Robust safety monitoring and signal detection using alternatives to the standard poisson distribution

被引:0
作者
Duncan, Benjamin [1 ]
机构
[1] AbbVie Inc, Safety Stat Data & Stat Sci, 1 N Waukegan Rd, N Chicago, IL 60064 USA
关键词
Clinical trials; signal detection; under-dispersion; right-censored Poisson model; log-logistic distribution; Bayesian; incidence count; simulation; TRIALS;
D O I
10.1080/10543406.2024.2395532
中图分类号
R9 [药学];
学科分类号
1007 ;
摘要
Proper and timely characterization of the safety profile of a pharmaceutical product under development is imperative for assessing the overall benefit-risk relationship of the product and for making key development decisions. For ongoing clinical development, a comprehensive and robust safety monitoring and safety signal detection program which is based upon quantitative statistical reasoning is critical. Methods presented here can be applied to safety signal detection and periodic safety monitoring. Various statistical properties, distributions, and models, all utilizing a Bayesian framework are considered and further examined in order to identify robust methods applicable to a broad set of scenarios and situations. Methods developed for incidence counts (including those with under-dispersed distributions) with variable time-at-risk and with underlying constant or non-constant hazard rates, are proposed and compared to traditional methods designed to assess adverse event incidence rates or binomial incidence proportions (which assume an underlying constant hazard rate and subsequent Poisson distribution for modeling event counts).
引用
收藏
页数:18
相关论文
共 23 条
[1]  
Ball G, 2016, STAT APPL CLIN TRIAL
[2]   Continuous safety monitoring for randomized controlled clinical trials with blinded treatment information Part 4: One method [J].
Ball, Greg .
CONTEMPORARY CLINICAL TRIALS, 2011, 32 :S11-S17
[3]   The role of quantitative safety evaluation in regulatory decision making of drugs [J].
Chakravarty, Aloka G. ;
Izem, Rima ;
Keeton, Stephine ;
Kim, Clara Y. ;
Levenson, Mark S. ;
Soukup, Mat .
JOURNAL OF BIOPHARMACEUTICAL STATISTICS, 2016, 26 (01) :17-29
[4]  
Chuang-Stein C., 1993, DRUG INF J, V27, P515, DOI [10.1177/009286159302700242, DOI 10.1177/009286159302700242]
[5]  
Everitt BS., 2005, Encyclopedia of statistics in behavioral science, DOI DOI 10.1002/0470013192.BSA753
[6]  
FDA CDER CBER, 2005, Guidance for industry: Good pharmacovigilance practices and pharmacoepidemiological assessment. Food and drug administration
[7]   Monitoring potential adverse event rate differences using data from blinded trials: the canary in the coal mine [J].
Gould, A. Lawrence ;
Wang, William B. .
STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2017, 36 (01) :92-104
[8]  
Guure C. B., 2015, Austin Biometrics and Biostatistics, V2, P1015
[9]  
Hilbe JM, 2014, MODELING COUNT DATA, P1, DOI 10.1017/CBO9781139236065
[10]  
Hoff PD, 2009, SPRINGER TEXTS STAT, P1, DOI 10.1007/978-0-387-92407-6_1