Preface |
|
v | |
|
Introduction and New Drug Development Process |
|
|
1 | (17) |
|
|
1 | (3) |
|
New Drug Development Process |
|
|
4 | (1) |
|
|
5 | (3) |
|
|
5 | (1) |
|
|
6 | (1) |
|
Drug Formulation Development |
|
|
7 | (1) |
|
Premarketing Clinical Development |
|
|
8 | (5) |
|
|
8 | (2) |
|
Phase II/III Clinical Trials |
|
|
10 | (2) |
|
Clinical Development for Life-Threatening Diseases |
|
|
12 | (1) |
|
|
12 | (1) |
|
Clinical Development Plan |
|
|
13 | (1) |
|
Postmarketing Clinical Development |
|
|
14 | (2) |
|
|
16 | (2) |
|
Dose Finding Based on Preclinical Studies |
|
|
18 | (12) |
|
|
18 | (2) |
|
|
20 | (1) |
|
Competitive Binding Assays |
|
|
20 | (5) |
|
|
25 | (1) |
|
|
25 | (1) |
|
Preclinical Toxicology Studies |
|
|
26 | (2) |
|
Extrapolating Dose from Animal to Human |
|
|
28 | (2) |
|
Dose-Finding Studies in Phase I and Estimation of Maximally Tolerated Dose |
|
|
30 | (19) |
|
|
30 | (1) |
|
|
30 | (2) |
|
General Considerations for FIH Studies |
|
|
32 | (5) |
|
|
33 | (2) |
|
|
35 | (2) |
|
|
37 | (5) |
|
Estimating the Starting Dose in Phase I |
|
|
37 | (3) |
|
|
40 | (2) |
|
|
42 | (4) |
|
|
42 | (1) |
|
|
43 | (1) |
|
|
43 | (3) |
|
Dose Selection for Phase II |
|
|
46 | (3) |
|
Dose-Finding in Oncology---Nonparametric Methods |
|
|
49 | (10) |
|
|
49 | (1) |
|
Traditional or 3 + 3 Design |
|
|
50 | (1) |
|
Basic Properties of Group Up-and-Down Designs |
|
|
51 | (1) |
|
Designs that Use Random Sample Size: Escalation and A + B Designs |
|
|
52 | (1) |
|
Escalation and A + B Designs |
|
|
52 | (1) |
|
The 3 + 3 Design as an A + B Design |
|
|
53 | (1) |
|
Designs that Use Fixed Sample Size |
|
|
53 | (2) |
|
Group Up-and-Down Designs |
|
|
54 | (1) |
|
Fully Sequential Designs for Phase I Clinical Trials |
|
|
54 | (1) |
|
Estimation of the MTD After the Trial |
|
|
54 | (1) |
|
More Complex Dose-Finding Trials |
|
|
55 | (1) |
|
Trials with Ordered Groups |
|
|
55 | (1) |
|
Trials with Multiple Agents |
|
|
56 | (1) |
|
|
56 | (3) |
|
Dose Finding in Oncology---Parametric Methods |
|
|
59 | (14) |
|
|
59 | (2) |
|
Escalation with Overdose Control Design |
|
|
61 | (2) |
|
|
61 | (1) |
|
|
62 | (1) |
|
|
63 | (5) |
|
|
63 | (3) |
|
|
66 | (2) |
|
Choice of Prior Distributions |
|
|
68 | (2) |
|
|
69 | (1) |
|
|
69 | (1) |
|
|
70 | (1) |
|
|
70 | (3) |
|
Dose Response: Pharmacokinetic-Pharmacodynamic Approach |
|
|
73 | (16) |
|
|
73 | (1) |
|
How Dose Response and Exposure Response Differ |
|
|
73 | (1) |
|
Why Exposure Response is More Informative |
|
|
73 | (1) |
|
FDA Exposure Response Guidance |
|
|
73 | (1) |
|
|
74 | (1) |
|
Action, Effect, and Response |
|
|
74 | (1) |
|
Models for Describing the Time Course of Response |
|
|
74 | (1) |
|
|
75 | (2) |
|
Review of Basic Elements of Pharmacokinetics |
|
|
75 | (1) |
|
Why the Clearance/Volume Parameterization is Preferred |
|
|
76 | (1) |
|
|
77 | (1) |
|
Review of Basic Elements of Pharmacodynamics |
|
|
77 | (1) |
|
Delayed Effects and Response |
|
|
77 | (3) |
|
Two Main Mechanism Classes for Delayed Effects |
|
|
78 | (2) |
|
Cumulative Effects and Response |
|
|
80 | (2) |
|
The Relevance of Considering Integral of Effect as the Outcome Variable |
|
|
80 | (1) |
|
Why Area Under the Curve of Concentration is not a Reliable Predictor of Cumulative Response |
|
|
80 | (1) |
|
|
81 | (1) |
|
Predictability of Schedule Dependence |
|
|
82 | (1) |
|
|
82 | (2) |
|
The Time Course of Placebo Response and Disease Natural History |
|
|
82 | (1) |
|
Two Main Classes of Drug Effect |
|
|
83 | (1) |
|
|
84 | (2) |
|
|
84 | (1) |
|
|
85 | (1) |
|
|
85 | (1) |
|
Clinical Trial Simulation |
|
|
85 | (1) |
|
|
86 | (3) |
|
General Considerations in Dose-Response Study Designs |
|
|
89 | (17) |
|
Issues Relating to Clinical Development Plan |
|
|
89 | (1) |
|
General Considerations for Designing Clinical Trials |
|
|
90 | (6) |
|
Subject Population and Endpoints |
|
|
91 | (2) |
|
Parallel Designs versus Crossover Designs |
|
|
93 | (1) |
|
|
93 | (1) |
|
|
94 | (1) |
|
Sample Size Considerations |
|
|
95 | (1) |
|
|
96 | (1) |
|
Design Considerations for Phase II Dose-Response Studies |
|
|
96 | (7) |
|
|
97 | (2) |
|
Fixed-Dose versus Dose-Titration Designs |
|
|
99 | (1) |
|
Range of Doses to be Studied |
|
|
100 | (1) |
|
Number of Doses to be Tested |
|
|
101 | (1) |
|
Dose Allocation, Dose Spacing |
|
|
102 | (1) |
|
|
103 | (1) |
|
|
103 | (3) |
|
Clinical Trial Simulation---A Case Study Incorporating Efficacy and Tolerability Dose Response |
|
|
106 | (21) |
|
Clinical Development Project Background |
|
|
106 | (2) |
|
Clinical Trial Objectives |
|
|
107 | (1) |
|
Uncertainties Affecting Clinical Trial Planning |
|
|
107 | (1) |
|
The Clinical Trial Simulation Project |
|
|
108 | (12) |
|
Clinical Trial Objectives Used for the CTS Project |
|
|
109 | (2) |
|
The Simulation Project Objective |
|
|
111 | (1) |
|
Simulation Project Methods 1: Data Models and Design Options |
|
|
111 | (6) |
|
Simulation Project Methods 2: Analysis and Evaluation Criteria |
|
|
117 | (3) |
|
Simulation Results and Design Recommendations |
|
|
120 | (5) |
|
Objective 1: Power for Confirming Efficacy |
|
|
120 | (1) |
|
Objective 2: Accuracy of Target Dose Estimation |
|
|
121 | (1) |
|
Objective 3: Estimation of a Potentially Clinically Noninferior Dose Range |
|
|
121 | (3) |
|
Trial Design Recommendations |
|
|
124 | (1) |
|
|
125 | (2) |
|
Analysis of Dose-Response Studies---Emax Model |
|
|
127 | (19) |
|
Introduction to the Emax Model |
|
|
127 | (2) |
|
Sensitivity of the Emax Model Parameters |
|
|
129 | (5) |
|
Sensitivity of the E0 and Emax Parameters |
|
|
129 | (1) |
|
Sensitivity of the ED50 Parameter |
|
|
130 | (1) |
|
Sensitivity of the N Parameter |
|
|
131 | (1) |
|
Study Design for the Emax Model |
|
|
131 | (2) |
|
Covariates in the Emax Model |
|
|
133 | (1) |
|
|
134 | (1) |
|
A Mixed Effects Emax Model |
|
|
134 | (1) |
|
|
135 | (6) |
|
Oral Artesunate Dose-Response Analysis Example |
|
|
135 | (2) |
|
|
137 | (1) |
|
Initial Parameter Values for the Oral Artesunate Dose-Response Analysis Example |
|
|
138 | (1) |
|
Diastolic Blood Pressure Dose-Response Example |
|
|
139 | (2) |
|
|
141 | (5) |
|
Analysis of Dose-Response Studies---Modeling Approaches |
|
|
146 | (26) |
|
|
146 | (3) |
|
Some Commonly Used Dose-Response Models |
|
|
149 | (4) |
|
|
150 | (1) |
|
|
151 | (1) |
|
|
151 | (1) |
|
Exponential (Power) Model |
|
|
151 | (1) |
|
|
152 | (1) |
|
|
152 | (1) |
|
Estimation of Target Doses |
|
|
153 | (3) |
|
Estimating the MED in Dose-Finding Example |
|
|
155 | (1) |
|
Model Uncertainty and Model Selection |
|
|
156 | (4) |
|
Combining Modeling Techniques and Multiple Testing |
|
|
160 | (9) |
|
|
160 | (2) |
|
Proof-of-Activity Analysis in the Dose-Finding Example |
|
|
162 | (1) |
|
|
163 | (6) |
|
|
169 | (3) |
|
Multiple Comparison Procedures in Dose Response Studies |
|
|
172 | (12) |
|
|
172 | (1) |
|
Identifying the Minimum Effective Dose (MinED) |
|
|
172 | (5) |
|
|
172 | (2) |
|
Review of Multiple Test Procedures |
|
|
174 | (2) |
|
Simultaneous Confidence Intervals |
|
|
176 | (1) |
|
Identifying the Maximum Safe Dose (MaxSD) |
|
|
177 | (1) |
|
|
177 | (3) |
|
|
180 | (1) |
|
|
181 | (3) |
|
Partitioning Tests in Dose-Response Studies with Binary Outcomes |
|
|
184 | (16) |
|
|
184 | (1) |
|
Comparing Two Success Probabilities in a Single Hypothesis |
|
|
185 | (3) |
|
Comparison of Success Probabilities in Dose-Response Studies |
|
|
188 | (7) |
|
Predetermined Step-Down Method |
|
|
188 | (2) |
|
Sample-Determined Step-Down Method |
|
|
190 | (4) |
|
Hochberg's Step-up Procedure |
|
|
194 | (1) |
|
An Example Using Partitioning Based Stepwise Methods |
|
|
195 | (2) |
|
Conclusion and Discussion |
|
|
197 | (3) |
|
Analysis of Dose-Response Relationship Based on Categorical Outcomes |
|
|
200 | (20) |
|
|
200 | (1) |
|
When the Response is Ordinal |
|
|
201 | (6) |
|
|
201 | (2) |
|
Testing for a Monotone Dose-Response Relationship |
|
|
203 | (4) |
|
When the Response is Binary |
|
|
207 | (3) |
|
|
210 | (3) |
|
|
211 | (1) |
|
Bonferroni-Holm Procedure |
|
|
211 | (1) |
|
|
212 | (1) |
|
|
212 | (1) |
|
A Special Application of Dunnett's Procedure for Binary Response |
|
|
213 | (1) |
|
|
213 | (7) |
|
Power and Sample Size for Dose Response Studies |
|
|
220 | (23) |
|
|
220 | (1) |
|
General Approach to Power Calculation |
|
|
221 | (2) |
|
Multiple-Arm Dose Response Trial |
|
|
223 | (10) |
|
|
224 | (3) |
|
|
227 | (3) |
|
|
230 | (3) |
|
Phase I Oncology Dose Escalation Trial |
|
|
233 | (5) |
|
The A + B Escalation without Dose De-Escalation. |
|
|
234 | (2) |
|
The A + B Escalation with Dose De-Escalation |
|
|
236 | (2) |
|
|
238 | (5) |
Index |
|
243 | |