Scholarlink

<p>Although the use of demographic matching in organ impairment studies is recommended to exclude the confounding effect of demographics on the pharmacokinetic (PK) study results, very little guidance exists on the practical implementation of this approach. Individual matching (IM) as well as several strategies for group matching (GM) have been described in literature. We conducted a systematic review, including 170 renal (RI) and 173 hepatic impairment (HI) studies completed in the last 25&#xa0;years and characterized used matching methodologies and selected matching criteria. In RI, GM appears more common (70%), while in HI IM was preferred (55%). Age, body weight or body mass index (BMI), and sex were the most commonly used matching criteria, with the most common acceptance margins of ± 10&#xa0;years for age, ± 10–20% for body weight, and ± 15–20% for BMI, irrespective of matching method used. While IM required notably more subjects in the control group, we did not find a significant effect of various matching strategies on study duration or recruitment between different matching strategies. No matching was used in most of the studies conducted in the target patient population with organ impairment, as opposed to the studies conducted in general organ impairment population without the target indication. Based on the results of this review, we proposed a framework for selection of matching strategy, with IM being a recommended matching method in most cases and GM being suitable for compounds that have well-characterized impact of demographic characteristics on PK and a low between-subject variability.</p> Graphical Abstract <p></p>

错误：搜索内容不能为空，请输入英文关键词
错误：关键词超出字数限制，请精简
高级检索

Matching in Organ Impairment Studies: A Systematic Review of Accepted Methodologies

  • 期刊论文

  • 发表日期：

    2025年10月24日

查看全文
  • Tatyana Dubich,
  • Gerhard Arold,
  • Karen L. Smith,
  • Thijs van Iersel,
  • Ewoud-Jan van Hoogdalem

摘要

Although the use of demographic matching in organ impairment studies is recommended to exclude the confounding effect of demographics on the pharmacokinetic (PK) study results, very little guidance exists on the practical implementation of this approach. Individual matching (IM) as well as several strategies for group matching (GM) have been described in literature. We conducted a systematic review, including 170 renal (RI) and 173 hepatic impairment (HI) studies completed in the last 25 years and characterized used matching methodologies and selected matching criteria. In RI, GM appears more common (70%), while in HI IM was preferred (55%). Age, body weight or body mass index (BMI), and sex were the most commonly used matching criteria, with the most common acceptance margins of ± 10 years for age, ± 10–20% for body weight, and ± 15–20% for BMI, irrespective of matching method used. While IM required notably more subjects in the control group, we did not find a significant effect of various matching strategies on study duration or recruitment between different matching strategies. No matching was used in most of the studies conducted in the target patient population with organ impairment, as opposed to the studies conducted in general organ impairment population without the target indication. Based on the results of this review, we proposed a framework for selection of matching strategy, with IM being a recommended matching method in most cases and GM being suitable for compounds that have well-characterized impact of demographic characteristics on PK and a low between-subject variability.

Graphical Abstract