Abstract
The proof-of-concept (PoC) decision is a key milestone in the clinical development of an experimental treatment. A decision is taken on whether the experimental treatment is further developed (GO), whether its development is stopped (NO-GO), or whether further information is needed to make a decision. The PoC decision is typically based on a PoC clinical trial in patients comparing the experimental treatment with a control treatment. It is important that the PoC trial be designed such that a GO/NO-GO decision can be made. The present work develops a generic, Bayesian framework for defining quantitative PoC criteria, against which the PoC trial results can be assessed. It is argued that PoC criteria based solely on significance testing versus the control are not appropriate in this decision context. A dual PoC criterion is proposed that includes assessment of superiority over the control and relevance of the effect size and hence better matches clinical decision making. The approach is illustrated for 2 PoC trials in cystic fibrosis and psoriasis.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Sheiner LB. Learning versus confirming in clinical drug development. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 1997;61(3):275–291.
Cartwright ME, Cohen S, Fleishaker JC, et al. Proof of concept: a PhRMA position paper with recommendations for best practice. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2010;87(3):278–285.
DiMasi JA, Feldman L, Seckler A, Wilson A. Trends in risks associated with new drug development: success rates for investigational drugs. Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2010;87(3):272–277.
Mallinckrodt C, Molenberghs G, Persinger C, Ruberg S, Sashegyi A, Lindborg S. A portfolio-based approach to optimize proof-of-concept clinical trials. J Biopharm Stat. 2012;22(3):596–607.
Neuenschwander B, Rouyrre N, Hollaender N, Zuber E, Branson M. A proof of concept phase II non-inferiority criterion. Stat Med. 2011;30(13):1618–1627.
Chuang-Stein C, Kirby S, Hirsch I, Atkinson G. The role of the minimum clinically important difference and its impact on designing a trial. Biopharm Stat. 2011;10(3):250–256.
Chuang-Stein C, Kirby S, French J, et al. A quantitative approach for making go/no-go decisions in drug development. Drug Inf J. 2011;45:187–202.
Spiegelhalter DJ, Freedman LS, Parmar MKB. Applying Bayesian ideas in drug development and clinical trials. Stat Med. 1993;12 (15–16):1501–1511.
Spiegelhalter DJ, Abrams KR, Myles JP. Bayesian Approaches to Clinical Trials and Health Care Evaluation. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 2004.
Hobbs BP, Carlin BP. Practical Bayesian design and analysis for drug and device clinical trials. J Biopharm Stat. 2007;18:54–80.
Berry SM, Carlin BP, Lee JJ, Müller P. Bayesian Adaptive Methods for Clinical Trials. London, UK: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2010.
Gelfand AE, Smith AFM. Sampling-based approaches to calculating marginal densities. J Am Stat Assoc. 1990;85:398–409.
Neuenschwander B, Capkun-Niggli G, Branson M, Spiegelhalter DJ. Summarizing historical information on controls in clinical trials. Clin Trials. 2010;7(1):5–18.
Gsteiger S, Neuenschwander B, Mercier F, Schmidli H. Using historical control information for the design and analysis of clinical trials with overdispersed count data. Stat Med. 2013;32(21):3609–3622.
Bansback N, Sizto S, Sun H, Feldman S, Willian MK, Anis A. Efficacy of systemic treatments for moderate to severe plaque psoriasis: systematic review and meta-analysis. Dermatology. 2009;219(3):209–218.
Kieser M, Hauschke D. Assessment of clinical relevance by considering point estimates and associated confidence intervals. Biopharm Stat. 2005;4(2):101–107.
Smith MK, Jones I, Morris MF, Grieve AP, Tan K. Implementation of a Bayesian adaptive design in a proof of concept study. Biopharm Stat. 2006;5:39–50.
Gsponer T, Gerber F, Bornkamp B, Ohlssen D, Vandemeulebroecke M, Schmidli H. A practical guide to Bayesian group sequential designs. Biopharm Stat. 2014;13(1):71–80.
Gerber F, Gsponer T. gsbDesign: an R Package for evaluating operating characteristics for a group sequential Bayesian design. submitted to J Stat Softw. 2014.
Dmitrienko A, Wang M-D. Bayesian predictive approach to interim monitoring in clinical trials. Stat Med. 2006;25:2178–2195.
Baeten D, Baraliakos X, Braun J, et al. Anti-interleukin-17A monoclonal antibody secukinumab in treatment of ankylosing spondylitis: a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2013;382(9906):1705–1713.
Hueber W, Sands BE, Lewitzky S, et al.; Secukinumab in Crohn’s Disease Study Group. Secukinumab, a human anti-IL-17A monoclonal antibody, for moderate to severe Crohn’s disease: unexpected results of a randomised, double-blind placebo-controlled trial. Gut. 2012;61(12):1693–700.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Fisch, R., Jones, I., Jones, J. et al. Bayesian Design of Proof-of-Concept Trials. Ther Innov Regul Sci 49, 155–162 (2015). https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479014533970
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479014533970