Cargando…
Optimal designs for phase II/III drug development programs including methods for discounting of phase II results
BACKGROUND: Go/no-go decisions after phase II and sample size chosen for phase III are usually based on phase II results (e.g., the treatment effect estimate of phase II). Due to the decision rule (only promising phase II results lead to phase III), treatment effect estimates from phase II that init...
Autores principales: | , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2020
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7547445/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33036572 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01093-w |
_version_ | 1783592421857165312 |
---|---|
author | Erdmann, Stella Kirchner, Marietta Götte, Heiko Kieser, Meinhard |
author_facet | Erdmann, Stella Kirchner, Marietta Götte, Heiko Kieser, Meinhard |
author_sort | Erdmann, Stella |
collection | PubMed |
description | BACKGROUND: Go/no-go decisions after phase II and sample size chosen for phase III are usually based on phase II results (e.g., the treatment effect estimate of phase II). Due to the decision rule (only promising phase II results lead to phase III), treatment effect estimates from phase II that initiate a phase III trial commonly overestimate the true treatment effect. Underpowered phase III trials are the consequence. Optimistic findings may then not be reproduced, leading to the failure of potentially expensive drug development programs. For some disease areas these failure rates are described to be quite high: 62.5%. METHODS: We integrate the ideas of multiplicative and additive adjustment of treatment effect estimates after go decisions in a utility-based framework for optimizing drug development programs. The design of a phase II/III program, i.e., the “right amount of adjustment”, the allocation of the resources to phase II and III in terms of sample size, and the rule applied to decide whether to stop or to proceed with phase III influences its success considerably. Given specific drug development program characteristics (e.g., fixed and variable per patient costs for phase II and III, probable gain in case of market launch), optimal designs with respect to the maximal expected utility can be identified by the proposed Bayesian-frequentist approach. The method will be illustrated by application to practical examples characteristic for oncological studies. RESULTS: In general, our results show that the program set-ups with adjusted treatment effect estimate used for phase III planning are superior to the “naïve” program set-ups with respect to the maximal expected utility. Therefore, we recommend considering an adjusted phase II treatment effect estimate for the phase III sample size calculation. However, there is no one-fits-all design. CONCLUSION: Individual drug development planning for a specific program is necessary to find the optimal design. The optimal choice of the design parameters for a specific drug development program at hand can be found by our user friendly R Shiny application and package (both assessable open-source via [1]). |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-7547445 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2020 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-75474452020-10-13 Optimal designs for phase II/III drug development programs including methods for discounting of phase II results Erdmann, Stella Kirchner, Marietta Götte, Heiko Kieser, Meinhard BMC Med Res Methodol Research Article BACKGROUND: Go/no-go decisions after phase II and sample size chosen for phase III are usually based on phase II results (e.g., the treatment effect estimate of phase II). Due to the decision rule (only promising phase II results lead to phase III), treatment effect estimates from phase II that initiate a phase III trial commonly overestimate the true treatment effect. Underpowered phase III trials are the consequence. Optimistic findings may then not be reproduced, leading to the failure of potentially expensive drug development programs. For some disease areas these failure rates are described to be quite high: 62.5%. METHODS: We integrate the ideas of multiplicative and additive adjustment of treatment effect estimates after go decisions in a utility-based framework for optimizing drug development programs. The design of a phase II/III program, i.e., the “right amount of adjustment”, the allocation of the resources to phase II and III in terms of sample size, and the rule applied to decide whether to stop or to proceed with phase III influences its success considerably. Given specific drug development program characteristics (e.g., fixed and variable per patient costs for phase II and III, probable gain in case of market launch), optimal designs with respect to the maximal expected utility can be identified by the proposed Bayesian-frequentist approach. The method will be illustrated by application to practical examples characteristic for oncological studies. RESULTS: In general, our results show that the program set-ups with adjusted treatment effect estimate used for phase III planning are superior to the “naïve” program set-ups with respect to the maximal expected utility. Therefore, we recommend considering an adjusted phase II treatment effect estimate for the phase III sample size calculation. However, there is no one-fits-all design. CONCLUSION: Individual drug development planning for a specific program is necessary to find the optimal design. The optimal choice of the design parameters for a specific drug development program at hand can be found by our user friendly R Shiny application and package (both assessable open-source via [1]). BioMed Central 2020-10-09 /pmc/articles/PMC7547445/ /pubmed/33036572 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01093-w Text en © The Author(s) 2020 Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Research Article Erdmann, Stella Kirchner, Marietta Götte, Heiko Kieser, Meinhard Optimal designs for phase II/III drug development programs including methods for discounting of phase II results |
title | Optimal designs for phase II/III drug development programs including methods for discounting of phase II results |
title_full | Optimal designs for phase II/III drug development programs including methods for discounting of phase II results |
title_fullStr | Optimal designs for phase II/III drug development programs including methods for discounting of phase II results |
title_full_unstemmed | Optimal designs for phase II/III drug development programs including methods for discounting of phase II results |
title_short | Optimal designs for phase II/III drug development programs including methods for discounting of phase II results |
title_sort | optimal designs for phase ii/iii drug development programs including methods for discounting of phase ii results |
topic | Research Article |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7547445/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33036572 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01093-w |
work_keys_str_mv | AT erdmannstella optimaldesignsforphaseiiiiidrugdevelopmentprogramsincludingmethodsfordiscountingofphaseiiresults AT kirchnermarietta optimaldesignsforphaseiiiiidrugdevelopmentprogramsincludingmethodsfordiscountingofphaseiiresults AT gotteheiko optimaldesignsforphaseiiiiidrugdevelopmentprogramsincludingmethodsfordiscountingofphaseiiresults AT kiesermeinhard optimaldesignsforphaseiiiiidrugdevelopmentprogramsincludingmethodsfordiscountingofphaseiiresults |