Evidence Hub

Model-Based Meta-Analysis of Relapsing Mouse Model Studies from the Critical Path to Tuberculosis Drug Regimens Initiative Database

Berg A, Clary J, Hanna D, Nuermberger E, Lenaerts A, Ammerman N, Ramey M, Hartley D et al.

Antimicrobial agents and chemotherapy, 2022

20 citations

Abstract

Tuberculosis (TB), the disease caused by Mycobacterium tuberculosis (Mtb), remains a leading infectious disease-related cause of death worldwide, necessitating the development of new and improved treatment regimens. Nonclinical evaluation of candidate drug combinations via the relapsing mouse model (RMM) is an important step in regimen development, through which candidate regimens that provide the greatest decrease in the probability of relapse following treatment in mice may be identified for further development. Although RMM studies are a critical tool to evaluate regimen efficacy, making comprehensive "apples to apples" comparisons of regimen performance in the RMM has been a challenge in large part due to the need to evaluate and adjust for variability across studies arising from differences in design and execution. To address this knowledge gap, we performed a model-based meta-analysis on data for 17 unique regimens obtained from a total of 1592 mice across 28 RMM studies. Specifically, a mixed-effects logistic regression model was developed that described the treatment duration-dependent probability of relapse for each regimen and identified relevant covariates contributing to interstudy variability. Using the model, covariate-normalized metrics of interest, namely, treatment duration required to reach 50% and 10% relapse probability, were derived and used to compare relative regimen performance. Overall, the model-based meta-analysis approach presented herein enabled…

How strong is the evidence?

Evidence Hub reads this as a meta-analysis, done in animal, not in people. Its evidence level is 5 of 5 (Very low · case / narrative / animal / in vitro / in silico). Case reports, narrative reviews, and animal, cell or computer-model studies give the weakest evidence for human health.

How the five levels of evidence work. The level is assigned automatically from the abstract and can be wrong, so check the paper.

Read the paper

Related studies

Go deeper in Evidence Hub

Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.

Open this study Sign up free