Bayesian pooling versus sequential integration of small preclinical trials: a comparison within linear and nonlinear modeling frameworks.

Bayesian sequential integration is an appealing approach in drug development, as it allows to recursively update posterior distributions as soon as new data become available, thus considerably reducing the computation time. However, preclinical trials are often characterized by small sample sizes, which may affect the estimation process during the first integration steps, particularly when complex PK-PD models are used. In this case, sequential integration would not be practicable, and trials should be pooled together. This work is aimed at comparing simple Bayesian pooling with sequential integration through a simulation study. The two techniques are compared under several scenarios using linear as well as nonlinear models. The results of our simulation study encourage the use of Bayesian sequential integration with linear models. However, in the case of nonlinear models several caveats arise. This paper outlines some important recommendations and precautions in that respect.

Bayesian sequential integration within a preclinical pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic modeling framework: Lessons learned.

The present manuscript aims to discuss the implications of sequential knowledge integration of small preclinical trials in a Bayesian pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic (PK-PD) framework. While, at first sight, a Bayesian PK-PD framework seems to be a natural framework to allow for sequential knowledge integration, the scope of this paper is to highlight some often-overlooked challenges while at the same time providing some guidances in the many and overwhelming choices that need to be made. Challenges as well as opportunities will be discussed that are related to the impact of (1) the prior specification, (2) the choice of random effects, (3) the type of sequential integration method. In addition, it will be shown how the success of a sequential integration strategy is highly dependent on a carefully chosen experimental design when small trials are analyzed.

A Bayesian K-PD model for synergy: A case study.

Coadministration of 2 or more compounds can alter both the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of individual compounds. While experiments on pharmacodynamic drug-drug interactions are usually performed in an in vitro setting, this experiment focuses on an in vivo setting. The change over time of a safety biomarker is modeled using an indirect response model, in which the virtual pharmacokinetic profile of one compound drives the effect of the other. Several experiments at different dose level combinations were performed sequentially. While a traditional frequentist analysis consists of estimating the model parameters based on all the data simultaneously, in this work, we consider a Bayesian inference framework allowing to incorporate the results from a historical dose-response experiment.

Combining evidence from multiple electronic health care databases: performances of one-stage and two-stage meta-analysis in matched case-control studies.

PURPOSE: Clustering of patients in databases is usually ignored in one-stage meta-analysis of multi-database studies using matched case-control data. The aim of this study was to compare bias and efficiency of such a one-stage meta-analysis with a two-stage meta-analysis. METHODS: First, we compared the approaches by generating matched case-control data under 5 simulated scenarios, built by varying: (1) the exposure-outcome association; (2) its variability among databases; (3) the confounding strength of one covariate on this association; (4) its variability; and (5) the (heterogeneous) confounding strength of two covariates. Second, we made the same comparison using empirical data from the ARITMO project, a multiple database study investigating the risk of ventricular arrhythmia following the use of medications with arrhythmogenic potential. In our study, we specifically investigated the effect of current use of promethazine. RESULTS: Bias increased for one-stage meta-analysis with increasing (1) between-database variance of exposure effect and (2) heterogeneous confounding generated by two covariates. The efficiency of one-stage meta-analysis was slightly lower than that of two-stage meta-analysis for the majority of investigated scenarios. Based on ARITMO data, there were no evident differences between one-stage (OR = 1.50, CI = [1.08; 2.08]) and two-stage (OR = 1.55, CI = [1.12; 2.16]) approaches. CONCLUSIONS: When the effect of interest is heterogeneous, a one-stage meta-analysis ignoring clustering gives biased estimates. Two-stage meta-analysis generates estimates at least as accurate and precise as one-stage meta-analysis. However, in a study using small databases and rare exposures and/or outcomes, a correct one-stage meta-analysis becomes essential.