Sign in to use this feature.

Years

Between: -

Subjects

remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline
remove_circle_outline

Journals

Article Types

Countries / Regions

Search Results (3)

Search Parameters:
Keywords = targeted maximum likelihood estimation (TMLE)

Order results
Result details
Results per page
Select all
Export citation of selected articles as:
21 pages, 3830 KiB  
Article
Impact of LS Mutation on Pharmacokinetics of Preventive HIV Broadly Neutralizing Monoclonal Antibodies: A Cross-Protocol Analysis of 16 Clinical Trials in People without HIV
by Bryan T. Mayer, Lily Zhang, Allan C. deCamp, Chenchen Yu, Alicia Sato, Heather Angier, Kelly E. Seaton, Nicole Yates, Julie E. Ledgerwood, Kenneth Mayer, Marina Caskey, Michel Nussenzweig, Kathryn Stephenson, Boris Julg, Dan H. Barouch, Magdalena E. Sobieszczyk, Srilatha Edupuganti, Colleen F. Kelley, M. Juliana McElrath, Huub C. Gelderblom, Michael Pensiero, Adrian McDermott, Lucio Gama, Richard A. Koup, Peter B. Gilbert, Myron S. Cohen, Lawrence Corey, Ollivier Hyrien, Georgia D. Tomaras and Yunda Huangadd Show full author list remove Hide full author list
Pharmaceutics 2024, 16(5), 594; https://doi.org/10.3390/pharmaceutics16050594 - 27 Apr 2024
Cited by 10 | Viewed by 3559
Abstract
Monoclonal antibodies are commonly engineered with an introduction of Met428Leu and Asn434Ser, known as the LS mutation, in the fragment crystallizable region to improve pharmacokinetic profiles. The LS mutation delays antibody clearance by enhancing binding affinity to the neonatal fragment crystallizable receptor found [...] Read more.
Monoclonal antibodies are commonly engineered with an introduction of Met428Leu and Asn434Ser, known as the LS mutation, in the fragment crystallizable region to improve pharmacokinetic profiles. The LS mutation delays antibody clearance by enhancing binding affinity to the neonatal fragment crystallizable receptor found on endothelial cells. To characterize the LS mutation for monoclonal antibodies targeting HIV, we compared pharmacokinetic parameters between parental versus LS variants for five pairs of anti-HIV immunoglobin G1 monoclonal antibodies (VRC01/LS/VRC07-523LS, 3BNC117/LS, PGDM1400/LS PGT121/LS, 10-1074/LS), analyzing data from 16 clinical trials of 583 participants without HIV. We described serum concentrations of these monoclonal antibodies following intravenous or subcutaneous administration by an open two-compartment disposition, with first-order elimination from the central compartment using non-linear mixed effects pharmacokinetic models. We compared estimated pharmacokinetic parameters using the targeted maximum likelihood estimation method, accounting for participant differences. We observed lower clearance rate, central volume, and peripheral volume of distribution for all LS variants compared to parental monoclonal antibodies. LS monoclonal antibodies showed several improvements in pharmacokinetic parameters, including increases in the elimination half-life by 2.7- to 4.1-fold, the dose-normalized area-under-the-curve by 4.1- to 9.5-fold, and the predicted concentration at 4 weeks post-administration by 3.4- to 7.6-fold. Results suggest a favorable pharmacokinetic profile of LS variants regardless of HIV epitope specificity. Insights support lower dosages and/or less frequent dosing of LS variants to achieve similar levels of antibody exposure in future clinical applications. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

13 pages, 505 KiB  
Article
Assessment of Glucose Lowering Medications’ Effectiveness for Cardiovascular Clinical Risk Management of Real-World Patients with Type 2 Diabetes: Targeted Maximum Likelihood Estimation under Model Misspecification and Missing Outcomes
by Veronica Sciannameo, Gian Paolo Fadini, Daniele Bottigliengo, Angelo Avogaro, Ileana Baldi, Dario Gregori and Paola Berchialla
Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2022, 19(22), 14825; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph192214825 - 11 Nov 2022
Cited by 2 | Viewed by 2273
Abstract
The results from many cardiovascular (CV) outcome trials suggest that glucose lowering medications (GLMs) are effective for the CV clinical risk management of type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of two GLMs (SGLT2i and [...] Read more.
The results from many cardiovascular (CV) outcome trials suggest that glucose lowering medications (GLMs) are effective for the CV clinical risk management of type 2 diabetes (T2D) patients. The aim of this study is to compare the effectiveness of two GLMs (SGLT2i and GLP-1RA) for the CV clinical risk management of T2D patients in a real-world setting, by simultaneously reducing glycated hemoglobin, body weight, and systolic blood pressure. Data from the real-world Italian multicenter retrospective study Dapagliflozin Real World evideNce in Type 2 Diabetes (DARWINT 2D) are analyzed. Different statistical approaches are compared to deal with the real-world-associated issues, which can arise from model misspecification, nonrandomized treatment assignment, and a high percentage of missingness in the outcome, and can potentially bias the marginal treatment effect (MTE) estimate and thus have an influence on the clinical risk management of patients. We compare the logistic regression (LR), propensity score (PS)-based methods, and the targeted maximum likelihood estimator (TMLE), which allows for the use of machine learning (ML) models. Furthermore, a simulation study is performed, resembling the structure of the conditional dependencies among the main variables in DARWIN-T2D. LR and PS methods do not underline any difference in the effectiveness regarding the attainment of combined CV risk factor goals between the two treatments. TMLE suggests instead that dapagliflozin is significantly more effective than GLP-1RA for the CV risk management of T2D patients. The results from the simulation study suggest that TMLE has the lowest bias and SE for the estimate of the MTE. Full article
Show Figures

Figure 1

18 pages, 646 KiB  
Article
Transfering Targeted Maximum Likelihood Estimation for Causal Inference into Sports Science
by Talko B. Dijkhuis and Frank J. Blaauw
Entropy 2022, 24(8), 1060; https://doi.org/10.3390/e24081060 - 31 Jul 2022
Cited by 1 | Viewed by 3239
Abstract
Although causal inference has shown great value in estimating effect sizes in, for instance, physics, medical studies, and economics, it is rarely used in sports science. Targeted Maximum Likelihood Estimation (TMLE) is a modern method for performing causal inference. TMLE is forgiving in [...] Read more.
Although causal inference has shown great value in estimating effect sizes in, for instance, physics, medical studies, and economics, it is rarely used in sports science. Targeted Maximum Likelihood Estimation (TMLE) is a modern method for performing causal inference. TMLE is forgiving in the misspecification of the causal model and improves the estimation of effect sizes using machine-learning methods. We demonstrate the advantage of TMLE in sports science by comparing the calculated effect size with a Generalized Linear Model (GLM). In this study, we introduce TMLE and provide a roadmap for making causal inference and apply the roadmap along with the methods mentioned above in a simulation study and case study investigating the influence of substitutions on the physical performance of the entire soccer team (i.e., the effect size of substitutions on the total physical performance). We construct a causal model, a misspecified causal model, a simulation dataset, and an observed tracking dataset of individual players from 302 elite soccer matches. The simulation dataset results show that TMLE outperforms GLM in estimating the effect size of the substitutions on the total physical performance. Furthermore, TMLE is most robust against model misspecification in both the simulation and the tracking dataset. However, independent of the method used in the tracking dataset, it was found that substitutes increase the physical performance of the entire soccer team. Full article
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Data Analytics in Sports Sciences: Changing the Game)
Show Figures

Figure 1

Back to TopTop