Abstract:Pharmacometric 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.

Comparison of Model Averaging and Model Selection in Dose Finding Trials Analyzed by Nonlinear Mixed Effect Models

Phase I Trial Design for Drug Combinations with Bayesian Model Averaging.

Dose Selection Balancing Efficacy and Toxicity Using Bayesian Model Averaging

Model‐based bioequivalence approach for sparse pharmacokinetic bioequivalence studies: Model selection or model averaging?

Comparative Review of Novel Model‐assisted Designs for Phase I Clinical Trials

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

A Default Method to Specify Skeletons for Bayesian Model Averaging Continual Reassessment Method for Phase I Clinical Trials

Comparative review of novel model-assisted designs for phase I clinical trials.

A comparison of model-free phase I dose escalation designs for dual-agent combination therapies

A Bayesian Dose Finding Design for Oncology Clinical Trials of Combinational Biological Agents

Bayesian Dose Finding by Jointly Modelling Toxicity and Efficacy As Time-To-Event Outcomes

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

Evaluation of model‐integrated evidence approaches for pharmacokinetic bioequivalence studies using model averaging methods

Sequential Continual Reassessment Method for Two-Dimensional Dose Finding.

On the Relative Efficiency of Model-Assisted Designs: a Conditional Approach.

Quantitative Risk Assessment: Developing a Bayesian Approach to Dichotomous Dose-Response Uncertainty

Bayesian Model Averaging for Partial Ordering Continual Reassessment Methods

Nonlinear mixed‐effects modeling as a method for causal inference to predict exposures under desired within‐subject dose titration schemes

Adaptive dose-response studies to establish proof-of-concept in learning-phase clinical trials

Potential outcome simulation for efficient head-to-head comparison of adaptive dose-finding designs

Stochastic Approximation and Modern Model-Based Designs for Dose-Finding Clinical Trials