Integrating dose estimation into a decision‐making framework for model‐based drug development

Model-informed drug discovery and development offers the promise of more efficient clinical development, with increased productivity and reduced cost through scientific decision making and risk management. Go/no-go development decisions in the pharmaceutical industry are often driven by effect size estimates, with the goal of meeting commercially generated target profiles. Sufficient efficacy is critical for eventual success, but the decision to advance development phase is also dependent on adequate knowledge of appropriate dose and dose-response. Doses which are too high or low pose risk of clinical or commercial failure. This paper addresses this issue and continues the evolution of formal decision frameworks in drug development. Here, we consider the integration of both efficacy and dose-response estimation accuracy into the go/no-go decision process, using a model-based approach. Using prespecified target and lower reference values associated with both efficacy and dose accuracy, we build a decision framework to more completely characterize development risk. Given the limited knowledge of dose response in early development, our approach incorporates a set of dose-response models and uses model averaging. The approach and its operating characteristics are illustrated through simulation. Finally, we demonstrate the decision approach on a post hoc analysis of the phase 2 data for naloxegol (a drug approved for opioid-induced constipation).

[1]  Charles C. Persinger,et al.  How to improve R&D productivity: the pharmaceutical industry's grand challenge , 2010, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[2]  Opportunities for integration of pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamics, and toxicokinetics in rational drug development , 1992 .

[3]  P. K. Owens,et al.  A decade of innovation in pharmaceutical R&D: the Chorus model , 2014, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[4]  K. Burnham,et al.  Model selection: An integral part of inference , 1997 .

[5]  Anthony O'Hagan,et al.  Assurance in clinical trial design , 2005 .

[6]  H. Akaike.  A new look at the statistical model identification , 1974 .

[7]  Carl Peck,et al.  Postmarketing drug dosage changes of 499 FDA‐approved new molecular entities, 1980–1999 , 2002, Pharmacoepidemiology and drug safety.

[8]  Khaled Bouri,et al.  Scientific and regulatory reasons for delay and denial of FDA approval of initial applications for new drugs, 2000-2012. , 2014, JAMA.

[9]  L B Sheiner,et al.  The population approach to pharmacokinetic data analysis: rationale and standard data analysis methods. , 1984, Drug metabolism reviews.

[10]  J. Wikberg,et al.  Net present value approaches for drug discovery , 2013, SpringerPlus.

[11]  Rajiv Mahajan,et al.  Food and drug administration’s critical path initiative and innovations in drug development paradigm: Challenges, progress, and controversies , 2010, Journal of pharmacy & bioallied sciences.

[12]  W Ewy,et al.  Model‐based Drug Development , 2007, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[13]  L. Webster,et al.  A phase 2, double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, dose-escalation study to evaluate the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of naloxegol in patients with opioid-induced constipation , 2013, PAIN®.

[14]  F Bretz,et al.  Combining Multiple Comparisons and Modeling Techniques in Dose‐Response Studies , 2005, Biometrics.

[15]  James Matcham,et al.  Decision‐making in early clinical drug development , 2016, Pharmaceutical statistics.

[16]  S. Marshall,et al.  Good Practices in Model‐Informed Drug Discovery and Development: Practice, Application, and Documentation , 2016, CPT: pharmacometrics & systems pharmacology.

[17]  L B Sheiner,et al.  Learning versus confirming in clinical drug development , 1997, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[18]  N H Holford,et al.  Drug treatment effects on disease progression. , 2001, Annual review of pharmacology and toxicology.

[19]  Phil Woodward,et al.  Advantages of a wholly Bayesian approach to assessing efficacy in early drug development: a case study , 2015, Pharmaceutical statistics.

[20]  Andrew Copas,et al.  A Quantitative Process for Enhancing End of Phase 2 Decisions , 2014, Statistics in biopharmaceutical research.

[21]  W. Chey,et al.  Naloxegol for opioid-induced constipation in patients with noncancer pain. , 2014, The New England journal of medicine.

[22]  J. Arrowsmith,et al.  Trial Watch: Phase II and Phase III attrition rates 2011–2012 , 2013, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[23]  K. Bode-Greuel,et al.  Determining the value of drug development candidates and technology platforms , 2005 .