IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/eee/csdana/v56y2012i5p1061-1068.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Optimal dose de-escalation trial designs for novel contraceptives in women

Author

Listed:
  • Gerlinger, Christoph
  • Siedentop, Harald
  • Gerke, Oke
  • Schellschmidt, Ilka
  • Endrikat, Jan

Abstract

Dose finding for classical hormonal contraceptives for women is usually done by investigating the surrogate endpoint inhibition of ovulation. For novel compounds such an approach is not feasible because they do not necessarily inhibit ovulation and no other surrogate endpoint for pregnancy is available. The only way to assess the efficacy of such a product is the direct measurement of the contraceptive efficacy. However, a classical parallel group dose response trial investing several doses including at least one ineffective dose is not possible due to ethical considerations. Therefore, an alternative trial design to determine the lowest effective dose of a new compound that minimizes the number of unwanted pregnancies occurring during the trial is needed. Seven dose escalation designs used to find the maximal tolerated dose in cancer trials were investigated for our problem of determining the minimal effective dose (LED) in preventing pregnancies over 1 year. The statistical properties of these designs were elucidated by a simulation study. The most suitable dose de-escalation designs to determine the LED of a new contraceptive that minimizes the number of unwanted pregnancies occurring during the trial were the continual reassessment method and a design derived from the classical “ 3+3” design in cancer, but with a cohort size of 100 instead of 3. Both dose-finding designs substantially reduced the expected number of pregnancies to less than 4 pregnancies compared to 16.9 in the classical dose-finding design. However, this clear advantage comes at the price of a 5-fold increase in trial duration.

Suggested Citation

  • Gerlinger, Christoph & Siedentop, Harald & Gerke, Oke & Schellschmidt, Ilka & Endrikat, Jan, 2012. "Optimal dose de-escalation trial designs for novel contraceptives in women," Computational Statistics & Data Analysis, Elsevier, vol. 56(5), pages 1061-1068.
    • Handle: RePEc:eee:csdana:v:56:y:2012:i:5:p:1061-1068
    DOI: 10.1016/j.csda.2011.08.005
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167947311002908
    Download Restriction: Full text for ScienceDirect subscribers only.
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1016/j.csda.2011.08.005?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    As the access to this document is restricted, you may want to search for a different version of it.

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Ying Kuen Cheung & Rick Chappell, 2000. "Sequential Designs for Phase I Clinical Trials with Late-Onset Toxicities," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 56(4), pages 1177-1182, December.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Erica Brittain & Dean Follmann & Song Yang, 2008. "Dynamic Comparison of Kaplan–Meier Proportions: Monitoring a Randomized Clinical Trial with a Long-Term Binary Endpoint," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 64(1), pages 189-197, March.
    2. Yifei Zhang & Sha Cao & Chi Zhang & Ick Hoon Jin & Yong Zang, 2021. "A Bayesian adaptive phase I/II clinical trial design with late‐onset competing risk outcomes," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 77(3), pages 796-808, September.
    3. Thomas M. Braun, 2018. "Motivating sample sizes in adaptive Phase I trials via Bayesian posterior credible intervals," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 74(3), pages 1065-1071, September.
    4. Changying A. Liu & Thomas M. Braun, 2009. "Parametric non‐mixture cure models for schedule finding of therapeutic agents," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 58(2), pages 225-236, May.
    5. B. Nebiyou Bekele & Yisheng Li & Yuan Ji, 2010. "Risk-Group-Specific Dose Finding Based on an Average Toxicity Score," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 66(2), pages 541-548, June.
    6. Nadine Houede & Peter F. Thall & Hoang Nguyen & Xavier Paoletti & Andrew Kramar, 2010. "Utility-Based Optimization of Combination Therapy Using Ordinal Toxicity and Efficacy in Phase I/II Trials," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 66(2), pages 532-540, June.
    7. Ying Kuen Cheung & Peter F. Thall, 2002. "Monitoring the Rates of Composite Events with Censored Data in Phase II Clinical Trials," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 58(1), pages 89-97, March.
    8. Alessandra Giovagnoli, 2021. "The Bayesian Design of Adaptive Clinical Trials," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(2), pages 1-15, January.
    9. Anastasia Ivanova & Se Hee Kim, 2009. "Dose Finding for Continuous and Ordinal Outcomes with a Monotone Objective Function: A Unified Approach," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 65(1), pages 307-315, March.
    10. Ying Kuen Cheung, 2002. "On the Use of Nonparametric Curves in Phase I Trials with Low Toxicity Tolerance," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 58(1), pages 237-240, March.
    11. Yuan Ji & B. Nebiyou Bekele, 2009. "Adaptive Randomization for Multiarm Comparative Clinical Trials Based on Joint Efficacy/Toxicity Outcomes," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 65(3), pages 876-884, September.
    12. Ying Yuan & Guosheng Yin, 2009. "Bayesian dose finding by jointly modelling toxicity and efficacy as time‐to‐event outcomes," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series C, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 58(5), pages 719-736, December.
    13. Tianjian Zhou & Wentian Guo & Yuan Ji, 2020. "PoD-TPI: Probability-of-Decision Toxicity Probability Interval Design to Accelerate Phase I Trials," Statistics in Biosciences, Springer;International Chinese Statistical Association, vol. 12(2), pages 124-145, July.
    14. Ying Kuen Cheung & Rick Chappell, 2002. "A Simple Technique to Evaluate Model Sensitivity in the Continual Reassessment Method," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 58(3), pages 671-674, September.
    15. Thomas M. Braun & Zheng Yuan & Peter F. Thall, 2005. "Determining a Maximum-Tolerated Schedule of a Cytotoxic Agent," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 61(2), pages 335-343, June.
    16. Peter F. Thall & Hoang Q. Nguyen & Thomas M. Braun & Muzaffar H. Qazilbash, 2013. "Using Joint Utilities of the Times to Response and Toxicity to Adaptively Optimize Schedule–Dose Regimes," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 69(3), pages 673-682, September.
    17. Nigel Stallard & Peter F. Thall, 2001. "Decision-Theoretic Designs for Pre-Phase II Screening Trials in Oncology," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 57(4), pages 1089-1095, December.
    18. Alexander M. Kaizer & Brian P. Hobbs & Joseph S. Koopmeiners, 2018. "A multi‐source adaptive platform design for testing sequential combinatorial therapeutic strategies," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 74(3), pages 1082-1094, September.
    19. Graham M. Wheeler, 2018. "Incoherent dose-escalation in phase I trials using the escalation with overdose control approach," Statistical Papers, Springer, vol. 59(2), pages 801-811, June.

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:eee:csdana:v:56:y:2012:i:5:p:1061-1068. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Catherine Liu (email available below). General contact details of provider: http://www.elsevier.com/locate/csda .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.