1 / 24

A Quantitative Approach to Clinical Development

A Quantitative Approach to Clinical Development. Carl-Fredrik Burman, PhD Statistical Science Director AstraZeneca R&D, Sweden. A new paradigm (?). How should we get there?. Alternative designs (adaptive, cross-over, “traditional”). Where are we?. To where do we want to go?.

keira
Télécharger la présentation

A Quantitative Approach to Clinical Development

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. A Quantitative Approach to Clinical Development Carl-Fredrik Burman, PhD Statistical Science Director AstraZeneca R&D, Sweden

  2. A new paradigm (?)

  3. How should we get there? Alternative designs (adaptive, cross-over, “traditional”) Where are we? To where do we want to go? Decision Analysis (DA) to optimize design, based on model & preferences Modeling Preferences Simulations

  4. Study designdecisions

  5. How statisticians used to design trials— A caricature Medic (M): “What sample size do we need?” Statistician (S): “Could you tell me the least clinically relevant effect, D, please?” M: It’s 20. S: “… and the standard deviation?” M: “It was 100 in the last trial” S: “Then it’s simple. N=1053 gives 90% power.” M: “Oh, we cannot afford that. Say that D=30 instead. S: “Then the required sample size is 469. M: Excellent The medics have taken care of population, duration, variable, etc.

  6. How should we get there? Alternative designs (adaptive, cross-over, “traditional”) Where are we? To where do we want to go? Decision Analysis (DA) to optimize design, based on model & preferences Modeling Preferences Simulations

  7. Example of astudy designdecision Thanks to Claes Ekman & Björn Bältsjö

  8. Background • Loosely based on experiences from • AZD7009 project (atrial fibrillation) • Compound in early phase II • Potential side effect X • New results for stopped competitor drug, say. • Competitor drug-induced AE rate about 10% • Placebo rate likely to be about 1% • Minor AEs, no ethical complications • Should a specific safety trial be added before entering next phase?

  9. AE probabilities • q = P( AE | placebo ) • p = Drug-induced rate of X • p>0 will hit sales • no approval if p>5% • P( AE | drug ) = 1–(1-p)(1-q) = q+p(1-q)  q+p

  10. Will trial results be interpretable? • “Standard” design • n=30 subjects get active treatment • m=30 receive placebo • Say that the number of AEs found are • x=2 on active treatment • y=0 on placebo • Far from statistically significant

  11. Single-arm trial • Historical data exist for placebo group • Alternative trial with n=60, m=0

  12. Formulation of priors • Prior for drug-induced AE probability • P(p=0.00) = 0.6 Excellent • P(p=0.03) = 0.3 2nd line treatment • P(p=0.10) = 0.1 Not a viable treatment • Prior for placebo AE probability • P(q=0.01) = 0.9 • P(q=0.05) = 0.1 • Independence in prior distribution • NB! Model is too simplistic for practical use, but may have pedagogical value

  13. Single-arm safety trial n=60 pat’s; x=3 AEs Prior distribution 100% p=0.10 p=0.03 80% 60% 40% p=0.00 20% 0% Posterior = Prior + Data

  14. Prior distribution 100% p=0.10 p=0.03 80% 60% 40% p=0.00 20% 0% Posterior if x=3, n=60 100% p=0.10 80% p=0.03 60% 40% 20% p=0.00 0% 1

  15. Before trial / Prior p=0.10 p=0.03 p=0.00 After n=60 patients p=0.10 p=0.03 p=0.00 x=0 x=2 etc x=1

  16. Before trial / Prior After n=20 patients x=0 etc After n=60 patients Ideal (infinite info) x=0 x=2 etc x=1

  17. Economic assumptions • (Expected Net Present) Value V(p) before dose-finding: • V(p=0.00) = 1000 • V(p=0.03) = 100 • V(p=0.10) = 0 • Planned dose-finding trial cost K = 500

  18. Total value ofsuggested safety trial (n=60) E[Value] = … x Probability Project value 0 32.2% 433 1 24.9% 280 2 14.4% 16 3 9.2% -169 4 6.1% -243 … … … • E[ Value | Data ]= E[ E[ Value | Data ] ]= 130 • Terminate project if value<0 • NB! The trial is useful only if it separates positive and negative values.

  19. After n=60 patients x=0 x=2 etc x=1 After n=20 patients x=0 etc Value After n=60 patients Value After n=20 patients

  20. How to choose n and m? • Add cost of safety trial • Maximizing E[Value] over all possible n’s, m’s • Do we need a placebo group? • Adaptive design of safety trial • allocation fraction to placebo group may depend on data • Adaptive design of next phase • checking for AE X during study

  21. Dose-responseexample

  22. A new drug • has pros and cons • … and some uncertainty in the assessment thereof • It is important to study each dimension (efficacy, different types of safety issues) separately • But a combined analysis may also be useful • May this help sponsor-regulator communication?

  23. Rate / Loss fcn Weighted net loss Net loss AE Lack of effect Exposure Inspired by Marie Cullberg’s PhD thesis

  24. Don’t trust your DA blindly! • Check robustness • Question the assumptions • Let the decision-makers, not the DA model, determine the final decision • DA helps decision-makers • by structuring the problem • exploring logical consequences of assumptions • facilitate communication

More Related