![[PDF]](/pb-assets/Icons/adobe-pdf-icon-1498649896243.png){kind=icon}
Abstract
Characterizing clinical dose–response is a critical step in drug development. Uncertainty in the dose–response model when planning a dose-ranging study can often undermine efficiency in both the design and analysis of the trial. Results of a previous meta-analysis on a portfolio of small molecule compounds from a large pharmaceutical company demonstrated a consistent dose–response relationship that was well described by the maximal effect model. Biologics are different from small molecules due to their large molecular sizes and their potential to induce immunogenicity. A model-based meta-analysis was conducted on the clinical efficacy of 71 distinct biologics evaluated in 91 placebo-controlled dose–response studies published between 1995 and 2014. The maximal effect model, arising from receptor occupancy theory, described the clinical dose–response data for the majority of the biologics (81.7%, n = 58). Five biologics (7%) with data showing non-monotonic trend assuming the maximal effect model were identified and discussed. A Bayesian model-based hierarchical approach using different joint specifications of prior densities for the maximal effect model parameters was used to meta-analyze the whole set of biologics excluding these five biologics (n = 66). Posterior predictive distributions of the maximal effect model parameters were reported and they could be used to aid the design of future dose-ranging studies. Compared to the meta-analysis of small molecules, the combination of fewer doses, narrower dosing ranges, and small sample sizes further limited the information available to estimate clinical dose–response among biologics.
References
| 1. | ICH. ICH E4: Dose-response information to support drug registration. ICH, http://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Efficacy/E4/Step4/E4_Guideline.pdf (1994) (accessed 30 September 2014). Google Scholar |
| 2. | U.S. Food and Drug Administration. Exposure-Response Relationships – Study Design, Data Analysis, and Regulatory Applications 2003; Rockville, MDL FDA, http://www.fda.gov/downloads/drugs/guidancecomplianceregulatoryinformation/guidances/ucm072109.pdf (accessed 30 September 2014). Google Scholar |
| 3. | European Medicines Agency. Note for Guidance on Dose Response Information to Support Drug Registration (CPMP/ICH/378/95) 2006; EMA, London, E14 4HB, UK, http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500002834.pdf (accessed 30 September 2014). Google Scholar |
| 4. | Bornkamp, B, Bretz, F, Dmitrienko, A Innovative approaches for designing and analyzing adaptive dose-ranging trials. J Biopharmaceut Stat 2007; 17: 965–995. Google Scholar | Medline | ISI |
| 5. | Bartholomew, DJ . Ordered tests in the analysis of variance. Biometrika 1961; 48: 325–332. Google Scholar |
| 6. | Williams, DA . Test for differences between treatment means when several dose levels are compared with a zero dose control. Biometrics 1971; 27: 103–117. Google Scholar | Medline | ISI |
| 7. | Bretz, F, Pinheiro, JC, Branson, M. Combining multiple comparisons and modeling techniques in dose-response studies. Biometrics 2005; 61: 738–748. Google Scholar | Medline | ISI |
| 8. | Pinheiro, J, Bornkamp, B, Bretz, F. Design and analysis of dose-finding studies combining multiple comparisons and modeling procedures. J Biopharmaceut Stat 2006; 16: 639–656. Google Scholar | Medline | ISI |
| 9. | Bornkamp, B, Bretz, F, Dette, H Response-adaptive dose-finding under model uncertainty. Ann Appl Stat 2011; 5: 1611–1631. Google Scholar | ISI |
| 10. | Breiman, L . Bagging predictors. Mach Learn 1996; 24: 123–140. Google Scholar | ISI |
| 11. | Efron, B . Estimation and accuracy after model selection. J Am Stat Assoc 2014; 109: 991–1007. Google Scholar | Medline |
| 12. | Bornkamp, B . Viewpoint: model selection uncertainty, pre-specification, and model averaging. Pharmaceut Stat 2015; 14: 79–81. Google Scholar | Medline |
| 13. | Dilleen, M, Heimann, G, Hirsch, I. Non-parametric estimators of a monotonic dose-response curve and bootstrap confidence intervals. Stat Med 2003; 22: 869–882. Google Scholar | Medline |
| 14. | Kirby, S, Colman, P, Morris, M. Adaptive modelling of dose-response relationships using smoothing splines. Pharmaceut Stat 2009; 8: 346–355. Google Scholar | Medline |
| 15. | Helms, HJ, Benda, N, Zinserling, J Spline-based procedures for dose-finding studies with active control. Stat Med 2015; 34: 232–248. Google Scholar | Medline |
| 16. | Milligan, PA, Brown, MJ, Marchant, B Model-based drug development: a rational approach to efficiently accelerate drug development. Clin Pharmacol Therapeut 2013; 93: 502–514. Google Scholar | Medline |
| 17. | Mould, DR . Model-based meta-analysis: an important tool for making quantitative decisions during drug development. Clin Pharmacol Therapeut 2012; 92: 283–286. Google Scholar | Medline |
| 18. | Mandema, JW, Salinger, DH, Baumgartner, SW A dose–response meta-analysis for quantifying relative efficacy of biologics in rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Pharmacol Therapeut 2011; 90: 828–835. Google Scholar | Medline |
| 19. | Mandema, JW, Zheng, J, Libanati, C Time course of bone mineral density changes with Denosumab compared with other drugs in postmenopausal osteoporosis: a dose-response-based meta-analysis. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2014; 99: 3746–3755. Google Scholar | Medline | ISI |
| 20. | Thomas, N, Sweeney, K, Somayaji, V. Meta-analysis of clinical dose-response in a large drug development portfolio. Stat Biopharmaceut Res 2014; 6: 302–317. Google Scholar |
| 21. | Tan, HM, Gruben, D, French, J A case study of model-based Bayesian dose response estimation. Stat Med 2011; 30: 2622–2633. Google Scholar | Medline |
| 22. | Chinn, S . A simple method for converting an odds ratio to effect size for use in meta-analysis. Stat Med 2000; 19: 3127–3131. Google Scholar | Medline | ISI |
| 23. | The Cochrane Collaboration. Handbook of Systematic Reviews of Interventions 4.2.6. 2006; The Cochrane Collaboration, http://community.cochrane.org/sites/default/files/uploads/Handbook4.2.6Sep2006.pdf (accessed 30 September 2014). Google Scholar |
| 24. | SAS Institute Inc. SAS® 9.4 2015. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc., 2015. Google Scholar |
| 25. | R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing, 2014, http://www.R-project.org/. Google Scholar |
| 26. | Thomas, N . Hypothesis testing and Bayesian estimation using a sigmoid E-max model applied to sparse dose-response designs. J Biopharmaceut Stat 2006; 16: 657–677. Google Scholar | Medline | ISI |
| 27. | Dagostino, RB, Belanger, A. A suggestion for using powerful and informative tests of normality. Am Stat 1990; 44: 316–321. Google Scholar | ISI |
| 28. | Gries, JM, Munafo, A, Porchet, HC Down-regulation models and modeling of testosterone production induced by recombinant human choriogonadotropin. J Pharmacol Experiment Therapeut 1999; 289: 371–377. Google Scholar | Medline |
| 29. | Hill, AV . The possible effects of the aggregation of the molecules of haemoglobin on its dissociation curves. J Physiol 1910; 40: iv–cvii. Google Scholar |
| 30. | Clark, AJ . The reaction between acetyl choline and muscle cells. J Physiol 1926; 61: 530–546. Google Scholar | Medline |
| 31. | Ariens, EJ . Affinity and intrinsic activity in the theory of competitive inhibition. I. Problems and theory. Archives internationales de pharmacodynamie et de therapie 1954; 99: 32–49. Google Scholar | Medline |
| 32. | Upton, RN, Mould, DR. Basic concepts in population modeling, simulation, and model-based drug development: Part 3 – Introduction to pharmacodynamic modeling methods. CPT: Pharmacometrics Syst Pharmacol 2014; 3: e88–e88. Google Scholar | Medline |
| 33. | Holford, NHG, Sheiner, LB. Understanding the dose-effect relationship – clinical application of pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic models. Clin Pharmacokinetics 1981; 6: 429–453. Google Scholar | Medline | ISI |
| 34. | Goutelle, S, Maurin, M, Rougier, F The Hill equation: a review of its capabilities in pharmacological modelling. Fundament Clin Pharmacol 2008; 22: 633–648. Google Scholar | Medline | ISI |
| 35. | Seber, GF, Wild, CJ. Nonlinear regression, New Jersey, NJ: Wiley, 2003. Google Scholar |
| 36. | MacDougall, J Analysis of dose response studies – Emax model. In: Ting, N (ed). Dose finding in drug development, New York, NY: Springer, 2006. Google Scholar |
| 37. | Kirby, S, Brain, P, Jones, B. Fitting E-max models to clinical trial dose-response data. Pharmaceut Stat 2011; 10: 143–149. Google Scholar | Medline |
| 38. | Brain, P, Kirby, S, Larionov, R. Fitting Emax models to clinical trial dose-response data when the high dose asymptote is ill defined. Pharmaceut Stat 2014; 13: 364–370. Google Scholar | Medline |
| 39. | Huang, WS, Liu, JP, Hsiao, CF. An alternative phase II/III design for continuous endpoints. Pharmaceut Stat 2011; 10: 105–114. Google Scholar | Medline |
| 40. | Bates, D, Watts, D. Nonlinear regression analysis and its application, New York, NY: Wiley, 1998. Google Scholar |
| 41. | Spiegelhalter, DJ, Best, NG, Carlin, BR Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. J R Stat Soc Ser B-Stat Methodol 2002; 64: 583–616. Google Scholar | ISI |
| 42. | Lunn, D, Spiegelhalter, D, Thomas, A The BUGS project: evolution, critique and future directions. Stat Med 2009; 28: 3049–3067. Google Scholar | Medline | ISI |
| 43. | Sturtz, S, Ligges, U, Gelman, A. R2WinBUGS: a package for running WinBUGS from R. J Stat Software 2005; 12: 1–16. Google Scholar | ISI |
| 44. | Plummer, M, Best, N, Cowles, K CODA: convergence diagnosis and output analysis for MCMC. R News 2006; 6: 7–11. Google Scholar |
| 45. | Brooks, SP, Gelman, A. General methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations. J Computat Graph Stat 1998; 7: 434–455. Google Scholar | ISI |
| 46. | Heidelberger, P, Welch, PD. Simulation fun length control in the presence of an initial transient. Operat Res 1983; 31: 1109–1144. Google Scholar |
| 47. | Geweke, J Evaluating the accuracy of sampling-based approaches to calculating posterior moments. In: Bernado, JM, Berger, JO, Dawid, AP, Smith, AFM (eds). Bayesian Statistics 4, Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1992. Google Scholar |
| 48. | Raftery, AE, Lewis, SM. One long run with diagnostics: implementation strategies for Markov chain Monte Carlo. Stat Sci 1992; 7: 493–497. Google Scholar |
| 49. | Wallace, DJ, Kalunian, K, Petri, MA Efficacy and safety of epratuzumab in patients with moderate/severe active systemic lupus erythematosus: results from EMBLEM, a phase IIb, randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre study. Ann Rheumatic Dis 2014; 73: 183–190. Google Scholar | Medline | ISI |
| 50. | Saini, S, Rosen, KE, Hsieh, HJ A randomized, placebo-controlled, dose-ranging study of single-dose omalizumab in patients with H-1-antihistamine-refractory chronic idiopathic urticaria. J Allergy Clin Immunol 2011; 128: 567–573. Google Scholar | Medline | ISI |
| 51. | Branski, LK, Herndon, DN, Barrow, RE Randomized controlled trial to determine the efficacy of long-term growth hormone treatment in severely burned children. Ann Surg 2009; 250: 514–523. Google Scholar | Medline |
| 52. | Prevost, TC, Abrams, KR, Jones, DR. Hierarchical models in generalized synthesis of evidence: an example based on studies of breast cancer screening. Stat Med 2000; 19: 3359–3376. Google Scholar | Medline | ISI |
| 53. | Gelman, A, Carlin, JB, Stern, HS Bayesian data analysis, 3rd ed. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis Group, 2013. Google Scholar | Crossref |
| 54. | Kicinski, M, Springate, DA, Kontopantelis, E. Publication bias in meta-analyses from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Stat Med 2015; 34: 2781–2793. Google Scholar | Medline |
| 55. | Sahu, SK, Dey, DK, Branco, MD. A new class of multivariate skew distributions with applications to Bayesian regression models. Can J Stat-Revue Canadienne De Statistique 2003; 31: 129–150. Google Scholar | ISI |
| 56. | Congdon, P . Bayesian statistical modelling, 2nd ed. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2006. Google Scholar |
| 57. | Gelman, A, Hill, J. Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical model, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2007. Google Scholar |
| 58. | Albert, JH . Criticism of a hierarchical model using Bayes factors. Stat Med 1999; 18: 287–305. Google Scholar | Medline |
| 59. | Kahn, MJ, Raftery, AE. Discharge rates of Medicare stroke patients to skilled nursing facilities: Bayesian logistic regression with unobserved heterogeneity. J Am Stat Assoc 1996; 91: 29–41. Google Scholar | ISI |
| 60. | Lindsey, JK . Response surfaces for overdispersion in the study of the conditions for fish eggs hatching. Biometrics 1999; 55: 149–155. Google Scholar | Medline |
| 61. | Levi, M, Grange, S, Frey, N. Exposure–exposure relationship of Tocilizumab, an AntiIL-6 receptor monoclonal antibody, in a large population of patients with rheumatoid arthritis. J Clin Pharmacol 2013; 53: 151–159. Google Scholar | Medline |
| 62. | Vandenberg, LN, Colborn, T, Hayes, TB Hormones and endocrine-disrupting chemicals: low-dose effects and nonmonotonic dose responses. Endocrine Rev 2012; 33: 378–455. Google Scholar | Medline | ISI |
| 63. | Marrow, T, Felcone, LH. Defining the difference: what makes biologics unique. Biotechnol Healthcare 2004; 1: 24–20. Google Scholar |
| 64. | Dette, H, Bretz, F, Pepelyshev, A Optimal designs for dose-finding studies. J Am Stat Assoc 2008; 103: 1225–1237. Google Scholar | ISI |
| 65. | Hobbs, BP, Carlin, BP, Mandrekar, SJ Hierarchical commensurate and power prior models for adaptive incorporation of historical information in clinical trials. Biometrics 2011; 67: 1047–1056. Google Scholar | Medline | ISI |
