Upload
matthew-lamb
View
220
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
11
Optimal cost-Optimal cost-effective Go-No Go effective Go-No Go
decisionsdecisions
Cong Chen*, Ph.D.Cong Chen*, Ph.D.Robert A. Beckman, M.D.Robert A. Beckman, M.D.
*Director, Merck & Co., Inc.*Director, Merck & Co., Inc.EFSPI, Basel, June 2010EFSPI, Basel, June 2010
22
Sorry for not being able to attend in person…
3333
OutlineOutline
IntroductionIntroduction Benefit-cost ratio analysis of POC Benefit-cost ratio analysis of POC
design strategiesdesign strategies DiscussionDiscussion
– POC strategy and risk mitigationPOC strategy and risk mitigation– Phase III futility analysisPhase III futility analysis
4444
How to fish smartly?How to fish smartly?
Low success rate and
predictability
Constraint on
societal cost
Numerous POCpossibilities
Biology and tech revolution
5555
Proof-of-concept trialProof-of-concept trial
A A randomized double-blinded randomized double-blinded phase II trial with type I/II error rate phase II trial with type I/II error rate ((αα, , ββ) for detection of ) for detection of ΔΔ based on a based on a surrogate markersurrogate marker– Go to Phase III if p-value <Go to Phase III if p-value <αα
Choice of (Choice of (αα, , ββ, , ΔΔ) is based on a ) is based on a heuristic argument in practice and is heuristic argument in practice and is under-explored in statistical under-explored in statistical literatureliterature
6666
Issues to be addressedIssues to be addressed
What is a more cost-effective What is a more cost-effective sample size for a POC trial?sample size for a POC trial?
What is the optimal bar for a Go What is the optimal bar for a Go decision to Phase III?decision to Phase III?
How to re-allocate resource when How to re-allocate resource when there are more POC trials of there are more POC trials of similar interest? similar interest?
7777
Benefit-cost ratio Benefit-cost ratio analysisanalysis Probability of Go if Probability of Go if probability of probability of
drug truly active in the setting is drug truly active in the setting is POSPOS– (1-POS)*(1-POS)*αα+POS*(1-+POS*(1-ββ))
Expected total sample size (SS)Expected total sample size (SS)– Phase II SS + Prob(Go)*Phase III SSPhase II SS + Prob(Go)*Phase III SS
Benefit cost ratioBenefit cost ratio– Power of carrying active drug (1-Power of carrying active drug (1-ββ) to ) to
Phase III divided by expected total SSPhase III divided by expected total SS
8888
Two designsTwo designs
AssumptionsAssumptions– Same Same ΔΔ of interest, e.g., 50% improvement in of interest, e.g., 50% improvement in
median progression-free-survivalmedian progression-free-survival– Sample size for Phase III is fixed at 800 once a Sample size for Phase III is fixed at 800 once a
Go decision is made after POCGo decision is made after POC Two choices of (Two choices of (αα, , ββ))
– (10%, 20%) or a ~160 patient/~110 events (10%, 20%) or a ~160 patient/~110 events trial trial
– (10%, 40%) or a ~80 patient trial but higher (10%, 40%) or a ~80 patient trial but higher empirical bar (~0.8empirical bar (~0.8ΔΔ vs 0.6 vs 0.6ΔΔ) for a Go decision) for a Go decision
9999
Results for comparisonResults for comparison
POSPOS SizeSize Pr(Go)Pr(Go) PowePowerr
ExpecteExpected total d total
SS SS
Power/ Power/ total SStotal SS
10%10% 160160 17%17% 80%80% 300300 0.270.27
8080 15%15% 60%60% 200200 0.300.30
20%20% 160160 24%24% 80%80% 350350 0.230.23
8080 20%20% 60%60% 240240 0.250.25
30%30% 160160 31%31% 80%80% 400400 0.200.20
8080 25%25% 60%60% 280280 0.210.21
Smaller trial is more cost-effective. More gains Smaller trial is more cost-effective. More gains (15-30% improvement) can be realized after (15-30% improvement) can be realized after optimization.optimization.
1010
Optimal designs under fixed Phase II resource
POS ((αα, , ββ)) Empirical GNG bar
0.1 (6.7%, 26.7%) 0.71ΔΔ
0.2 (7.2%, 25.3%) 0.69ΔΔ
0.3 (8.0%, 23.7%) 0.66ΔΔAssumptions:1) Phase II is resourced for (αα, , ββ)=(0.1,0.2),
which has an implicit Go bar of 0.6ΔΔ 2) Relative sample size of Phase II to Phase III
is 20% (e.g., 160 pts vs 800 pts)
11111111
Resource optimization Resource optimization
Budgeted for conducting one 160 patient Budgeted for conducting one 160 patient POC trial, but has two POC trials of POC trial, but has two POC trials of similar interestsimilar interest– Consensus is that one has higher POS Consensus is that one has higher POS
(P1=30%) than the other (P2=20%)(P1=30%) than the other (P2=20%)– Phase III trial uses same design once GoPhase III trial uses same design once Go
Two scenarios for comparison under Two scenarios for comparison under varying ratio of POC budget (C2)/Phase III varying ratio of POC budget (C2)/Phase III cost (C3) assuming sample size is cost (C3) assuming sample size is proportional to cost proportional to cost – Two drugs have same valueTwo drugs have same value– The one with lower POS has 50% higher valueThe one with lower POS has 50% higher value
12121212
Optimal resource split Optimal resource split under same valueunder same value
13131313
Optimal resource split Optimal resource split and Go bar under same and Go bar under same valuevalue
14141414
Optimal resource split Optimal resource split and Go bar under and Go bar under different valuedifferent value
15151515
Conclusions Conclusions
Optimal (Optimal (αα, , ββ) can be easily optimized ) can be easily optimized from benefit-cost ratio analysisfrom benefit-cost ratio analysis
Number of POC trials and respective Go Number of POC trials and respective Go bars depend on Phase II resource, Phase bars depend on Phase II resource, Phase III cost, perceived POS and projected valueIII cost, perceived POS and projected value
Similar analysis reveals that a greater Similar analysis reveals that a greater ΔΔ has to be consideredhas to be considered when relationship when relationship between surrogate marker and OS is less between surrogate marker and OS is less certain certain – Uncertainty is highest in non-randomized Uncertainty is highest in non-randomized
trials!trials!
1616
POC strategy
More smaller trials, each with a More smaller trials, each with a higher Go bar, are generally higher Go bar, are generally preferred preferred – Adequately powered for larger Adequately powered for larger ΔΔ of true of true
interestinterest Similar analysis shows that Similar analysis shows that
simultaneous investigation is more simultaneous investigation is more cost-effective than sequential cost-effective than sequential investigationinvestigation
17171717
Avastin POC strategyAvastin POC strategy
IndicatioIndicationn
#pts/#pts/armarm
SourceSource
ColonColon 33-3633-36 JCO 2003; 21: 60-65JCO 2003; 21: 60-65
RCCRCC 37-4037-40 NEJM 2003; 349: 427-NEJM 2003; 349: 427-434434
NSCLCNSCLC 32-3432-34 JCO 2004; 22: 2184-91JCO 2004; 22: 2184-91
BreastBreast 10-1810-18 Semin Oncol 2003; Semin Oncol 2003; 5(suppl 16):1175(suppl 16):117
All trials have 3 arms (low/high dose and All trials have 3 arms (low/high dose and placebo) with 80% power for doubling of PFSplacebo) with 80% power for doubling of PFS
18181818
PFS effect of recently PFS effect of recently approved innovative approved innovative drugsdrugs
Trial Trial HR HR (central (central review)review)
HR (local HR (local review)review)
RCC/SorafenibRCC/Sorafenib 0.440.44 0.510.51
RCC/sunitinibRCC/sunitinib 0.420.42 0.420.42
CRC/CRC/panitumumabpanitumumab
0.540.54 0.390.39
BC/lapatinibBC/lapatinib 0.490.49 0.590.59
BC/Bev+pac vs BC/Bev+pac vs pacpac
0.420.42 0.480.48
19191919
Pros and consPros and cons
Smaller trials Smaller trials – Easier to accrue, faster to complete, and Easier to accrue, faster to complete, and
have better quality controlhave better quality control– Empirical findings of large treatment effect Empirical findings of large treatment effect
are more exciting, and help with Phase III are more exciting, and help with Phase III accrualaccrual
– More vulnerable to baseline imbalance More vulnerable to baseline imbalance More trialsMore trials
– Reduces missed opportunities (type III error) Reduces missed opportunities (type III error) and increases overall probability of success and increases overall probability of success
– May inflate program level type I error rateMay inflate program level type I error rate
20202020
Risk mitigationRisk mitigation
Apply minimization or other randomization Apply minimization or other randomization techniques for better baseline balancetechniques for better baseline balance
Follow-up patients for survival after primary Follow-up patients for survival after primary objective for Phase II is achievedobjective for Phase II is achieved– Initiation of Phase III may be delayed while waiting Initiation of Phase III may be delayed while waiting
for Phase II OS data to mature for Phase II OS data to mature – May revisit a Go or No-Go decision as necessary May revisit a Go or No-Go decision as necessary
after OS data become available after OS data become available – Strength of OS data may be used for setting futility Strength of OS data may be used for setting futility
bar of Phase III trial as appropriatebar of Phase III trial as appropriate Revisit those less promising ones from Phase Revisit those less promising ones from Phase
II after leading indications of same drug II after leading indications of same drug achieve major milestones in Phase III achieve major milestones in Phase III
2121
Futility bar at interim for an ongoing Phase III trial A hypothetical Phase III trial
– Designed to have 90% power for detection of Δ in OS before accounting for any futility analysis
– Trial stops for futility at interim if one-sided p-value > α based on survival info of fraction r after 50% of the cost is spent
Benefit = overall power adjusted for futility– May be further adjusted with value as needed
Expected cost = 0.5+0.5*Prob(Go)– where Prob(Go)=(1-POS)*α+POS*(1-β) and β satisfies Zα+Zβ=r1/2(Z0.025+Z0.1)
2222
Benefit-cost ratio analysis at 25% info for 30% POSα (cut-
off)Empirica
l barOvera
ll power
Expected cost
Power/cost
1 -∞ 90.0% 1.00 0.90
0.6 -0.16Δ 88.3% 0.86 1.03
0.5 0 86.8% 0.82 1.06
0.309* 0.31Δ 80.8% 0.74 1.09
0.2 0.53Δ 73.6% 0.69 1.07
2323
Optimal futility bars
POS Info (r) α (cut-off p)
Empirical bar
Overall power
30% 15% 45.0% 0.10Δ 80.2%
20% 36.8% 0.23Δ 80.3%
25% 30.9% 0.31Δ 80.8%
50% 15% 51.6% -0.03Δ 82.8%
20% 42.5% 0.13Δ 82.6%
25% 35.5% 0.23Δ 82.8%
Optimal bar decreases with POS and increases with information. Positive trend is generally required.
2424