Advertisement

Impact of Phase 2b Strategies on Optimization of Drug Development Programs

  • Zoran Antonijevic
  • Jim Bolognese
  • Carl-Fredrik Burman
  • Christy Chuang-Stein
  • Chris Jennison
  • Martin Kimber
  • Olga Marchenko
  • Nitin R. Patel
  • José Pinheiro
Chapter

Abstract

Selecting the right dose is critical for the success of any drug development program, and for maximizing the value of a product. A well selected dose will have a better chance to demonstrate a desirable risk/benefit profile and thus increase the chance of regulatory success and reimbursement by payors. It will also result in improved patient care and greater benefit to society. Multiple papers have been published within industry’s adaptive design working groups, and these are the key findings.

  • Given that dose selection impacts Phase 3 parameters, it should be assessed in a broader context of the whole development program.

  • There isn’t one solution for all possible development scenarios. For every situation one should specify a series of alternative program scenarios and compare them.

  • Study design has a great impact on the value of a product.

  • Dose selection criteria must be consistent with ultimate program objectives. Additionally, targeting the minimum effective dose should be avoided.

  • Adaptive designs perform much better than fixed designs in dose-selection studies.

  • Larger dose-finding studies improve the chance to select the optimal dose, but this should be balanced against higher costs, and longer development time.

Keywords

Dose selection criteria Value of selected dose Development scenarios Program level optimization Adaptive design Simulations 

References

  1. 1.
    Bornkamp B, Bretz F, Dmitrienko A, Enas G, Gaydos B, Hsu CH, Koenig F, Krams M, Liu Q, Neuenschwander B, Parke T, Pinheiro J, Roy A, Sax R, Shen F (2007) Innovative approaches for designing and analyzing adaptive dose-ranging trials (with discussion). J Biopharm Stat 17:965–995CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Dragalin V, Bornkamp B, Bretz F, Miller F, Padmanabhan SK, Perevozskaya I, Pinheiro J, Smith JR (2010) A simulation study to compare new adaptive dose-ranging designs. Stat Biopharm Res 2:487–512CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Antonijevic Z, Pinheiro J, Fardipour P, Lewis R (2010) Impact of dose selection strategies used in phase II on the probability of success in phase III. Stat Biopharm Res 2:469–486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nitin P, Bolognese J, Chuang-Stein C, Hewitt D, Gammaitoni A, Pinheiro J (2012) Designing phase 2 trials based on program-level considerations: a case study for neuropathic pain. Drug Inf J 46(4):439–454Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Antonijevic Z, Kimber M, Manner D, Burman C-F, Pinheiro J, Bergenheim K (2013) Optimizing drug development programs: type 2 diabetes case study. Ther Innov Regul Sci 47(3):363–374Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Marchenko O, Miller J, Parke T, Perevozskaya I, Qian J, Wang Y (2013) Improving oncology clinical program by use of innovative designs and comparing them via simulations. Ther Innov Regul Sci 47(5):602–612Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Antonijevic Z (2009) Impact of dose selection strategies on the success of drug development programs. TouchBriefings 4:104–106Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zoran Antonijevic
    • 1
  • Jim Bolognese
    • 1
  • Carl-Fredrik Burman
    • 2
  • Christy Chuang-Stein
    • 3
  • Chris Jennison
    • 4
  • Martin Kimber
    • 5
  • Olga Marchenko
    • 6
  • Nitin R. Patel
    • 1
    • 7
  • José Pinheiro
    • 8
  1. 1.Cytel Inc.CambridgeUSA
  2. 2.AstraZeneca R&DMolndalSweden
  3. 3.PfizerKalamazooUSA
  4. 4.Department of Mathematical SciencesUniversity of BathBathUK
  5. 5.TessellaAbingdonUK
  6. 6.Quintiles InnovationMorrisvilleUSA
  7. 7.Center for Biomedical InnovationMassachusetts Institute of TechnologyCambridgeUSA
  8. 8.Janssen R&DRaritanUSA

Personalised recommendations