFICACY; DRUG SAFETY; GLUCOSE BLOOD LEVEL; HUMAN; LONGITUDINAL STUDY; PREDICTION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PROBABILITY; SAMPLE SIZE; SIMULATION; WEIGHT GAIN; BAYES THEOREM; COHORT ANALYSIS; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIAL; DIABETES MELLITUS; METHODOLOGY; PROFESSIONAL STANDARD; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL; STATISTICAL MODEL; STATISTICS;

BAYES THEOREM; BLOOD GLUCOSE; CLINICAL TRIALS DATA MONITORING COMMITTEES; COHORT STUDIES; CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS AS TOPIC; DIABETES MELLITUS; DOSE-RESPONSE RELATIONSHIP, DRUG; DRUGS, INVESTIGATIONAL; HUMANS; HYPOGLYCEMIC AGENTS; MODELS, STATISTICAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 77953678752     PISSN: 17407745     EISSN: 17407753     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/1740774510361541     Document Type: Article

References (16)

1. Woodcock J, Woosley R. The FDA critical path initiative and its influence on new drug development. Annu Rev Med 2008; 59: 1-12.
2. Kola I, Landis J. Can the pharmaceutical industry reduce attrition rates? Nat Rev Drug Discov 2004; 3: 711-715.
3. O'Neill RT. A perspective on characterizing benefits and risks derived from clinical trials: Can we do more? Drug Inf J 2008;42: 235-245.
4. Dragalin V. Adaptive designs: Terminology and classifi-cation. Drug Inf J 2006; 40: 425-435.
5. Berry DA, Müller P, Grieve AP, et al. Adaptive Bayesian designs for dose-ranging drug trials. In Gatsonis C, Carlin B, Carriquiry A. (eds). Case Studies in Bayesian Statistics. V. Springer, New York, 2001, pp. 99-181.
6. Bornkamp B, Bretz F, Dmitrienko A, et al. Innovative approaches for designing and analyzing adaptive dose-ranging trials. JBiopharm Stat2007; 17: 965-995.
7. Zhang W, Sargent D, Mandrekar S. An adaptive dose-finding design incorporating both toxicity and efficacy. Stat Med 2006; 25: 2365-83.
8. Bekele BN, Shen Y. A Bayesian Approach to jointly modeling toxicity and biomarker expression in a phase I/II dose-finding trial. Biometrics 2005; 61: 343-354.
9. Dragalin V, Fedorov V. Adaptive designs for dose-finding based on efficacy-toxicity response. J Stat Plan Infer 2006; 36: 1800-1823.
10. Braun TM. The bivariate continual reassessment method: extending the CRM to phase I trials of two competing outcomes. Control Clin Trials 2002; 23: 240-256.
11. Fedorov V, Wu Y. Dose finding designs for continuous responses and binary utility. J Biopharm Stat 2007; 17: 1085-1096.
12. Thall PF, Russell KE. A strategy for dose-finding and safety monitoring based on efficacy and adverse out-comes in phase I/II clinical trials. Biometrics 1998; 54: 251-264.
13. Thall PF, Cook JD. Dose-finding based on efficacy-toxicity trade-offs. Biometrics 2004; 60: 684-693.
14. Fan SK, Chaloner K. Optimal designs and limiting optimal designs for a trinomial response. J Stat Plan Infer 2004; 126: 347-360.
15. Cheung YK, Chappell R. Sequential designs for phase I clinical trials with late-onset toxicities. Biometrics 2000; 56: 1177-1182.
16. Krams M, Lees KR, Hacke W, et al. ASTIN: An adaptive dose-response study of UK-279,276 in acute ischemic stroke. Stroke 2003; 34: 2543-2548.