Evidence-based drug treatment for special patient populations through model-based approaches

The majority of marketed drugs remain understudied in some patient populations such as pregnant women, paediatrics, the obese, the critically-ill, and the elderly. As a consequence, currently used dosing regimens may not assure optimal efficacy or minimal toxicity in these patients. Given the vulnerability of some subpopulations and the challenges and costs of performing clinical studies in these populations, cutting-edge approaches are needed to effectively develop evidence-based and individualized drug dosing regimens. Five key issues are presented that are essential to support and expedite the development of drug dosing regimens in these populations using model-based approaches: 1) model development combined with proper validation procedures to extract as much valid information from available study data as possible, with limited burden to patients and costs; 2) integration of existing data and the use of prior pharmacological and physiological knowledge in study design and data analysis, to further develop knowledge and avoid unnecessary or unrealistic (large) studies in vulnerable populations; 3) clinical proof-of-principle in a prospective evaluation of a developed drug dosing regimen, to confirm that a newly proposed regimen indeed results in the desired outcomes in terms of drug concentrations, efficacy, and/or safety; 4) pharmacodynamics studies in addition to pharmacokinetics studies for drugs for which a difference in disease progression and/or in exposure-response relation is anticipated compared to the reference population; 5) additional efforts to implement developed dosing regimens in clinical practice once drug pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics have been characterized in special patient populations. The latter remains an important bottleneck, but this is essential to truly realize evidence-based and individualized drug dosing for special patient populations. As all tools required for this purpose are available, we have the moral and societal obligation to make safe and effective pharmacotherapy available for these patients to

The impact of structural uncertainty on cost-effectiveness models for adjuvant endocrine breast cancer treatments: The need for disease-specific model standardization and improved guidance

__Abstract__ Introduction: Structural uncertainty relates to differences in model structure and parameterization. For many published health economic analyses in oncology, substantial differences in model structure exist, leading to differences in analysis outcomes and potentially impacting decision-making processes. The objectives of this analysis were (1) to identify differences in model structure and parameterization for cost-effectiveness analyses (CEAs) comparing tamoxifen and anastrazole for adjuvant breast cancer (ABC) treatment; and (2) to quantify the impact of these differences on analysis outcome metrics. Methods: The analysis consisted of four steps: (1) review of the literature for identification of eligible CEAs; (2) definition and implementation of a base model structure, which included the core structural components for all identified CEAs; (3) definition and implementation of changes or additions in the base model structure or parameterization; and (4) quantification of the impact of changes in model structure or parameterizations on the analysis outcome metrics life-years gained (LYG), incremental costs (IC) and the incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER). Results: Eleven CEA analyses comparing anastrazole and tamoxifen as ABC treatment were identified. The base model consisted of the following health states: (1) on treatment; (2) off treatment; (3) local recurrence; (4) metastatic disease; (5) death due to breast cancer; and (6) death due to other causes. The base model estimates of anastrazole versus tamoxifen for the LYG, IC and ICER were 0.263 years, €3,647 and €13,868/LYG, respectively. In the published models that were evaluated, differences in model structure included the addition of different recurrence health states, and associated transition rates were identified. Differences in parameterization were related to the incidences of recurrence, local recurrence to metastatic disease, and metastatic disease to death. The separate impact of these model components on the LYG ranged from 0.207 to 0.356 years, while incremental costs ranged from €3,490 to €3,714 and ICERs ranged from €9,804/LYG to €17,966/LYG. When we re-analyzed the published CEAs in our framework by including their respective model properties, the LYG ranged from 0.207 to 0.383 years, IC ranged from €3,556 to €3,731 and ICERs ranged from €9,683/LYG to €17,570/LYG. Conclusion:

Towards personalized treatment of pain using a quantitative systems pharmacology approach

Pain is a complex biopsychosocial phenomenon of which the intensity, location and duration depends on various underlying components. Treatment of pain is associated with considerable inter-individual variability, and as such, requires a personalized approach. However, a priori prediction of optimal analgesic treatment for individual patients is still challenging. Another challenge is the assessment and treatment of pain in patients unable to self-report pain. In this mini-review, we first provide a brief overview of the various components underlying pain, and their associated biomarkers. These include clinical, psychosocial, neurophysiological, and biochemical components. We then discuss the use of empirical and mechanism-based pharmacokinetic-pharmacodynamic modelling to support personalized treatment of pain. Finally, we propose how these concepts can be extended to a quantitative systems pharmacology (QSP) approach that integrates the components of clinical pain and treatment response. This integrative approach can support predictions of optimal pharmacotherapy of pain, compared with approaches that focus on single components of pain. Moreover, combination of QSP modelling with state-of-the-art metabolomics approaches may offer unique possibilities to identify novel pain biomarkers. Such biomarkers could support both the personalized treatment of pain and translational drug development of novel analgesic agents. In conclusion, a QSP approach will likely improve our ability to predict pain and treatment response, paving the way for personalized treatment of pain