Operating Characteristics of the Simulated Healthy Participant Approach in Impaired Clearance Studies.

IF 5 3区 医学 Q1 PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY
Sana Gupta, Vivek Purohit, Yuchen Wang, John P Prybylski
{"title":"Operating Characteristics of the Simulated Healthy Participant Approach in Impaired Clearance Studies.","authors":"Sana Gupta, Vivek Purohit, Yuchen Wang, John P Prybylski","doi":"10.1208/s12248-025-01019-8","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Minimizing harm is a cornerstone of ethical research practices. A drug that has undergone extensive clinical pharmacological testing in healthy participants (HPs) and a diverse selection of patients can be described with a sufficiently predictive population pharmacokinetic (PopPK) model. In impaired clearance trials, recruitment is minimized and underpowered for all but major exposure differences. Virtual HP arms have been reported to support similar conclusions to conventional impaired clearance studies, and further minimize potential harm of drug exposure without medical benefit by eliminating an arm of the study. However, the extent to which the conventional analysis of impairment studies compare to the simulation approach is unknown. Here we assess the operating characteristics of the virtual cohort approach along with the conventional approach through controlled simulations. These simulations included a simple, widely accessible PopPK model and several internal models that have been used in a previous meta-analysis of the virtual cohort approach. In the pairwise comparisons assessed, the virtual cohort simulation approach had greater power per sample size than the conventional approach and the same power under the null hypothesis. Given key methodological differences, it is recommended that the simulation and conventional approaches be treated as having approximately the same power under equivalent conditions. These results provide a strong justification for the use of the virtual cohort approach when an adequate PopPK model is available, minimizing unnecessary exposure to study drugs that will not benefit healthy study participants.</p>","PeriodicalId":50934,"journal":{"name":"AAPS Journal","volume":"27 1","pages":"32"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2025-01-22","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"AAPS Journal","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1208/s12248-025-01019-8","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PHARMACOLOGY & PHARMACY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Minimizing harm is a cornerstone of ethical research practices. A drug that has undergone extensive clinical pharmacological testing in healthy participants (HPs) and a diverse selection of patients can be described with a sufficiently predictive population pharmacokinetic (PopPK) model. In impaired clearance trials, recruitment is minimized and underpowered for all but major exposure differences. Virtual HP arms have been reported to support similar conclusions to conventional impaired clearance studies, and further minimize potential harm of drug exposure without medical benefit by eliminating an arm of the study. However, the extent to which the conventional analysis of impairment studies compare to the simulation approach is unknown. Here we assess the operating characteristics of the virtual cohort approach along with the conventional approach through controlled simulations. These simulations included a simple, widely accessible PopPK model and several internal models that have been used in a previous meta-analysis of the virtual cohort approach. In the pairwise comparisons assessed, the virtual cohort simulation approach had greater power per sample size than the conventional approach and the same power under the null hypothesis. Given key methodological differences, it is recommended that the simulation and conventional approaches be treated as having approximately the same power under equivalent conditions. These results provide a strong justification for the use of the virtual cohort approach when an adequate PopPK model is available, minimizing unnecessary exposure to study drugs that will not benefit healthy study participants.

在受损清除研究中模拟健康参与者方法的操作特征。
最小化伤害是伦理研究实践的基石。在健康参与者(hp)和不同选择的患者中进行广泛的临床药理学试验的药物可以用充分预测的群体药代动力学(PopPK)模型来描述。在受损清除试验中,除了主要的暴露差异外,招募是最小的,并且动力不足。据报道,虚拟HP组支持与传统清除率受损研究类似的结论,并通过消除研究中的一个组,进一步减少无医疗益处的药物暴露的潜在危害。然而,与模拟方法相比,传统的损伤研究分析的程度是未知的。在这里,我们通过控制模拟来评估虚拟队列方法和传统方法的操作特性。这些模拟包括一个简单的,广泛使用的PopPK模型和几个内部模型,这些模型已经在之前的虚拟队列方法的荟萃分析中使用过。在评估的两两比较中,虚拟队列模拟方法在每个样本量上比传统方法具有更大的功效,并且在零假设下具有相同的功效。鉴于关键的方法差异,建议将模拟和传统方法视为在等效条件下具有大致相同的功率。这些结果为在适当的PopPK模型可用时使用虚拟队列方法提供了强有力的理由,最大限度地减少了对健康研究参与者不利的研究药物的不必要暴露。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
AAPS Journal
AAPS Journal 医学-药学
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
4.40%
发文量
109
审稿时长
1 months
期刊介绍: The AAPS Journal, an official journal of the American Association of Pharmaceutical Scientists (AAPS), publishes novel and significant findings in the various areas of pharmaceutical sciences impacting human and veterinary therapeutics, including: · Drug Design and Discovery · Pharmaceutical Biotechnology · Biopharmaceutics, Formulation, and Drug Delivery · Metabolism and Transport · Pharmacokinetics, Pharmacodynamics, and Pharmacometrics · Translational Research · Clinical Evaluations and Therapeutic Outcomes · Regulatory Science We invite submissions under the following article types: · Original Research Articles · Reviews and Mini-reviews · White Papers, Commentaries, and Editorials · Meeting Reports · Brief/Technical Reports and Rapid Communications · Regulatory Notes · Tutorials · Protocols in the Pharmaceutical Sciences In addition, The AAPS Journal publishes themes, organized by guest editors, which are focused on particular areas of current interest to our field.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信