Model-Based Assessment of Alternative Study Designs in Pediatric Trials. Part I: Frequentist Approaches

Conditional distribution modeling as an alternative method for covariates simulation: Comparison with joint multivariate normal and bootstrap techniques

Clinical trial simulation (CTS) is a valuable tool in drug development. To obtain realistic scenarios, the subjects included in the CTS must be representative of the target population. Common ways of generating virtual subjects are based upon bootstrap (BS) procedures or multivariate normal distributions (MVNDs). Here, we investigated the performance of an alternative method based on conditional distributions (CDs). Covariate data from a hypertension drug development program were used. The methods were evaluated based on the original data set (internal evaluation) and on their ability to reproduce an older, unobserved population (extrapolation). Similar results were obtained in the internal evaluation for summary statistics, yet BS was able to preserve the correlation structure of the empirical distribution, which was not adequately reproduced by MVND; CD was in between BS and MVND. BS does not allow to extrapolate to an unobserved population. When the data set used to inform the extrapolation was well approximated by an MVND, the results from CD and MVND were comparable. However, improved extrapolation performance was observed for CD when deviations from normality assumptions occurred. If CTS is used to simulate within the observed distribution, BS is the preferred method. When extrapolating to new populations, a parametric method like CD/MVND is needed. In case the empirical multivariate distribution is characterized by linearly related covariates and unimodal marginal distributions, MVND can be used because of the simpler statistical framework and well‐established use; however, if uncertainty about the MVND assumptions exists, CD will increase the confidence in the simulations compared to MVND.

Useful pharmacodynamic endpoints in children: selection, measurement, and next steps

Pharmacodynamic (PD) endpoints are essential for establishing the benefit-to-risk ratio for therapeutic interventions in children and neonates. This article discusses the selection of an appropriate measure of response, the PD endpoint, which is a critical methodological step in designing pediatric efficacy and safety studies. We provide an overview of existing guidance on the choice of PD endpoints in pediatric clinical research. We identified several considerations relevant to the selection and measurement of PD endpoints in pediatric clinical trials, including the use of biomarkers, modeling, compliance, scoring systems, and validated measurement tools. To be useful, PD endpoints in children need to be clinically relevant, responsive to both treatment and/or disease progression, reproducible, and reliable. In most pediatric disease areas, this requires significant validation efforts. We propose a minimal set of criteria for useful PD endpoint selection and measurement. We conclude that, given the current heterogeneity of pediatric PD endpoint definitions and measurements, both across and within defined disease areas, there is an acute need for internationally agreed, validated, and condition-specific pediatric PD endpoints that consider the needs of all stakeholders, including healthcare providers, policy makers, patients, and families.

Model-Based Assessment of Alternative Study Designs in Pediatric Trials. Part II: Bayesian Approaches

This study presents a pharmacokinetic‐pharmacodynamic based clinical trial simulation framework for evaluating the performance of a fixed‐sample Bayesian design (BD) and two alternative Bayesian sequential designs (BSDs) (i.e., a non‐hierarchical (NON‐H) and a semi‐hierarchical (SEMI‐H) one). Prior information was elicited from adult trials and weighted based on the expected similarity of response to treatment between the pediatric and adult populations. Study designs were evaluated in terms of: type I and II errors, sample size per arm (SS), trial duration (TD), and estimate precision. No substantial differences were observed between NON‐H and SEMI‐H. BSDs require, on average, smaller SS and TD compared to the BD, which, on the other hand, guarantees higher estimate precision. When large differences between children and adults are expected, BSDs can return very large SS. Bayesian approaches appear to outperform their frequentist counterparts in the design of pediatric trials even when little weight is given to prior information from adults.