Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Recently, consideration was given to the impact of dose selection strategies in phase IIb on the overall success of drug development programs. A natural next step is to simultaneously optimize design aspects of both phase IIB and phase III. We used type 2 diabetes as an example, including realistic regulatory and commercial scenarios for this indication. The expected net present value (eNPV) has been selected as the primary outcome because it naturally accommodates optimization, providing an explicit trade-off between the probability of success (PoS) and time delays and trial costs. Our findings are that larger studies and/or implementation of an adaptive design over a fixed design in phase IIb provide more precise dose selection and reduce the bias of treatment effects and uncertainty in the estimated eNPV within the range of sample sizes that we examined. Developers also have to ensure that dose selection criteria are consistent with development strategy and objectives.

Keywords

optimization of drug development utility functions expected net present value adaptive design

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bornkamp

Bretz

Dmitrienko

. Innovative approaches for designing and analyzing adaptive dose-ranging trials (with discussion). J Biopharm Stat. 2007;17:965–995.

Dragalin

Bornkamp

Bretz

. A simulation study to compare new adaptive dose-ranging designs. Stat Biopharm Res. 2010;2(4):487–512.

Antonijevic

Pinheiro

Fardipour

Lewis

. Impact of dose selection strategies on the probability of success in phase III. Stat Biopharm Res. 2010;2(4):469–486.

Pinheiro

Sax

Antonijevic

. Adaptive and model-based dose-ranging trials: quantitative evaluation and recommendations (with discussions and rejoinder). Stat Biopharm Res. 2010;2(4):435–454.

Patel

Bolognese

Chuang-Stein

Hewitt

Gammaitoni

Pinheiro

. Designing phase 2 trials based on program-level considerations: a case study for neuropathic pain. Drug Inf J. 2012;46(4):439–454.

US Department of Health and Human Services, Food and Drug Administration, Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (CDER). Diabetes Mellitus: Evaluating Cardiovascular Risk in New Antidiabetic Therapies to Treat Type 2 Diabetes. Guidance for Industry. Silver Spring, Maryland: FDA; 2008.

Burman

C-F

Grieve

Senn

Decision analysis in drug development. In: Dmitrienko

Chuang-Stein

D'Agostino

, eds. Pharmaceutical Statistics Using SAS^®: A Practical Guide. Cary, North Carolina: SAS Institute Inc; 2007:385–428.

Benda

Branson

Maurer

Friede

. Aspects of modernizing drug development using clinical scenario planning and evaluation. Drug Inf J. 2010;44:299–313.

Antonijevic

Impact of dose selection strategies on the success of drug development programs. Drug Development. 2009;4:104–106.

10.

Antonijevic

Rajicic

Value-driven drug development. Biopharm Rep. 2011;18(1):4-10.

11.

Patel

Ankolekar

Antonijevic

Rajicic

A mathematical model for maximizing the value of pharmaceutical portfolios incorporating budget constraints and risk

[published online ahead of print January 9, 2013]. Stat Med. DOI: 10.1002/sim.5731.

12.

Patel

Ankolekar

. A Bayesian approach for incorporating economic factors in sample size and design for clinical trials and portfolios of drugs. Stat Med. 2007;26:4976–4988.

13.

Gaydos

Anderson

Berry

. Good practices for adaptive clinical trials in pharmaceutical drug development. Drug Inf J. 2009;43:539–556.

14.

West

Harrison

. Bayesian Forecasting and Dynamic Models. New York: Springer-Verlag; 1997.

15.

Bernoulli

. Exposition of a new theory on the measurement of risk. Econometrica. 1954;22(1):23–36.

16.

Berry

Müller

Grieve

. Adaptive Bayesian designs for dose-ranging drug trials. In: Gatsonis

Kass

Carlin

. Case Studies in Bayesian Statistics V. Lecture Notes in Statistics. New York: Springer; 2002:99–181.

17.

Ivanova

Liu

Snyder

Snavely

. An adaptive design for identifying the dose with the best efficacy/tolerability profile with application to a crossover dose-finding study. Stat Med. 2009;28(24):2941–2951.

18.

O’Hagan

Stevens

Campbell

. Assurance in clinical trial design. Pharm Stat. 2004;4:187–201.

19.

Spiegelhalter

Frieedman

. A predictive approach to selecting the size of a clinical trial based on subjective clinical opinion. Stat Med. 1986;5:1–13.

20.

Spiegelhalter

Abrams

Myles

. Bayesian Approaches to Clinical Trials and Health Care Evaluation. London: Wiley; 2004.

21.

Bauer

Koenig

Brannath

Posch

. Selection and bias: two hostile brothers. Stat Med. 2010;29(1):1–13.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.32 MB

0.00 MB