Advertisement

Visualizing Dose–Response When the Signal to Noise Ratio Is Low: The Bronchodilatory Response in Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease

Chapter

Abstract

Spirometry is a safe, cheap, and easy-to-use methodology for the assessment of lung function. Spirometry biomarkers such as the forced expiratory volume in 1 second (FEV1) and the forced vital capacity (FVC) are commonly used in the diagnosis of conditions such as asthma and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. In recent years, FEV1 in particular has also been used to support dose selection in bronchodilator drug development programs. Despite its convenience and objectivity as a measure of pulmonary function, FEV1 has a very low signal to noise ratio (SNR) as a marker of bronchodilator response. This problem is exacerbated when the biomarker is analyzed using traditional dose ranging study designs that do not provide an explicit and precise estimate of the dose response relationship. The combination of low SNR and imprecise methodology means that traditional dose finding activities for bronchodilators are inefficient and may lead to the selection of sub-optimal doses. Using graphics produced during the development of the novel long-acting β2-agonist, indacaterol, the issues outlined above are described and an alternative approach, built on a model-based characterization of the bronchodilatory dose response relationship is presented.

Keywords

Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease Patient Dose Response Relationship Dose Selection Bronchodilatory Response 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Bornkamp B, Bretz F, Dmitrienko A, Enas G, Gaydos B, Hsu CH, König F, Krams M, Liu Q, Neuenschwander B, Parke T, Pinheiro J, Roy A, Sax R, Shen F (2007) Innovative approaches for designing and analyzing adaptive dose-ranging trials. J Biopharm Stat 17(6):965–995PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Cazzola M, MacNee W, Martinez FJ, Rabe KF, Franciosi LG, Barnes PJ, Brusasco V, Burge PS, Calverley PM, Celli BR, Jones PW, Mahler DA, Make B, Miravitlles M, Page CP, Palange P, Parr D, Pistolesi M, Rennard SI, Rutten-van Molken MP, Stockley R, Sullivan SD, Wedzicha JA, Wouters EF (2008) Outcomes for COPD pharmacological trials: from lung function to biomarkers. Eur Respir J 31:416–469PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chowdhury BA, Seymour SM, Michele TM, Durmowicy AG, Dongmei L, Rosebraugh CJ (2011) The risks and benefits of indacaterol—the FDA’s review. N Engl J Med 365(24):2247–2249PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. European Medicines Agency (2009a) Assessment report for Onbrez Breezhaler. p 8. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/EPAR_-_Public_assessment_report/human/14/WC500053735.pdf
  5. Medarov BI, Pavlov VA, Rossoff L (2008) Diurnal variations in human pulmonary function. Int J Clin Exp Med 1:267–273PubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. Michele TM (2011) NDA 22–38: Cross-Discipline Team Leader Review Addendum. p 16. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2011/022383Orig1s000CrossR.pdf
  7. Renard D, Looby M, Kramer B, Lawrence D, Morris D, Stanksi DR (2011) Characterization of the bronchodilatory dose response to indacaterol in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease using modelbased approaches. Respir Res 12(54):1–9Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, New York 2012

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Modeling and SimulationNovartis Pharma AGBaselSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations