Skip to main content

Optimal Cost-Effective Go–No Go Decisions in Clinical Development

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Practical Considerations for Adaptive Trial Design and Implementation

Part of the book series: Statistics for Biology and Health ((SBH))

  • 2147 Accesses

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.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 149.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 199.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Anderson KA (2006) Optimal spending functions for asymmetric group sequential designs. Biom J 48:1–9

    Google Scholar 

  • Berry D (2004) Bayesian statistics and the efficiency and ethics of clinical trials. Stat Sci 19:175–187

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Chen C, Beckman RA (2009b) Optimal cost-effective Go-No Go decisions in late-stage oncology drug development. Stat Biopharm Res 1:159–169

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen C, Beckman RA (2009c) Hypothesis testing in a confirmatory phase III trial with a possible subset effect. Stat Biopharm Res 1:431–440

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen C, Beckman RA (2014) Maximizing return on socioeconomic investment in phase II proof-of-concept trials. Clin Cancer Res 20:1730–1734

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen C, Sun L (2011) On quantification of PFS effect for accelerated approval of oncology drugs. Stat Biopharm Res 3:434–444

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen C, Sun L, Li C (2013) Evaluation of early efficacy endpoints for proof-of-concept trials. J Biopharm Stat 23:413–424

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Estey EH, Thall PF (2003) New designs for phase 2 clinical trials. Blood 102:442–448

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gould L (2005) Timing for futility analyses for “proof of concept” trials. Stat Med 24:1815–1835

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • Jennison C, Turnbull BW (2000) Group sequential methods with applications to clinical trials. Chapman and Hall/CRC, London

    MATH  Google Scholar 

  • 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)

    Google Scholar 

  • Leung D, Wang Y (2001) A Bayesian decision approach for sample size determination in phase II trials. Biometrics 57:309–312

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • O’Hagen A, Stevens JW, Campbell MJ (2005) Assurance in clinical trial design. Pharm Stat 4:187–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Simon R (1989) Optimal two-stage designs for phase II clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 10:1–10

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • Stallard N (1998) Sample size determination for phase II clinical trials based on Bayesian decision theory. Biometrics 54:279–294

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Stallard N (2003) Decision-theoretic designs for phase II clinical trials allowing for competing studies. Biometrics 59:402–409

    Article  MathSciNet  MATH  Google Scholar 

  • Stallard N, Todd S (2003) Sequential designs for phase III clinical trials incorporating treatment selection. Stat Med 22:689–703

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

  • 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

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cong Chen .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints 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

Publish with us

Policies and ethics