Improvement in latent variable indirect response joint modeling of a continuous and a categorical clinical endpoint in rheumatoid arthritis
- 378 Downloads
Improving the quality of exposure–response modeling is important in clinical drug development. The general joint modeling of multiple endpoints is made possible in part by recent progress on the latent variable indirect response (IDR) modeling for ordered categorical endpoints. This manuscript aims to investigate, when modeling a continuous and a categorical clinical endpoint, the level of improvement achievable by joint modeling in the latent variable IDR modeling framework through the sharing of model parameters for the individual endpoints, guided by the appropriate representation of drug and placebo mechanism. This was illustrated with data from two phase III clinical trials of intravenously administered mAb X for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis, with the 28-joint disease activity score (DAS28) and 20, 50, and 70 % improvement in the American College of Rheumatology (ACR20, ACR50, and ACR70) disease severity criteria were used as efficacy endpoints. The joint modeling framework led to a parsimonious final model with reasonable performance, evaluated by visual predictive check. The results showed that, compared with the more common approach of separately modeling the endpoints, it is possible for the joint model to be more parsimonious and yet better describe the individual endpoints. In particular, the joint model may better describe one endpoint through subject-specific random effects that would not have been estimable from data of this endpoint alone.
KeywordsDiscrete variable Multivariate analysis Population pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic modeling NONMEM Rheumatoid arthritis
The authors thank two anonymous reviewers for their insightful and constructive suggestions.
This research was funded by Janssen Research and Development, LLC.
- 7.Hu C, Szapary PO, Yeilding N, Zhou H (2011) Informative dropout modeling of longitudinal ordered categorical data and model validation: application to exposure-response modeling of physician’s global assessment score for ustekinumab in patients with psoriasis. J Pharmacokinet Pharmacodyn 38(2):237–260PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 13.Beal SL, Sheiner LB, Boeckmann A, Bauer RJ (2009) NONMEM user’s guides (1989-2009). Icon Development Solutions, Ellicott CityGoogle Scholar
- 14.Weinblatt ME, Bingham CO, Mendelsohn AM, Kim L, Mach M, Lu J, Baker D, Westhovens R (2012) Intravenous golimumab is effective in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis despite methotrexate therapy with responses as early as week 2: results of the phase 3, randomised, multicentre, double-blind, placebo-controlled GO-FURTHER trial. Ann Rheum Dis 72:381–389PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
- 15.Kremer J, Ritchlin C, Mendelsohn A, Baker D, Kim L, Xu Z, Han J, Taylor P (2010) Golimumab, a new human anti-TNFalpha antibody, administered intravenously in patients with active rheumatoid arthritis: 48-Week efficacy and safety results of a phase 3, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Arthritis Rheum. doi: 10.1002/art.27348 Google Scholar