Clinical dose–response for a broad set of biological products: A model-based meta-analysis

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.

Keywords

Model-based meta-analysis biologics dose–response Emax model Bayesian hierarchical model

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

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).

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).

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).

Bornkamp

Bretz

Dmitrienko

et al.

Innovative approaches for designing and analyzing adaptive dose-ranging trials. J Biopharmaceut Stat 2007; 17: 965–995.

Bartholomew

. Ordered tests in the analysis of variance. Biometrika 1961; 48: 325–332.

Williams

. Test for differences between treatment means when several dose levels are compared with a zero dose control. Biometrics 1971; 27: 103–117.

Bretz

Pinheiro

Branson

. Combining multiple comparisons and modeling techniques in dose-response studies. Biometrics 2005; 61: 738–748.

Pinheiro

Bornkamp

Bretz

. Design and analysis of dose-finding studies combining multiple comparisons and modeling procedures. J Biopharmaceut Stat 2006; 16: 639–656.

Bornkamp

Bretz

Dette

et al.

Response-adaptive dose-finding under model uncertainty. Ann Appl Stat 2011; 5: 1611–1631.

10.

Breiman

. Bagging predictors. Mach Learn 1996; 24: 123–140.

11.

Efron

. Estimation and accuracy after model selection. J Am Stat Assoc 2014; 109: 991–1007.

12.

Bornkamp

. Viewpoint: model selection uncertainty, pre-specification, and model averaging. Pharmaceut Stat 2015; 14: 79–81.

13.

Dilleen

Heimann

Hirsch

. Non-parametric estimators of a monotonic dose-response curve and bootstrap confidence intervals. Stat Med 2003; 22: 869–882.

14.

Kirby

Colman

Morris

. Adaptive modelling of dose-response relationships using smoothing splines. Pharmaceut Stat 2009; 8: 346–355.

15.

Helms

Benda

Zinserling

et al.

Spline-based procedures for dose-finding studies with active control. Stat Med 2015; 34: 232–248.

16.

Milligan

Brown

Marchant

et al.

Model-based drug development: a rational approach to efficiently accelerate drug development. Clin Pharmacol Therapeut 2013; 93: 502–514.

17.

Mould

. Model-based meta-analysis: an important tool for making quantitative decisions during drug development. Clin Pharmacol Therapeut 2012; 92: 283–286.

18.

Mandema

Salinger

Baumgartner

et al.

A dose–response meta-analysis for quantifying relative efficacy of biologics in rheumatoid arthritis. Clin Pharmacol Therapeut 2011; 90: 828–835.

19.

Mandema

Zheng

Libanati

et al.

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.

20.

Thomas

Sweeney

Somayaji

. Meta-analysis of clinical dose-response in a large drug development portfolio. Stat Biopharmaceut Res 2014; 6: 302–317.

21.

Tan

Gruben

French

et al.

A case study of model-based Bayesian dose response estimation. Stat Med 2011; 30: 2622–2633.

22.

Chinn

. A simple method for converting an odds ratio to effect size for use in meta-analysis. Stat Med 2000; 19: 3127–3131.

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).

24.

SAS Institute Inc. SAS® 9.4 2015. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc., 2015.

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/.

26.

Thomas

. Hypothesis testing and Bayesian estimation using a sigmoid E-max model applied to sparse dose-response designs. J Biopharmaceut Stat 2006; 16: 657–677.

27.

Dagostino

Belanger

. A suggestion for using powerful and informative tests of normality. Am Stat 1990; 44: 316–321.

28.

Gries

Munafo

Porchet

et al.

Down-regulation models and modeling of testosterone production induced by recombinant human choriogonadotropin. J Pharmacol Experiment Therapeut 1999; 289: 371–377.

29.

Hill

. The possible effects of the aggregation of the molecules of haemoglobin on its dissociation curves. J Physiol 1910; 40: iv–cvii.

30.

Clark

. The reaction between acetyl choline and muscle cells. J Physiol 1926; 61: 530–546.

31.

Ariens

. 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.

32.

Upton

Mould

. 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.

33.

Holford

NHG

Sheiner

. Understanding the dose-effect relationship – clinical application of pharmacokinetic–pharmacodynamic models. Clin Pharmacokinetics 1981; 6: 429–453.

34.

Goutelle

Maurin

Rougier

et al.

The Hill equation: a review of its capabilities in pharmacological modelling. Fundament Clin Pharmacol 2008; 22: 633–648.

35.

Seber

Wild

. Nonlinear regression, New Jersey, NJ: Wiley, 2003.

36.

MacDougall

Analysis of dose response studies – Emax model. In: Ting

(ed). Dose finding in drug development, New York, NY: Springer, 2006.

37.

Kirby

Brain

Jones

. Fitting E-max models to clinical trial dose-response data. Pharmaceut Stat 2011; 10: 143–149.

38.

Brain

Kirby

Larionov

. Fitting Emax models to clinical trial dose-response data when the high dose asymptote is ill defined. Pharmaceut Stat 2014; 13: 364–370.

39.

Huang

Liu

Hsiao

. An alternative phase II/III design for continuous endpoints. Pharmaceut Stat 2011; 10: 105–114.

40.

Bates

Watts

. Nonlinear regression analysis and its application, New York, NY: Wiley, 1998.

41.

Spiegelhalter

Best

Carlin

et al.

Bayesian measures of model complexity and fit. J R Stat Soc Ser B-Stat Methodol 2002; 64: 583–616.

42.

Lunn

Spiegelhalter

Thomas

et al.

The BUGS project: evolution, critique and future directions. Stat Med 2009; 28: 3049–3067.

43.

Sturtz

Ligges

Gelman

. R2WinBUGS: a package for running WinBUGS from R. J Stat Software 2005; 12: 1–16.

44.

Plummer

Best

Cowles

et al.

CODA: convergence diagnosis and output analysis for MCMC. R News 2006; 6: 7–11.

45.

Brooks

Gelman

. General methods for monitoring convergence of iterative simulations. J Computat Graph Stat 1998; 7: 434–455.

46.

Heidelberger

Welch

. Simulation fun length control in the presence of an initial transient. Operat Res 1983; 31: 1109–1144.

47.

Geweke

Evaluating the accuracy of sampling-based approaches to calculating posterior moments. In: Bernado

Berger

Dawid

Smith

AFM

(eds). Bayesian Statistics 4, Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1992.

48.

Raftery

Lewis

. One long run with diagnostics: implementation strategies for Markov chain Monte Carlo. Stat Sci 1992; 7: 493–497.

49.

Wallace

Kalunian

Petri

et al.

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.

50.

Saini

Rosen

Hsieh

et al.

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.

51.

Branski

Herndon

Barrow

et al.

Randomized controlled trial to determine the efficacy of long-term growth hormone treatment in severely burned children. Ann Surg 2009; 250: 514–523.

52.

Prevost

Abrams

Jones

. Hierarchical models in generalized synthesis of evidence: an example based on studies of breast cancer screening. Stat Med 2000; 19: 3359–3376.

53.

Gelman

Carlin

Stern

et al.

Bayesian data analysis, 3rd ed. Boca Raton, FL: Taylor & Francis Group, 2013.

54.

Kicinski

Springate

Kontopantelis

. Publication bias in meta-analyses from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Stat Med 2015; 34: 2781–2793.

55.

Sahu

Dey

Branco

. A new class of multivariate skew distributions with applications to Bayesian regression models. Can J Stat-Revue Canadienne De Statistique 2003; 31: 129–150.

56.

Congdon

. Bayesian statistical modelling, 2nd ed. West Sussex, UK: John Wiley & Sons Ltd, 2006.

57.

Gelman

Hill

. Data analysis using regression and multilevel/hierarchical model, New York, NY: Cambridge University Press, 2007.

58.

Albert

. Criticism of a hierarchical model using Bayes factors. Stat Med 1999; 18: 287–305.

59.

Kahn

Raftery

. Discharge rates of Medicare stroke patients to skilled nursing facilities: Bayesian logistic regression with unobserved heterogeneity. J Am Stat Assoc 1996; 91: 29–41.

60.

Lindsey

. Response surfaces for overdispersion in the study of the conditions for fish eggs hatching. Biometrics 1999; 55: 149–155.

61.

Levi

Grange

Frey

. 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.

62.

Vandenberg

Colborn

Hayes

et al.

Hormones and endocrine-disrupting chemicals: low-dose effects and nonmonotonic dose responses. Endocrine Rev 2012; 33: 378–455.

63.

Marrow

Felcone

. Defining the difference: what makes biologics unique. Biotechnol Healthcare 2004; 1: 24–20.

64.

Dette

Bretz

Pepelyshev

et al.

Optimal designs for dose-finding studies. J Am Stat Assoc 2008; 103: 1225–1237.

65.

Hobbs

Carlin

Mandrekar

et al.

Hierarchical commensurate and power prior models for adaptive incorporation of historical information in clinical trials. Biometrics 2011; 67: 1047–1056.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.42 MB