bioRxiv Science⌕ Search

Biology subjects

Chasseloup, E.

Publications and source records attributed to Chasseloup, E..

2 recordsLinked to original sources

Assessment of non-linear mixed effects model-based approaches to test for drug effect using simulated data: type I error and power properties

1Pharmacometric approaches achieves higher power to detect a drug effect compared to traditional statistical hypothesis tests. Known drawbacks come from the model building process where multiple testing and model misspecification are major causes for type I error inflation. IMA is a new approach using mixture models and the likelihood ratio test (LRT) to test for drug effect. It previously showed type I error control and unbiased drug estimates in the context of two-arms balanced designs using real placebo data, in comparison to the standard approach (STD). The aim of this study was to extend the assessment of IMA and STD regarding type I error, power, and bias in the drug effect estimates under various types of model misspecification, with or without LRT calibration. Two classical statistical approaches, t-test and Mixed-Effect Model Repeated Measure (MMRM), were also added to the comparison. The focus was a simulation study where the extent of the model misspecification is known, using a response model with or without drug effect as motivating example in two sample size scenarios. The IMA performances were overall not impacted by the sample size or the LRT calibration, contrary to STD which had better type I error results with the larger sample size and calibrated LRT. In terms of power STD required LRT calibration to outperform IMA. T-test and MMRM had both controlled type I error. The t-test had a lower power than both STD and IMA while MMRM had power predictions similar to IMA. IMA and STD had similarly unbiased drug effect estimates, with few exceptions. IMA showed again encouraging performances (type I error control and unbiased drug estimates) and presented reasonable power predictions. The IMA performances were overall more robust towards model mis-specification compared to STD. IMA confirmed its status of promising NLMEM-based approach for hypothesis testing of the drug effect and could be used in the future, after further evaluations, as primary analysis in confirmatory trials.

pharmacology and toxicology↗

Extension of individual model averaging assessments to unbalanced designs and dose-response

1Recent investigations assessed two non-linear mixed effect (NLME) model based approaches to test for drug effect on real data in the context of balanced two-arms designs. The standard approach (STD) showed type I error inflation and biased drug effect estimates contrary to the proposed alternative, individual model averaging (IMA), which had controlled type I error and unbiased drug effect estimates. The current study is an extension of the performances assessment of these two approaches to unbalanced designs and dose-response studies. The type I error rate and drug effect estimates were assessed for unbalanced designs, using placebo Alzheimer disease assessment scale cognitive (ADAS-cog) scores from 800 individuals. The bias in the drug effect estimates was assessed for dose response scenarios, on data modified by the addition of various dose-response scenarios (Emax= 2.5, 5, and 10). The generalization of IMA to any randomization ratio of two-arms studies was also presented, together with an alternative parameterization of IMA: saturated IMA (sIMA). Similarly to what was observed in balanced designs, both IMA and sIMA had controlled type I errors and unbiased drug effect estimates in unbalanced designs, whereas STD had uncontrolled type I error and biased drug estimates. For the dose-response studies STD had a systematic bias towards the underestimation of the drug effect estimates. IMA and sIMA were unbiased in the scenarios with high maximum effect but their performances were hindered at the lowest maximum drug effect scenario, because of the closeness in magnitude between the drug effect addition and the placebo model misspecification.

pharmacology and toxicology↗