Dataset Information

Pharmacometrics-Based Considerations for the Design of a Pharmacogenomic Clinical Trial Assessing Irinotecan Safety.

ABSTRACT:

Purpose

Pharmacometric models provide useful tools to aid the rational design of clinical trials. This study evaluates study design-, drug-, and patient-related features as well as analysis methods for their influence on the power to demonstrate a benefit of pharmacogenomics (PGx)-based dosing regarding myelotoxicity.

Methods

Two pharmacokinetic and one myelosuppression model were assembled to predict concentrations of irinotecan and its metabolite SN-38 given different UGT1A1 genotypes (poor metabolizers: CL_SN-38: -36%) and neutropenia following conventional versus PGx-based dosing (350 versus 245 mg/m² (-30%)). Study power was assessed given diverse scenarios (n = 50-400 patients/arm, parallel/crossover, varying magnitude of CL_SN-38, exposure-response relationship, inter-individual variability) and using model-based data analysis versus conventional statistical testing.

Results

The magnitude of CL_SN-38 reduction in poor metabolizers and the myelosuppressive potency of SN-38 markedly influenced the power to show a difference in grade 4 neutropenia (<0.5·10⁹ cells/L) after PGx-based versus standard dosing. To achieve >80% power with traditional statistical analysis (χ²/McNemar's test, α = 0.05), 220/100 patients per treatment arm/sequence (parallel/crossover study) were required. The model-based analysis resulted in considerably smaller total sample sizes (n = 100/15 given parallel/crossover design) to obtain the same statistical power.

Conclusions

The presented findings may help to avoid unfeasible trials and to rationalize the design of pharmacogenetic studies.

SUBMITTER: Minichmayr IK

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8057977 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Thoughtful clinical trial design is critical for efficient therapeutic development, particularly in the field of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (ALS), where trials often aim to detect modest treatment effects among a population with heterogeneous disease progression. Appropriate outcome measure selection is necessary for trials to provide decisive and informative results. Investigators must consider the outcome measure's reliability, responsiveness to detect change when change has actually occurred, clinical relevance, and psychometric performance. ALS clinical trials can also be performed more efficiently by utilizing statistical enrichment techniques. Innovations in ALS prediction models allow for selection of participants with less heterogeneity in disease progression rates without requiring a lead-in period, or participants can be stratified according to predicted progression. Statistical enrichment can reduce the needed sample size and improve study power, but investigators must find a balance between optimizing statistical efficiency and retaining generalizability of study findings to the broader ALS population. Additional progress is still needed for biomarker development and validation to confirm target engagement in ALS treatment trials. Selection of an appropriate biofluid biomarker depends on the treatment mechanism of interest, and biomarker studies should be incorporated into early phase trials. Inclusion of patients with ALS as advisors and advocates can strengthen clinical trial design and study retention, but more engagement efforts are needed to improve diversity and equity in ALS research studies. Another challenge for ALS therapeutic development is identifying ways to respect patient autonomy and improve access to experimental treatment, something that is strongly desired by many patients with ALS and ALS advocacy organizations. Expanded access programs that run concurrently to well-designed and adequately powered randomized controlled trials may provide an opportunity to broaden access to promising therapeutics without compromising scientific integrity or rushing regulatory approval of therapies without adequate proof of efficacy.

Project description:Cannabinoids are a diverse class of chemical compounds that are increasingly recognized as potential therapeutic options for a range of conditions. While many studies and reviews of cannabinoids focus on efficacy, safety is much less well reported. Overall assessment of the safety of cannabinoid-based medicines is confounded by confusion with recreational cannabis use as well as different study designs, indications, dosing, and administration methods. However, clinical studies in registered products are increasingly available, and this article aims to discuss and clarify what is known regarding the safety profiles of cannabinoid-based medicines, focusing on the medical and clinical safety evidence and identifying areas for future research. The two most well-studied cannabinoids are Δ9-tetrahydrocannabinol (THC), or its synthetic variants (dronabinol, nabilone), and cannabidiol (CBD). Across diverse indications, dizziness and fatigue are generally the most common adverse events experienced by patients receiving THC or combined THC and CBD. Patients receiving THC may experience adverse cognitive effects and impairment in psychomotor skills, with implications for driving and some occupations, while CBD may help to lower the psychotropic effects of THC when used in combination. Studies on dependency and addiction in a medical context are limited, but have shown inconsistent findings regarding misuse potential. Generally, the recommended route of administration is oral ingestion, as smoking medicinal cannabinoid products potentially releases mutagenic and carcinogenic by-products. There are several potential drug-drug interactions and contraindications for cannabinoid-based medicines, which physicians should account for when making prescribing decisions. The available evidence shows that, as with any other class of pharmaceuticals, cannabinoid-based medicines are associated with safety risks which should be assessed in the context of potential therapeutic benefits. Each patient should be assessed on an individual basis and physicians must rely on informed, evidence-based decision-making when determining whether a cannabinoid-based medicine could be an appropriate treatment option.