Abstract
In late-stage drug development, drug developers have to make two critical Go–No Go decisions. The first one is whether to proceed to the definitive Phase III investigation after a Phase II proof-of-concept (POC) trial. The second one is whether to stop a Phase III confirmatory trial for futility after an interim analysis of the data. In practice, the two decisions are heuristically made with limited statistical input, usually amounting to statistical characterization of proposed options. We propose to find the optimal decisions by explicitly maximizing a benefit–cost ratio function, which is often the implicit objective in an otherwise qualitative decision-making process. The numerator of the function represents the benefit (proportional to the expected number of truly active drugs identified for Phase III development in the POC setting; proportional to the expected power for successful completion of Phase III in the interim analysis setting), and the denominator represents the expected total late-stage development cost. The method is easy to explain and simple to implement. The optimal design parameters provide a rational starting point for decision makers to consider. As an illustration, the method developed herein is applied to examples from the oncology therapeutic area including an adaptive seamless Phase II/III design. The same idea is applicable to any disease area where cost-effectiveness of a Go–No Go decision is a major concern.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Anderson KA (2006) Optimal spending functions for asymmetric group sequential designs. Biom J 48:1–9
Berry D (2004) Bayesian statistics and the efficiency and ethics of clinical trials. Stat Sci 19:175–187
Chen C, Beckman RA (2009a) Optimal cost-effective designs of proof of concept trials and associated Go-No Go decisions. J Biopharm Stat 19:424–436
Chen C, Beckman RA (2009b) Optimal cost-effective Go-No Go decisions in late-stage oncology drug development. Stat Biopharm Res 1:159–169
Chen C, Beckman RA (2009c) Hypothesis testing in a confirmatory phase III trial with a possible subset effect. Stat Biopharm Res 1:431–440
Chen C, Beckman RA (2014) Maximizing return on socioeconomic investment in phase II proof-of-concept trials. Clin Cancer Res 20:1730–1734
Chen C, Sun L (2011) On quantification of PFS effect for accelerated approval of oncology drugs. Stat Biopharm Res 3:434–444
Chen C, Sun L, Li C (2013) Evaluation of early efficacy endpoints for proof-of-concept trials. J Biopharm Stat 23:413–424
Estey EH, Thall PF (2003) New designs for phase 2 clinical trials. Blood 102:442–448
Gould L (2005) Timing for futility analyses for “proof of concept” trials. Stat Med 24:1815–1835
Jennison C, Turnbull BW (2000) Group sequential methods with applications to clinical trials. Chapman and Hall/CRC, London
Korn EL, Arbuck SG, Pluda JM et al (2001) Clinical trial designs for cytostatic agents: are new approaches needed? J Clin Oncol 19:265–272, 3154–3160 (correspondence)
Leung D, Wang Y (2001) A Bayesian decision approach for sample size determination in phase II trials. Biometrics 57:309–312
O’Hagen A, Stevens JW, Campbell MJ (2005) Assurance in clinical trial design. Pharm Stat 4:187–201
Patel NR, Ankolekar S (2007) A Bayesian approach for incorporating economic factors in sample size design for clinical trials of individual drugs and portfolios of drugs. Stat Med 26:4976–4988
Posch M, Koenig F, Branson M, Brannath W, Dunger-Baldauf C, Bauer P (2005) Testing and estimation in flexible group sequential designs with adaptive treatment selection. Stat Med 24:3697–3714
Rubinstein LV, Korn EL, Freidlin B et al (2005) Design Issues of randomized phase II trials and a proposal for phase II screening trials. J Clin Oncol 23:7199–7206
Simon R (1989) Optimal two-stage designs for phase II clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 10:1–10
Simon RM, Steinberg SM, Hamilton M et al (2001) Clinical trial designs for the early clinical development of therapeutic cancer vaccines. J Clin Oncol 19:1848–1854
Stallard N (1998) Sample size determination for phase II clinical trials based on Bayesian decision theory. Biometrics 54:279–294
Stallard N (2003) Decision-theoretic designs for phase II clinical trials allowing for competing studies. Biometrics 59:402–409
Stallard N, Todd S (2003) Sequential designs for phase III clinical trials incorporating treatment selection. Stat Med 22:689–703
Stallard N, Whiehead J, Cleall S (2005) Decision-making in a phase II clinical trial: a new approach combining Bayesian and frequentist concepts. Pharm Stat 4:119–128
Sun L, Chen C (2012) Advanced application of using progression-free survival to make optimal Go-No Go decision in oncology drug development. ASA Proceedings of the Joint Statistical Meetings 2012, Biopharmaceutical Section, Alexandria, VA: American Statistical Association
Sun Z, Chen C, Patel K (2009) Optimal two-stage randomized multinomial designs for phase II oncology trials. J Biopharm Stat 19(2):485–495
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2014 Springer Science+Business Media New York
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Chen, C., Beckman, R.A., Sun, L.Z. (2014). Optimal Cost-Effective Go–No Go Decisions in Clinical Development. In: He, W., Pinheiro, J., Kuznetsova, O. (eds) Practical Considerations for Adaptive Trial Design and Implementation. Statistics for Biology and Health. Springer, New York, NY. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1100-4_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4939-1100-4_5
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, New York, NY
Print ISBN: 978-1-4939-1099-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-4939-1100-4
eBook Packages: Mathematics and StatisticsMathematics and Statistics (R0)