Dataset Information

Optimized design and analysis of preclinical intervention studies in vivo.

ABSTRACT: Recent reports have called into question the reproducibility, validity and translatability of the preclinical animal studies due to limitations in their experimental design and statistical analysis. To this end, we implemented a matching-based modelling approach for optimal intervention group allocation, randomization and power calculations, which takes full account of the complex animal characteristics at baseline prior to interventions. In prostate cancer xenograft studies, the method effectively normalized the confounding baseline variability, and resulted in animal allocations which were supported by RNA-seq profiling of the individual tumours. The matching information increased the statistical power to detect true treatment effects at smaller sample sizes in two castration-resistant prostate cancer models, thereby leading to saving of both animal lives and research costs. The novel modelling approach and its open-source and web-based software implementations enable the researchers to conduct adequately-powered and fully-blinded preclinical intervention studies, with the aim to accelerate the discovery of new therapeutic interventions.

SUBMITTER: Laajala TD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4969752 | biostudies-literature | 2016 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Optimized design and analysis of preclinical intervention studies in vivo.

Laajala Teemu D TD Jumppanen Mikael M Huhtaniemi Riikka R Fey Vidal V Kaur Amanpreet A Knuuttila Matias M Aho Eija E Oksala Riikka R Westermarck Jukka J Mäkelä Sari S Poutanen Matti M Aittokallio Tero T

Scientific reports 20160802

Recent reports have called into question the reproducibility, validity and translatability of the preclinical animal studies due to limitations in their experimental design and statistical analysis. To this end, we implemented a matching-based modelling approach for optimal intervention group allocation, randomization and power calculations, which takes full account of the complex animal characteristics at baseline prior to interventions. In prostate cancer xenograft studies, the method effectiv ...[more]

PMID: 27480578

Similar Datasets

Project description:The validity of preclinical studies of candidate therapeutic agents has been questioned given their limited ability to predict their fate in clinical development, including due to design flaws and reporting bias. In this study, we examined this issue in depth by conducting a meta-analysis of animal studies investigating the efficacy of the clinically approved kinase inhibitor, sorafenib. MEDLINE, Embase, and BIOSIS databases were searched for all animal experiments testing tumor volume response to sorafenib monotherapy in any cancer published until April 20, 2012. We estimated effect sizes from experiments assessing changes in tumor volume and conducted subgroup analyses based on prespecified experimental design elements associated with internal, construct, and external validity. The meta-analysis included 97 experiments involving 1,761 animals. We excluded 94 experiments due to inadequate reporting of data. Design elements aimed at reducing internal validity threats were implemented only sporadically, with 66% reporting animal attrition and none reporting blinded outcome assessment or concealed allocation. Anticancer activity against various malignancies was typically tested in only a small number of model systems. Effect sizes were significantly smaller when sorafenib was tested against either a different active agent or combination arm. Trim and fill suggested a 37% overestimation of effect sizes across all malignancies due to publication bias. We detected a moderate dose-response in one clinically approved indication, hepatocellular carcinoma, but not in another approved malignancy, renal cell carcinoma, or when data were pooled across all malignancies tested. In support of other reports, we found that few preclinical cancer studies addressed important internal, construct, and external validity threats, limiting their clinical generalizability. Our findings reinforce the need to improve guidelines for the design and reporting of preclinical cancer studies. Cancer Res; 76(16); 4627-36. ©2016 AACR.

Project description:BackgroundPopulation-based intervention coverage indicators are widely used to track country and program progress in improving health and to evaluate health programs. Indicator validation studies that compare survey responses to a "gold standard" measure are useful to understand whether the indicator provides accurate information. The Improving Coverage Measurement (ICM) Core Group has developed and implemented a standard approach to validating coverage indicators measured in household surveys, described in this paper.MethodsThe general design of these studies includes measurement of true health status and intervention receipt (gold standard), followed by interviews with the individuals observed, and a comparison of the observations (gold standard) to the responses to survey questions. The gold standard should use a data source external to the respondent to document need for and receipt of an intervention. Most frequently, this is accomplished through direct observation of clinical care, and/or use of a study-trained clinician to obtain a gold standard diagnosis. Follow-up interviews with respondents should employ standard survey questions, where they exist, as well as alternative or additional questions that can be compared against the standard household survey questions.ResultsIndicator validation studies should report on participation at every stage, and provide data on reasons for non-participation. Metrics of individual validity (sensitivity, specificity, area under the receiver operating characteristic curve) and population-level validity (inflation factor) should be reported, as well as the percent of survey responses that are "don't know" or missing. Associations between interviewer and participant characteristics and measures of validity should be assessed and reported.ConclusionsThese methods allow respondent-reported coverage measures to be validated against more objective measures of need for and receipt of an intervention, and should be considered together with cognitive interviewing, discriminative validity, or reliability testing to inform decisions about which indicators to include in household surveys. Public health researchers should assess the evidence for validity of existing and proposed household survey coverage indicators and consider validation studies to fill evidence gaps.

Project description:BackgroundThe vast majority of medical interventions introduced into clinical development prove unsafe or ineffective. One prominent explanation for the dismal success rate is flawed preclinical research. We conducted a systematic review of preclinical research guidelines and organized recommendations according to the type of validity threat (internal, construct, or external) or programmatic research activity they primarily address.Methods and findingsWe searched MEDLINE, Google Scholar, Google, and the EQUATOR Network website for all preclinical guideline documents published up to April 9, 2013 that addressed the design and conduct of in vivo animal experiments aimed at supporting clinical translation. To be eligible, documents had to provide guidance on the design or execution of preclinical animal experiments and represent the aggregated consensus of four or more investigators. Data from included guidelines were independently extracted by two individuals for discrete recommendations on the design and implementation of preclinical efficacy studies. These recommendations were then organized according to the type of validity threat they addressed. A total of 2,029 citations were identified through our search strategy. From these, we identified 26 guidelines that met our eligibility criteria--most of which were directed at neurological or cerebrovascular drug development. Together, these guidelines offered 55 different recommendations. Some of the most common recommendations included performance of a power calculation to determine sample size, randomized treatment allocation, and characterization of disease phenotype in the animal model prior to experimentation.ConclusionsBy identifying the most recurrent recommendations among preclinical guidelines, we provide a starting point for developing preclinical guidelines in other disease domains. We also provide a basis for the study and evaluation of preclinical research practice. Please see later in the article for the Editors' Summary.

Project description:BackgroundDue to the migratory flow of infected people with severe acute respiratory syndrome virus (SARS COV-2), the number of confirmed cases of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is accelerating globally; preclinical evidence of antiviral agents that can combat this pandemic is still elusive. We identified published articles on SARS-COV efficacy experiments in which some selected compounds were used to test the reduction of the virus load in mice.MethodsA systematic search of articles was conducted in PubMed, Web of Science, and Scopus. We then developed a combined model based on a systematic review, meta-analyses, and molecular docking studies to evaluate the effect size of preclinical studies of compounds that have been tested against SARS-COV. Because substantial heterogeneity was expected, random effect model meta-analyses were carried out to estimate the overall pooled disease's prevalence. All meta-analyses were performed with Stata version 15.0. Subgroup analyses on therapies were conducted as well. Molecular docking studies of the inhibitors in the active pocket of COVID-19 protease were also performed.ResultsFrom all screened articles, six studies were appropriate for ultimate meta-analysis and systematic review. The residual amount of heterogeneity was high (τ2 =0.02; heterogeneity I2 =85.5 % with heterogeneity chi-square =103.57, a degree of freedom =15, and p <0.001). The overall random pooled prevalence of infected mice treated with the selected compounds was 78.1 % [95 % Confidence Interval (CI): 14.7-17.0 %]. Prophylactic has a significantly higher pooled prevalence than therapeutic, with 21.8 % (95 % CI: 16.4 % to 28.8 %). Our results indicated that most of the SARS-COV inhibitors analyzed were less effective in reducing the lung virus titer of SARS-COV infection in animal models. The findings from molecular docking studies also identified COVID-19 inhibitors that are good for optimization and drug development to fight against COVID-19 infection.ConclusionsFindings from the review showed that studies on the preclinical compounds targeting SARS-COV and COVID-19 are limited. Furthermore, molecular docking studies and meta-analysis results substantiated three compounds, i.e., EIDD-2801, GS-5734, and amodiaquine. HIPPOKRATIA 2020, 24(3): 99-106.

Dataset Information

Optimized design and analysis of preclinical intervention studies in vivo.

Publications

Optimized design and analysis of preclinical intervention studies in vivo.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets