1 / 67

Dose-adaptive study designs offer benefits for proof-of-concept / Phase IIa clinical trials, as well as raise issues fo

Dose-adaptive study designs offer benefits for proof-of-concept / Phase IIa clinical trials, as well as raise issues for continued research. OUTLINE (Section 3): Dose-Adaptive Designs & Examples Definition & Introduction (Jim) Frequentist Designs, including Random Walk Designs (Jim)

dessa
Télécharger la présentation

Dose-adaptive study designs offer benefits for proof-of-concept / Phase IIa clinical trials, as well as raise issues fo

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Dose-adaptive study designs offer benefits for proof-of-concept / Phase IIa clinical trials,as well as raise issues for continued research OUTLINE (Section 3): Dose-Adaptive Designs & Examples • Definition & Introduction (Jim) • Frequentist Designs, including Random Walk Designs (Jim) • 3+3 Design for cancer • Up&Down Design • Biased Coin Designs • T-Statistic Design • Simulations of Up&Down Design for Dental Pain Clinical Trial • Bayesian-type Designs (Inna) • Continual Reassessment Method (CRM) • Bayesian D-optimal Design • Other related approaches • Bayesian 4-parameter logistic • Case Study (Inna) • CytelSim Software demo • Summary & Recommendations (Inna) • References Jim Bolognese & Inna Perevozskaya, Sept. 12, 2008

  2. Acknowledgments • Anastasia Ivanova, UNC • Nitin Patel, Cytel, Inc. • Jeff Palmer, Cytel, Inc. • Vipul Suru, Cytel Inc. • Inna Perevozskaya, MRL • Yevgen Tymofyeyev, MRL • Keaven Anderson, MRL

  3. Dose-Adaptive DesignDefinition • 1st patient’s (or group’s) dose chosen based on prior data • Each subsequent patient’s (or group’s) dose assigned based on pre-defined rules / algorithm • i.e., dose is adaptively assigned based on previous responses • Rules for dose assignment developed to target specific study objectives • Examples throughout this talk

  4. Dose-Adaptive DesignKey Features • Prior response data used for sequential allocation of dose / treatment to subsequent (groups of) subjects • Random Walk designs: only last response • Spread observations in general region of interest • T-statistic Design: all prior responses from current study • Concentrates observations at target dose • Bayesian designs: all prior responses from current study • Current methods better for modeling dose-response curve & targeting particular level(s) of response (e.g., ED50, ED90, etc.) • Limit allocation to (extreme) doses of little interest • Maximize information gathered • Minimize sample size • Consistent with FDA Critical Path Initiative

  5. Dose-Adaptive DesignKey Requirements • Response needs to be observable reasonably quickly • Requires more up-front statistical work (design simulation) • 1-2 months stat AND stat programming support prior to protocol review • Logistical issues • No allocation schedule: requires unblinded team to administrate • Requires ongoing communication with site regarding allocation • Requires rapid data transfer & analysis at each stage • Duration of patient enrollment needs to be (much?) longer than time to observed each patient’s response • Results are mainly estimation-based • Testing of hypotheses conditional on doses assigned

  6. Early Phase Dose-Ranging DesignsBackground • Typically small, sequential studies aimed at determining the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) • Design considerations are particularly important in cancer studies (severe side effects of cytotoxic drugs) • Many references for dose-adaptive designs aimed at MTD or dose that yields specific degree of toxicity (e.g. TD30) • Current interest centers more on estimation of efficacy • Estimate dose for a specified degree of efficacy (e.g. ED50) • Up&Down Designs inform on targeted parts of dose-response curve • Bayesian-type Designs estimate target dose(s) from modeling dose-response curve • Balance between individual and collective ethics: • Maximum information from the minimal number of patients. • Maximize number of patients dosed in the range of interest

  7. Single Dose-Adaptive Design can replace Typical PoC trial and Ph.IIa Dose-Ranging Trial Traditional Phase II Program . 2N* Patients ≥5N Patients ≥4N Patients Phase III PoC (Ib/IIa) (High Dose vs. Placebo) Dose- Finding Definitive Dose-Response (if needed) Phase II with Dose-Adaptive PoC Trial 3N^ Patients ≥4N Patients Phase III Definitive Dose-Response (if needed) PoC (High Dose vs. Placebo) ^ ~2N if futility realized Replace 2 trials with 1→≥4N fewer subjects; less time * N = # subjects / trmt group for desired precision in PoC trial

  8. Single Dose-Adaptive Design can replace Typical PoC and Ph.IIa and Ph.IIb Trials !!! Traditional Phase II Program . 2N* Patients ≥5N Patients ≥4N Patients Phase III PoC (Ib/IIa) (High Dose vs. Placebo) Dose- Finding Definitive Dose-Response (if needed) Phase II with Dose-Adaptive PoC Trial 3N^ Patients Phase III: 1 trial at Target Dose & 1 Higher dose 1 trial at Target Dose & 1 Lower dose PoC (High Dose vs. Placebo) ^ ~2N if futility realized Replace 3 trials with 1→≥8N fewer subjects; MUCH less time * N = # subjects / trmt group for desired precision in PoC trial

  9. Dose-adaptive study designs offer benefits for proof-of-concept / Phase IIa clinical trials,as well as raise issues for continued research OUTLINE (Section 3): Dose-Adaptive Designs & Examples • Definition & Introduction (Jim) • Frequentist Designs, including Random Walk Designs (Jim) • 3+3 Design for cancer • Up&Down Design • Biased Coin Designs • T-Statistic Design • Simulations of Up&Down Design for Dental Pain Clinical Trial • Bayesian-type Designs (Inna) • Continual Reassessment Method (CRM) • Bayesian D-optimal Design • Other related approaches • Bayesian 4-parameter logistic • Case Study (Inna) • CytelSim Software demo • Summary & Recommendations (Inna) • References Jim Bolognese & Inna Perevozskaya, Sept. 12, 2008

  10. 3+3 design for cancer (Geller, 1984)Definition • Designed under philosophy that MTD is identifiable from the data • Patients treated in groups of 3 • Designed to screen doses quickly; no estimation involved • Probability of stopping at incorrect dose level is higher than generally believed (Reiner, Paoletti, O’Quigley; 1999)

  11. 3+3 design for cancer Pros (+) & Cons (-) + substantially documented; extensive experience + estimates MTD at ~ 20% toxicity level + Weili He, et al., show how to re-estimate MTD at intended 30% level - derived estimates conditional on doses yielded by design - not well suited to yield efficacy info; yields little info above MTD (20-30% response level)

  12. Up&Down DesignDefinition • Yields distribution of doses clustered around dose with 50% responders (ED50) • 1st subject / cohort receives dose chosen based on prior information • Subsequent subjects / cohorts receive next lower dose if previous subject / cohort responded, next higher dose if no response • Data Summaries: • proportion of responders at each dose • continuous data via summary statistics by dose • Inference based on conditional distribution of response given the doses yielded by the dosing scheme • 5 MRL examples from 1980’s (see back-up slides for 1 of them)

  13. Biased Coin Design • Nonparametric generalization of the Up&Down Design • Up&Down Design (targets ED50): • After Response, Probability of next lower dose = 1 Probability of next higher dose = 0 • After non-Response, Probability of next lower dose = 0 Probability of next higher dose = 1 • Can alter these probabilities to target a specific level of response (EDxx) by “tossing the biased coin” • Yields cluster of observed doses around EDxx • Some patients will be assigned above and below EDxx • informs on dose-response Stylianou and Flournoy, 2002

  14. Pros (+) & Cons (-) of Up&Down and Biased Coin Designs + easy to implement & understand + can be adapted so assigned doses migrate & cluster around EDxx + minimizes observations at doses too small or too large, in comparison to randomized design - less information on dose response away from EDxx + can compensate by simultaneously conducting 2 or 3 clusters; e.g., EDx1, EDx2, EDx3 - derived estimates conditional on doses yielded by design + yields information useful to design definitive studies

  15. T-statistic Design - Definition 1 • Cumulative cohort design • Goal: find the dose with response level R. • Goal of dose assignment rule: assign as many subjects as possible to a dose with mean response R. • One dose assignment rule: • Step 1. Compute the T-Statistic comparing the mean response at the current dose to R: T = (mean-R)/SE • Step 2. • If T < -1, increase the dose • If T between -1 and 1, repeat the dose • If T higher than 1, decrease the dose

  16. T-statistic Design - Definition 2 • Cumulative cohort design • Goal: find the dose with response level R. • Goal of dose assignment rule: assign as many subjects as possible to a dose with mean response R. • Another dose assignment rule: • Step 1. Compute the T-Statistic comparing the mean response at ALL doses observed so far, to R: Ti = (meani-R)/SE, i=1,2,…,D doses • Step 2. • Allocate next cohort to dose with Ti closest to 0

  17. Clinical Trial ExampleDental Pain Model • Surgical removal of ≥2 3rd molars • As anesthesia wears off, pain increases • When pain reaches moderate or severe level (on ordinal discrete scale 0=none, 1=mild, 2=moderate, 3=severe), patients randomized to placebo, test drug, active control (e.g., 400 mg ibuprofen) • Pain Relief measured serially over 8 hours post treatment • 0=none, 1=some, 2=a little, 3=a lot, 4=complete • Primary endpoint is area under each patient’s pain relief curve over 0-8 hours • 0-hour pain relief assumed to be 0

  18. Up & Down DesignSimulated from Past Trial Results • Single-dose, parallel group dental pain study (total 399 patients) • 51 placebo patients • 75 Dose 1 patients • 76 Dose 2 patients • 74 Dose 3 patients • 76 Dose 4 patients • 47 ibuprofen patients • Primary endpoint is Total Pain Relief (AUC) during 0-8 hours post dose (TOPAR8) • Dose-Adaptive Designs in sequential groups of 12 patients (3 placebo, 6 Test Drug Dose, 3 ibuprofen) • Up&Down-type [“Group”] Design • T-statistic Design (Definition 1)

  19. Simulated Up&Down Designfrom completed Dental Pain Study • Sequential groups of 12 patients (3 placebo, 6 test drug, 3 ibuprofen) • First group receives Dose 2 • Subsequent group receives next higher dose if previous group is non-response, next lower dose if response • Response (both conditions satisfied): • Mean test drug – mean placebo ≥ 15 units TOPAR8 • Mean test drug – mean ibuprofen > 0 • Algorithm continues until all ibuprofen data exhausted • originally planned precision for ibuprofen vs placebo • (16 groups = 191 total patients)

  20. Simulated T-Statistic Designfrom completed Dental Pain Study • Cumulative cohort design • Goal: find the dose with response level (mean test drug – mean placebo) ≥ 15 units TOPAR8 • Goal of dose assignment rule: assign as many subjects as possible to target dose. • Dose assignment rule: • Step 1. Compute the T-Statistic comparing the mean response at the current dose to R: T = (mean test drug – mean pbo - 15)/SE • Step 2. • If T < -1, increase one dose increment • If T between -1 and 1, repeat the dose • If T higher than 1, decrease one dose increment

  21. Dental Pain Study Complete Results

  22. Simulated Up&Down Resultsfrom Dental Pain Study data (1st 8 Groups in sequence)

  23. Simulated Up&Down Resultsfrom Dental Pain Study data (last 8 Groups in sequence)

  24. Example 1 – Dental Pain Trial Data re-sampled with Dose-Adaptive Designs

  25. Example 1 – Dental Pain Trial Data re-sampled with Dose-Adaptive Designs

  26. Remarks (1) • T-Statistic Design more efficient than Up&Down [“Group”] Design for allocating more patients to Target Dose • Up&Down [“Group”] Design spreads patient allocation across more doses than T-Statistic Design • Still clusters dose allocations around Target Dose • Choice of adaptive design depends on particular objectives of drug research program

  27. Conclusions from Simulated Up&Down Design in Dental Pain • Up&Down & T-Statistic designs are viable for dose-ranging in Dental Pain • Yield similar dose-response information as parallel group design • Can use substantially fewer patients than parallel group design • T-Statistic Design yielded tighter concentration of patients near target dose than Up&Down • Logistics of implementation more complicated than usual parallel group design • Can be accomplished in single center or small number of centers

  28. Example 2 - Dose-Adaptive Design Simulated from 12-week Obesity Trial Results • 12-week body weight loss (total 547 patients) • 547 pts (1:1:1:1:1) to placebo, Doses 1, 2, 3, 4 • Primary endpoint: mean weight change @ 12wks • Adaptive design applied to select sequential subsets of data • Sequential groups of patients formed by each 3 days of patient entry • Mon+Tues+Weds, Thurs+Fri+Sat (2 groups / week) • FPI to LPI 7.5 weeks yielded 15 sequential groups • Group size ranged from 8 to 70 • Dose selection for each sequential group based on 2-week body weight change results of a previous group (details next).

  29. Example 2 - Dose-Adaptive Design Simulated from 12-week Obesity Trial Results • Sequential groups “randomized” (1:1:1) placebo and 2 doses • selected all patients in each group assigned to placebo and the 2 doses • Patients assigned to the 2 unselected doses ignored • Total sample size ~60% of total 531 patients • Doses for first 6 groups pre-selected according to balanced design • 7th group assigned 2 doses based on 2-week response of corresponding group 1 sequence, 8th based on response from group 2, etc. • Decrease one dose increment if prior group “responded” • Increase one dose increment if prior group “did not respond” • “Response” (Up&Down): ≥50% of Drug-treated patients with Week 2 BW loss ≥ 0.4 kg from placebo mean

  30. Example 2 - Dose-Adaptive Design Simulated from 12-week Obesity Trial Results • Two T-statistic Design Sets of Response Rules • One for each active dose sequence group • Dose with minimum • T1=(active-placebo+0.4kg)/SE • T2=(active-placebo+0.8kg)/SE • Applied Definition 2 (Ti closest to 0)

  31. Example 2 - Dose-Adaptive Design Simulated from 12-week Obesity Trial Results

  32. Rationale for Adaptive Design in Obesity • Patients plentiful and enter rapidly, thus, use group sequential approach • To increase information about test drug yet provide info on placebo, use 1:1:1 allocation ratio (pbo:T1:T2) • Need sufficient number of sequence groups to allow design to span space of response (at least ~8-20) • Simulation studies demonstrate that adequate power achieved with ~50% larger total sample size than needed for MTD vs pbo “proof-of-concept” trial • Thus, eliminating ½ the active drug patients “about right” • Response definition (0.4 kg) chosen (based on prior data) • reasonable predictor of at least a 1 kg weight loss above placebo at Week 12 based on prior analysis of several 12-week weight loss studies.

  33. Example 2 – Dose-Adaptive Design Simulated from Week 2 Mean Body Weight Change from Baseline

  34. Example 2 – Dose-Adaptive Design Simulated from Obesity Trial - Week 2 Number of Patients Sampled

  35. Example 2 – Dose-Adaptive Design Simulated from Week 12 Mean Body Weight Change from Baseline

  36. Example 2 – Dose-Adaptive Design Simulated from Obesity Trial - Week 12 Number of Patients Sampled

  37. Example 3 - Dose-Adaptive Design Simulated from 6-week Osteoarthritis Trial Results • 6-week osteoarthritis parallel group trial • 609 pts (1:2:2:2:2:2) to placebo and 5 doses • Primary endpoint: average mean Patient Global Assessment of Response to Therapy (PGART: 0-4 Likert scale) • Adaptive design applied to select subset of data in sequence • Sequential groups of patients formed by each week of patient entry • FPI to LPI 18 weeks yielded 18 sequential groups • Group size ranged from 10 to 74 • Dose selection for each sequential group based on 2-week PGART results of a previous group (lag similar to obesity trial).

  38. Example 3 - Dose-Adaptive Design Simulated from 6-week Osteoarthritis Trial Results • Sequential groups “randomized” (1:1:1) placebo and 2 doses • selected all patients in each group assigned to placebo and the 2 doses • Patients assigned to the 3 unselected doses ignored • Total sample size <50% of total 609 patients • Doses for first 4 groups pre-selected according to balanced design • 5th group assigned 2 doses based on 2-week response of corresponding group 1 sequence, 6th based on response from group 2, etc. • Decrease one dose increment if prior group “responded” • Increase one dose increment if prior group “did not respond” • “Response” (Up&Down): ≥50% of active pts with Week 2 PGART “good” or “excellent”

  39. Example 3 - Dose-Adaptive Design Simulated from 6-week Osteoarthritis Trial Results • Two T-statistic Design Sets of Response Rules • One for each active dose sequence group • Dose with minimum • T=(active-placebo+1)/SE • T=(active-placebo+2)/SE • Applied Definition 2 (Ti closest to 0)

  40. Example 3 - Dose-Adaptive Design Simulated from OA Trial – Week 2 Mean PGART Results

  41. Example 3 - Dose-Adaptive Design Simulated from OA Trial – Week 2 No. of Patients Sampled

  42. Example 3 - Dose-Adaptive Design Simulated from OA Trial – Mean Time-Weighted Average PGART Wks 2-6

  43. Example 3 - Dose-Adaptive Design Simulated from OA Trial – No. Patients Sampled Weeks 2-6

  44. Remarks (2) • Logistics of implementation more complicated than usual parallel group design • Frequent data calls / brief simple analyses • Close contact with sites re: dose assignments • Special packaging (IVRS??) • Drug Supply – needed sufficiently for many possibilities • Tolerability rule(s) can be added for downward dose-assignment if pre-specified AE criteria are encountered • This has been studied in context of Bayesian dose-adaptive designs, but not in context of up&down designs • Number of placebo patients maintained as designed for intended precision vs. that group; could be down-sized, though

  45. Simulations of Up&Down Design in Dental Pain Model • Sequential groups of 8-16 patients enter each study day • Each group randomized to placebo, dose X of study drug, ibuprofen (varying from ~ 1:2:1 to ~ 1:3:1) • (2:4:2), (2:5:2), (2:6:2), (3:6:2), (3:7:2), (3:8:2), (3:9:2), (3:9:3), (3:10:3) • Initial group receives dose 3 from doses 1-7 • Subsequent groups receive dose based on % of active dose responses in previous group • Up 2 dose increments if <20% responders • Up 1 dose increment if 20-39% responders • Repeat same dose if 40-60% responders • Down 1 dose increment if 61-80% responders • Down 2 dose increments if >80% responders • Response = TOPAR8 > 15 units more than group placebo mean • Study stops when total sample size exceeds 140

  46. Simulations of Up&Down Design in Dental Pain Model • 7 true underlying dose-response curves (SD=9) Assumed true underlying mean TOPAR8 Distribution pbo dose1 dose2 dose3 dose4 dose5 dose6 dose7 0:no effect 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 5 1l:weak 5 6 8 10 10 10 10 10 1r: 5 5 5 5 5 6 7 10 2l:modest 5 7 9 13 13 13 13 13 2r: 5 5 5 5 7 9 11 13 3l:ibuprofen 5 8 12 16 19 19 19 19 3r: 5 5 5 5 8 12 15 19 • 5000 simulations of up&down design for each distribution • Computed mean TOPAR8 at each dose for each simulation of the up&down design (total sample size ≥ 140 patients)

  47. Distributions of Simulation Results (observed TOPAR8 means by dose) for Left-Shifted True Distributions 75th percentile median 25th percentile True values = connected circles

  48. Distributions of Simulation Results for Right-Shifted True Distributions

  49. Distributions of Simulation Results for No-effect True Distribution Each pair left = simulation results Each pair right = true distribution 95th percentile 75th percentile median 25th percentile 5th percentile 33 <1 <1 7 1 7 2 70 average sample sizes

  50. Distributions of Simulation Results fromTrue Distributions 0, 1l, 2l, 3l

More Related