An in silico approach helped to identify the best experimental design, population, and outcome for future randomized clinical trials

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volumn 69, Issue , 2016, Pages 125-136

  Bajard, Agathe ^a   Chabaud, Sylvie ^a   Cornu, Catherine ^b,c,d   Castellan, Anne Charlotte ^d   Malik, Salma ^b,c,d   Kurbatova, Polina ^c   Volpert, Vitaly ^c   Eymard, Nathalie ^c   Kassai, Behrouz ^b,c,d   Nony, Patrice ^b,c  

^a CENTRE LÉON BÉRARD   (France)

^b HOSPICES CIVILS DE LYON   (France)

^c UNIVERSITÉ LYON 1   (France)

^d LOUIS PRADEL HOSPITAL   (France)

Author keywords

Experimental design; Modeling; Randomized controlled clinical trial; Simulation; Statistical analysis; Therapeutic evaluation

Indexed keywords

ACCURACY; ARTICLE; COMPARATIVE STUDY; COMPUTER MODEL; CROSSOVER PROCEDURE; DOSE RESPONSE; EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN; HUMAN; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; POPULATION; PRIORITY JOURNAL; QUALITATIVE ANALYSIS; QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); SAMPLE SIZE; SIMULATION; STATISTICAL PARAMETERS; THERAPY EFFECT; COMPUTER SIMULATION; FORECASTING; METHODOLOGY; MIGRAINE DISORDERS; STANDARDS;

SUMATRIPTAN;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; CROSS-OVER STUDIES; FORECASTING; HUMANS; MIGRAINE DISORDERS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN; SUMATRIPTAN;

EID: 84952630461     PISSN: 08954356     EISSN: 18785921     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.06.024     Document Type: Article

References (24)

1. B. Spilker Guide to clinical trials 1st edn 1991 Lippincott Williams & Wilkins Philadelphia, PA
2. S.C. Tudur, P.R. Williamson, and M.W. Beresford Methodology of clinical trials for rare diseases Best Pract Res Clin Rheumatol 28 2014 247 262
3. C. Cornu, B. Kassai, R. Fisch, C. Chiron, C. Alberti, R. Guerrini, and et al. Experimental designs for small randomised clinical trials: an algorithm for choice Orphanet J Rare Dis 8 2013 48
4. A. Bajard, S. Chabaud, D. Perol, J.P. Boissel, and P. Nony Revisiting the level of evidence in randomized controlled clinical trials: a simulation approach Contemp Clin Trials 30 2009 400 410
5. A. Blesius, S. Chabaud, M. Cucherat, P. Mismetti, J.P. Boissel, and P. Nony Compliance-guided therapy: a new insight into the potential role of clinical pharmacologists Clin Pharmacokinet 45 2006 95 104
6. P. Nony, and J.P. Boissel Use of sensitivity functions to characterise and compare the forgiveness of drugs Clin Pharmacokinet 41 2002 371 380
7. J.P. Boissel, B. Ribba, E. Grenier, G. Chapuisat, and M.A. Dronne Modelling methodology in physiopathology Prog Biophys Mol Biol 97 2008 28 39
8. J.P. Boissel, M. Cucherat, P. Nony, S. Chabaud, F. Gueyffier, J.M. Wright, and et al. New insights on the relation between untreated and treated outcomes for a given therapy effect model is not necessarily linear J Clin Epidemiol 61 2008 301 307
9. H.C. Kimko, and S.B. Dufull Simulation for designing clinical trials: a pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modelling perspective New York 2003
10. Sumatriptan-an oral dose-defining study. The oral sumatriptan dose-defining study group Eur Neurol 31 1991 300 305
11. V. Pfaffenrath, G. Cunin, G. Sjonell, and S. Prendergast Efficacy and safety of sumatriptan tablets (25 mg, 50 mg, and 100 mg) in the acute treatment of migraine: defining the optimum doses of oral sumatriptan Headache 38 1998 184 190
12. S. Senn Cross-over trials in clinical research 2nd edn 2002 Wiley Hoboken, NJ
13. H.J. McQuay, S. Derry, R.A. Moore, P. Poulain, and V. Legout Enriched enrolment with randomised withdrawal (EERW): time for a new look at clinical trial design in chronic pain Pain 135 2008 217 220
14. J. Kremer, C. Ritchlin, A. Mendelsohn, D. Baker, L. Kim, Z. Xu, and et al. Golimumab, a new human anti-tumor necrosis factor alpha antibody, administered intravenously in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: forty- eight-week efficacy and safety results of a phase III randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study Arthritis Rheum 62 2010 917 928
15. W.F. Rosenberger Randomized play-the-winner clinical trials: review and recommendations Control Clin Trials 20 1999 328 342
16. A.R. Sampson, and M.W. Sill Drop-the-losers design: normal case Biom J 47 2005 257 268
17. J.M. Campbell Statistical comparison of four effect sizes for single-subject designs Behav Modif 28 2004 234 246
18. J.A. Gliner, G.A. Morgan, and R.J. Harmon Single-subject designs J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry 39 2000 1327 1329
19. E.O. Lillie, B. Patay, J. Diamant, B. Issell, E.J. Topol, and N.J. Schork The n-of-1 clinical trial: the ultimate strategy for individualizing medicine? Per Med 8 2011 161 173
20. D.J. Spiegelhalter Statistical issues in studies of individual response Scand J Gastroenterol Suppl 147 1988 40 45
21. M. Ugille, M. Moeyaert, S.N. Beretvas, J. Ferron, and W. Van den Noortgate Multilevel meta-analysis of single-subject experimental designs: a simulation study Behav Res Methods 44 2012 1244 1254
22. D.R. Zucker, R. Ruthazer, and C.H. Schmid Individual (N-of-1) trials can be combined to give population comparative treatment effect estimates: methodologic considerations J Clin Epidemiol 63 2010 1312 1323
23. M. Buyse, S. Michiels, D.J. Sargent, A. Grothey, A. Matheson, and A. de Gramont Integrating biomarkers in clinical trials Expert Rev Mol Diagn 11 2011 171 182
24. N. Nathan, R.A. Taam, R. Epaud, C. Delacourt, A. Deschildre, P. Reix, and et al. A national internet-linked based database for pediatric interstitial lung diseases: the French network Orphanet J Rare Dis 7 2012 40