Proposed best practice for projects that involve modelling and simulation

Modelling and simulation has been used in many ways when developing new treatments. To be useful and credible, it is generally agreed that modelling and simulation should be undertaken according to some kind of best practice. A number of authors have suggested elements required for best practice in modelling and simulation. Elements that have been suggested include the pre-specification of goals, assumptions, methods, and outputs. However, a project that involves modelling and simulation could be simple or complex and could be of relatively low or high importance to the project. It has been argued that the level of detail and the strictness of pre-specification should be allowed to vary, depending on the complexity and importance of the project. This best practice document does not prescribe how to develop a statistical model. Rather, it describes the elements required for the specification of a project and requires that the practitioner justify in the specification the omission of any of the elements and, in addition, justify the level of detail provided about each element. This document is an initiative of the Special Interest Group for modelling and simulation. The Special Interest Group for modelling and simulation is a body open to members of Statisticians in the Pharmaceutical Industry and the European Federation of Statisticians in the Pharmaceutical Industry. Examples of a very detailed specification and a less detailed specification are included as appendices

Initial monotherapy with eslicarbazepine acetate for the management of adult patients with focal epilepsy in clinical practice: a meta-analysis of observational studies

This study was funded by Laboratorios Bial, S.A. (Madrid, Spain).The authors thank Alejandro Pedromingo (Bio-estadistica. com, Madrid, Spain) for the statistical analysis, and Isabel San Andrés (Incimed, Madrid, Spain) for performing the literature search. Their participation has been funded by Laboratorios Bial, S.A. (Madrid, Spain).Aim of the study To assess the effectiveness, overall tolerability of eslicarbazepine acetate (ESL) as an initial or early monotherapy treatment of adult patients with focal epilepsy under real-world practice conditions. Materials and methods We focused on real-world longitudinal studies that included or separately reported the results of at least one of the efficacy outcomes of interest. A DerSimonian-Laird random effects model was used with the presentation of the 95% confidence intervals of the estimate Results 5 studies met our selection criteria and were included in the quantitative synthesis. All studies were observational and uncontrolled studies, and all but one were retrospective studies. The pooled proportion of patients who were seizure-free for the entire study period was 64.6% (95% CI, 45.7 to 79.8) at month 6 and 56.6% (95% CI, 50.2 to 62.8) at month 12. Pooled retention rates were 95.0% (95% CI, 90.3 to 97.5) at 6 months and 83.6% (95% CI, 73.9 to 90.1) at 12 months. The pooled proportion of patients who reported at least one adverse event was 27.2% (95% CI, 21.7 to 33.6), and the pooled proportion of patients who discontinued ESL due to adverse events was 8.9% (95% CI 6.2 to 12.6). Conclusions Our results suggest that initial or early monotherapy with ESL is effective and well-tolerated for the management of adult patients with focal epilepsy in clinical practice, with results that are at least similar to those reported in the pivotal randomized clinical trial of ESL monotherapy. No new safety signals with ESL have been identified in this systematic review.Bial Grou

A systematic review of the safety information contained within the Summaries of Product Characteristics of medications licensed in the United Kingdom for Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. how does the safety prescribing advice compare with national guidance?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The safety of paediatric medications is paramount and contraindications provide clear pragmatic advice. Further advice may be accessed through Summaries of Product Characteristics (SPCs) and relevant national guidelines. The SPC can be considered the ultimate independent guideline and is regularly updated. In 2008, the authors undertook a systematic review of the SPC contraindications of medications licensed in the United Kingdom (UK) for the treatment of Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). At that time, there were fewer contraindications reported in the SPC for atomoxetine than methylphenidate and the specific contraindications varied considerably amongst methylphenidate formulations. In 2009, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) mandated harmonisation of methylphenidate SPCs. Between September and November 2011, there were three changes to the atomoxetine SPC that resulted in revised prescribing information. In addition, Clinical Guidance has also been produced by the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) (2008), the Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN) (2009) and the British National Formulary for Children (BNFC).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>An updated systematic review of the Contraindications sections of the SPCs of all medications currently licensed for treatment of ADHD in the UK was undertaken and independent statements regarding contraindications and relevant warnings and precautions were then compared with UK national guidance with the aim of assessing any disparity and potential areas of confusion for prescribers.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>As of November 2011, there were seven medications available in the UK for the treatment of ADHD. There are 15 contraindications for most formulations of methylphenidate, 14 for dexamfetamine and 5 for atomoxetine. Significant differences exist between the SPCs and national guidance part due to the ongoing reactive process of amending the former as new information becomes known. In addition, recommendations are made outside UK SPC licensed indications and a significant contraindication for methylphenidate (suicidal behaviours) is missing from both the NICE and SIGN guidelines. Particular disparity exists relating to monitoring for suicidal and psychiatric side effects. The BNFC has not yet been updated in line with the European Union (EU) Directive on methylphenidate; it does not include any contraindications for atomoxetine but describes contraindications for methylphenidate that are no longer in the SPC.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>Clinicians seeking prescribing advice from critical independent sources of data, such as SPCs and national guidelines, may be confused by the disparity that exists. There are major differences between guidelines and SPCs and neither should be referred to in isolation. The SPC represents the most relevant source of safety data to aid prescribing of medications for ADHD as they present the most current safety data in line with increased exposure. National guidelines may need more regular updates.</p

Approval of cancer drugs with uncertain therapeutic value: a comparison of regulatory decisions in Europe and the United States

Policy Points Regulatory agencies may have limited evidence on the clinical benefits and harms of new drugs when deciding whether new therapeutic agents are allowed to enter the market and under which conditions, including whether approval is granted under special regulatory pathways and obligations to address knowledge gaps through postmarketing studies are imposed. In a matched comparison of marketing applications for cancer drugs of uncertain therapeutic value reviewed by both the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA), we found frequent discordance between the two agencies on regulatory outcomes and the use of special regulatory pathways. Both agencies often granted regular approval, even when the other agency judged there to be substantial uncertainty about drug benefits and risks that needed to be resolved through additional studies in the postmarketing period. Postmarketing studies imposed by regulators under special approval pathways to address remaining questions of efficacy and safety may not be suited to deliver timely, confirmatory evidence due to shortcomings in study design and delays, raising questions over the suitability of the FDA's Accelerated Approval and the EMA's Conditional Marketing Authorization as tools for allowing early market access for cancer drugs while maintaining rigorous regulatory standards. Context: Regulatory agencies are increasingly required to make market approval decisions for new drugs on the basis of limited clinical evidence, a situation commonly encountered in cancer. We aimed to investigate how regulators manage uncertainty in the benefit-risk profiles of new cancer drugs by comparing decisions for the world's two largest regulatory bodies—the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the European Medicines Agency (EMA)—over a 5-year period. Methods: We systematically identified a set of cancer drug-indication pairs for which data on efficacy and safety was less complete than that required for regular approval at time of market entry from 2009 to 2013, as determined by the FDA's use of Accelerated Approval (AA) or the EMA's use of Conditional Marketing Authorization (CMA) pathways, and matched these across the two agencies. Using publicly available information, we compared regulatory pathways and outcomes, final approved indications, and postmarketing obligations imposed by the agencies. Findings: We identified 21 cancer drug-indication pairs that received FDA AA, EMA CMA, or both. Although most applications relied on identical pivotal trials across the FDA and the EMA, regulatory pathways often differed; 57% of indications received either FDA AA or EMA CMA, and regular approval by the other agency. After approval, the EMA more often accepted single-arm studies to confirm clinical benefit compared to the FDA (75% vs. 29% of indications), and the FDA more commonly requested randomized controlled trials (85% vs. 50%). Forty-one percent of confirmatory trials after FDA AA were conducted in different populations than the approved indication, compared to 13% after EMA CMA. Both agencies relied primarily on surrogate measures of patient benefit for postmarketing obligations. After a median follow-up of 7.25 years, 40% of FDA and 61% of EMA postmarketing obligations after AA and CMA, respectively, were delayed. Conclusions: US and European regulators often deemed early and less complete evidence on benefit-risk profiles of cancer drugs sufficient to grant regular approval, raising questions over regulatory standards for the approval of new medicines. Even when imposing confirmatory studies in the postmarketing period through special approval pathways, meaningful evidence may not materialize due to shortcomings in study design and delays in conducting required studies with due diligence

Quantitative analysis of antibiotic usage in British sheep flocks

The aim of this study was to examine the variation in antibiotic usage between 207 commercial sheep flocks using their veterinary practice prescribing records. Mean and median prescribed mass per population corrected unit (mg/PCU) was 11.38 and 5.95, respectively and closely correlated with animal defined daily dose (ADDD) 1.47 (mean), 0.74 (median) (R2=0.84, P<0.001). This is low in comparison with the suggested target (an average across all the UK livestock sectors) of 50 mg/PCU. In total, 80 per cent of all antibiotic usage occurred in the 39 per cent of flocks where per animal usage was greater than 9.0 mg/PCU. Parenteral antibiotics, principally oxytetracycline, represented 82 per cent of the total prescribed mass, 65.5 per cent of antibiotics (mg/PCU) were prescribed for the treatment of lameness. Oral antibiotics were prescribed to 49 per cent of flocks, 64 per cent of predicted lamb crop/farm. Lowland flocks were prescribed significantly more antibiotics than hill flocks. Variance partitioning apportioned 79 per cent of variation in total antibiotic usage (mg/PCU) to the farm level and 21 per cent to the veterinary practice indicating that veterinary practices have a substantial impact on overall antimicrobial usage. Reducing antibiotic usage in the sheep sector should be possible with better understanding of the drivers of high usage in individual flocks and of veterinary prescribing practices

Blood Cytokines as Biomarkers of In Vivo Toxicity in Preclinical Safety Assessment: Considerations for Their Use

In the drive to develop drugs with well-characterized and clinically monitorable safety profiles, there is incentive to expand the repertoire of safety biomarkers for toxicities without routine markers or premonitory detection. Biomarkers in blood are pursued because of specimen accessibility, opportunity for serial monitoring, quantitative measurement, and the availability of assay platforms. Cytokines, chemokines, and growth factors (here referred to collectively as cytokines) show robust modulation in proximal events of inflammation, immune response, and repair. These are key general processes in many toxicities; therefore, cytokines are commonly identified during biomarker discovery studies. In addition, multiplexed cytokine immunoassays are easily applied to biomarker discovery and routine toxicity studies to measure blood cytokines. However, cytokines pose several challenges as safety biomarkers because of a short serum half-life; low to undetectable baseline levels; lack of tissue-specific or toxicity-specific expression; complexities related to cytokine expression with multiorgan involvement; and species, strain, and interindividual differences. Additional challenges to their application are caused by analytical, methodological, and study design–related variables. A final consideration is the strength of the relationship between changes in cytokine levels and the development of phenotypic or functional manifestations of toxicity. These factors should inform the integrated judgment-based qualification of novel biomarkers in preclinical, and potentially clinical, risk assessment. The dearth of robust, predictive cytokine biomarkers for specific toxicities is an indication of the significant complexity of these challenges. This review will consider the current state of the science and recommendations for appropriate application of cytokines in preclinical safety assessment

Determining the optimal dose of atrasentan by evaluating the exposure-response relationships of albuminuria and bodyweight

This study aimed to identify the optimal dose of the endothelin-1 receptor antagonist atrasentan with maximal albuminuria reduction and minimal signs of sodium retention, as manifested by increase in bodyweight. Data from the RADAR-JAPAN studies were used, evaluating the effect of 0.75 or 1.25 mg/d of atrasentan in 161 patients with type 2 diabetes and kidney disease. Individual pharmacokinetic parameters were estimated using a population pharmacokinetic approach. Subsequently, changes in the urinary albumin-to-creatinine ratio (UACR) and bodyweight from baseline after 2 weeks' exposure were modelled as a function of the pharmacokinetic parameters. The 0.75 and 1.25 mg doses showed a mean UACR reduction of 34.0% and 40.1%, whereas mean bodyweight increased by 0.9 and 1.1 kg, respectively. A large variation between individuals was observed in the UACR and bodyweight responses. Individual pharmacokinetic parameters correlated significantly with both individual UACR and bodyweight responses (P &lt; .01). The individual response curves for UACR and bodyweight crossed at approximately the mean trough concentration of 0.75 mg atrasentan, indicating that 0.75 mg/d of atrasentan is the optimal dose for kidney protection with maximal efficacy (albuminuria reduction) and safety (minimal sodium retention).</p

Evaluating Quality of Decision-Making Processes in Medicines' Development, Regulatory Review, and Health Technology Assessment : A Systematic Review of the Literature.

Introduction: Although pharmaceutical companies, regulatory authorities, and health technology assessment (HTA) agencies have been increasingly using decision-making frameworks, it is not certain whether these enable better quality decision making. This could be addressed by formally evaluating the quality of decision-making process within those organizations. The aim of this literature review was to identify current techniques (tools, questionnaires, surveys, and studies) for measuring the quality of the decision-making process across the three stakeholders. Methods: Using MEDLINE, Web of Knowledge, and other Internet-based search engines, a literature review was performed to systematically identify techniques for assessing quality of decision making in medicines development, regulatory review, and HTA. A structured search was applied using key words and a secondary review was carried out. In addition, the measurement properties of each technique were assessed and compared. Ten Quality Decision-Making Practices (QDMPs) developed previously were then used as a framework for the evaluation of techniques identified in the review. Due to the variation in studies identified, meta-analysis was inappropriate. Results: This review identified 13 techniques, where 7 were developed specifically to assess decision making in medicines' development, regulatory review, or HTA; 2 examined corporate decision making, and 4 general decision making. Regarding how closely each technique conformed to the 10 QDMPs, the 13 techniques assessed a median of 6 QDMPs, with a mode of 3 QDMPs. Only 2 techniques evaluated all 10 QDMPs, namely the Organizational IQ and the Quality of Decision Making Orientation Scheme (QoDoS), of which only one technique, QoDoS could be applied to assess decision making of both individuals and organizations, and it possessed generalizability to capture issues relevant to companies as well as regulatory authorities. Conclusion: This review confirmed a general paucity of research in this area, particularly regarding the development and systematic application of techniques for evaluating quality decision making, with no consensus around a gold standard. This review has identified QoDoS as the most promising available technique for assessing decision making in the lifecycle of medicines and the next steps would be to further test its validity, sensitivity, and reliability.Peer reviewedFinal Published versio

Evaluation of the Capitainer-B microfluidic device as a new hematocrit-independent alternative for dried blood spot collection

The hematocrit-bias still remains one of the most discussed issues when it comes to dried blood spot (DBS) analysis. Therefore, many attempts to cope with this issue have been made, among which the development of novel sampling tools such as the Capitainer-B (further referred to as MF (microfluidic)-DBS) devices. These are designed to allow a straightforward absorption of a fixed volume (13.5 mu L) of blood by a preperforated paper disc, which can be analyzed afterward. The aim of this study was to evaluate the potential of these devices to nullify the hematocrit-based area bias and to investigate whether the amount of blood applied has an influence on the device performance. An LC-MS/MS method for the quantification of caffeine and paraxanthine in MF-DBS was fully validated, meeting all preset acceptance criteria. In a next step, using a set of 133 authentic, venous patient samples with a hematocrit range of 18.8-55.0, concentrations of both compounds in MF-DBS were compared to those in corresponding partial-punch pipetted DBS (PI-DBS) and liquid blood samples. When compared to blood as a reference, the concentrations obtained in MF-DBS were not affected by a bias in function of the evaluated hematocrit, in contrast to those obtained from partial-punch PI-DBS. Furthermore, analysis of samples resulting from spiking different volumes of whole blood at different hematocrit levels, revealed that the amount of blood applied at the device inlet has no influence on the performance of the devices. Therefore, it can be concluded from this study, being the first in which the impact of the hematocrit and the applied volume is evaluated by analyzing authentic, venous patient samples, that MF-DBS devices effectively assist in eliminating the hematocrit-based area bias, independently from the applied blood volume