Advertisement

Validation of Decision-enabling Tools: Showing That the Model Is Useful

  • Niclas SjögrenEmail author
  • Stig Johan Wiklund
Statistics

Abstract

The rapidly increasing cost to develop new drugs calls for new tools that efficiently enable the demonstration of the safety and effectiveness of a new drug. When validating such a decision-enabling tool, a traditional approach is typically to apply the tool on a positive control, known to be effective, and ascertain that a statistically significant effect is obtained. We argue, however, that the validation study should be designed to show that the tool provides a variability that is small in relation to the treatment effect, which means that the tool has the capacity of providing decision-enabling results in small-sample studies in routine use.

We give details on the relevant test to perform in the validation of a decision-enabling tool and use the development of a human pharmacological model, aimed at studying neuropathic pain in 2 × 2 crossover trials, as a motivating example. We also develop power and sample size calculations, and illustrate the implications on sample size needed for a validation study. Results show that to obtain pertinent evidence that the decision-enabling tool is useful, that is, to reject the relevant null hypothesis, a substantially increased sample size would often be needed in the validation study, as compared to traditional approaches.

Keywords

Model validation Coeffcient of variation Relative standard deviation Effect size Noncentral t distribution 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America. Pharmaceutical Industry Profle 2010. Washington, DC: PhRMA; 2010. http://www.phrma.org/sites/phrma.org/files/attachments/Profle_2010_FINAL.pdf.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    DiMasi JA. Grabowski HG. The cost of biopharmaceutical R&D: is biotech different? Manag Decision Econ. 2007;28:469–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    DiMasi JA. Hansen RW, Grabowski HG. The price of innovation: new estimates of drug development costs. J Health Econ. 2003;22(2):151–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
  5. 5.
    Bickel A. Dorfs S, Schmelz M. Forster C, Uhl W. Handwerker HO. Effects of antihyperalgesic drugs on experimentally induced hyperalgesia in man. Pain. 1998;76:317–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Sycha T. Gustorff B, Lehr S. Tanew A. Eichler HG, Schmetterer L. A simple pain model for the evaluation of analgesic effects of NSAIDs in healthy subjects. Br J Clin Pharmacol. 2003;56:165–172.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Julious SA. Tutorial in biostatistics sample size calculation for clinical trials with normal data. Stat Med. 2004;23:1921–1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lehmann EL. Testing Statistical Hypotheses, 2nd ed. New York: Chapman and Hall; 1994.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Drug Information Association, Inc 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of BiostatisticsPrincipal Statistician, AstraZeneca R&DSödertäljeSweden
  2. 2.Department of BiostatisticsStatistical Science Director, AstraZeneca R&DSödertäljeSweden

Personalised recommendations