Adaptive designs for subpopulation analysis optimizing utility functions

If the response to treatment depends on genetic biomarkers, it is important to identify predictive biomarkers that define (sub-)populations where the treatment has a positive benefit risk balance. One approach to determine relevant subpopulations are subgroup analyses where the treatment effect is estimated in biomarker positive and biomarker negative groups. Subgroup analyses are challenging because several types of risks are associated with inference on subgroups. On the one hand, by disregarding a relevant subpopulation a treatment option may be missed due to a dilution of the treatment effect in the full population. Furthermore, even if the diluted treatment effect can be demonstrated in an overall population, it is not ethical to treat patients that do not benefit from the treatment when they can be identified in advance. On the other hand, selecting a spurious subpopulation increases the risk to restrict an efficacious treatment to a too narrow fraction of a potential benefiting population. We propose to quantify these risks with utility functions and investigate nonadaptive study designs that allow for inference on subgroups using multiple testing procedures as well as adaptive designs, where subgroups may be selected in an interim analysis. The characteristics of such adaptive and nonadaptive designs are compared for a range of scenarios.

[1]  Daniel J Sargent,et al.  Clinical trial designs for predictive biomarker validation: theoretical considerations and practical challenges. , 2009, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[2]  K. Gabriel,et al.  On closed testing procedures with special reference to ordered analysis of variance , 1976 .

[3]  Boris Freidlin,et al.  Randomized clinical trials with biomarkers: design issues. , 2010, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[4]  Lei Shen,et al.  A Statistical Framework for Decision Making in Confirmatory Multipopulation Tailoring Clinical Trials , 2012 .

[5]  B. Freidlin,et al.  Biomarker enrichment strategies: matching trial design to biomarker credentials , 2014, Nature Reviews Clinical Oncology.

[6]  George Y H Chi,et al.  A method for testing a prespecified subgroup in clinical trials , 2007, Statistics in medicine.

[7]  Baldur P Magnusson,et al.  Group sequential enrichment design incorporating subgroup selection , 2013, Statistics in medicine.

[8]  Frank Bretz,et al.  Confirmatory adaptive designs with Bayesian decision tools for a targeted therapy in oncology , 2009, Statistics in medicine.

[9]  M Kieser,et al.  Combining different phases in the development of medical treatments within a single trial. , 1999, Statistics in medicine.

[10]  Tt Nguyen,et al.  Willingness to Pay For A Quality-Adjusted Life Year of Outpatients with Cardiovascular Diseases , 2016 .

[11]  W. Lehmacher,et al.  Adaptive Sample Size Calculations in Group Sequential Trials , 1999, Biometrics.

[12]  Armin Koch,et al.  Personalized medicine using DNA biomarkers: a review , 2012, Human Genetics.

[13]  C. Jennison,et al.  An adaptive seamless phase II/III design for oncology trials with subpopulation selection using correlated survival endpoints † , 2011, Pharmaceutical statistics.

[14]  P. Bauer,et al.  Evaluation of experiments with adaptive interim analyses. , 1994, Biometrics.

[15]  Robert A. Beckman,et al.  Integrating predictive biomarkers and classifiers into oncology clinical development programmes , 2011, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[16]  Cyrus Mehta,et al.  Optimizing Trial Design: Sequential, Adaptive, and Enrichment Strategies , 2009, Circulation.

[17]  Mohammad F Huque,et al.  A flexible strategy for testing subgroups and overall population , 2009, Statistics in medicine.

[18]  R. Simon,et al.  Adaptive Signature Design: An Adaptive Clinical Trial Design for Generating and Prospectively Testing A Gene Expression Signature for Sensitive Patients , 2005, Clinical Cancer Research.

[19]  Martin Posch,et al.  Optimal choice of the number of treatments to be included in a clinical trial , 2009, Statistics in medicine.

[20]  Sue-Jane Wang,et al.  Adaptive patient enrichment designs in therapeutic trials , 2009, Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift.

[21]  Michael E. Chernew,et al.  Willingness to Pay for a Quality-adjusted Life Year , 2000, Medical decision making : an international journal of the Society for Medical Decision Making.

[22]  R. Simes,et al.  An improved Bonferroni procedure for multiple tests of significance , 1986 .

[23]  Tim Friede,et al.  Adaptive Designs for Confirmatory Clinical Trials with Subgroup Selection , 2014, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.

[24]  P. Bauer,et al.  The risks of methodology aversion in drug regulation , 2014, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[25]  Martin Posch,et al.  Adaptive Budgets in Clinical Trials , 2013, Statistics in biopharmaceutical research.

[26]  G. Hommel Adaptive Modifications of Hypotheses After an Interim Analysis , 2001 .

[27]  Frank Bretz,et al.  TUTORIAL IN BIOSTATISTICS Adaptive designs for confirmatory clinical trials , 2022 .

[28]  A. Breckenridge,et al.  The risks of risk aversion in drug regulation , 2013, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[29]  T. Friede,et al.  A conditional error function approach for subgroup selection in adaptive clinical trials , 2012, Statistics in medicine.

[30]  Robert A. Beckman,et al.  Hypothesis Testing in a Confirmatory Phase III Trial With a Possible Subset Effect , 2009 .

[31]  Lawrence D. Phillips,et al.  Benefit-risk methodology project:work package 3 report: field tests , 2011 .

[32]  Daniel J Sargent,et al.  Clinical Trial Designs for Predictive Biomarker Validation: One Size Does Not Fit All , 2009, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.

[33]  Nigel Stallard,et al.  An Adaptive Group Sequential Design for Phase II/III Clinical Trials that Select a Single Treatment From Several , 2005, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.

[34]  Sue-Jane Wang,et al.  Approaches to evaluation of treatment effect in randomized clinical trials with genomic subset , 2007, Pharmaceutical statistics.

[35]  R. Simon,et al.  On the efficiency of targeted clinical trials , 2005, Statistics in medicine.

[36]  R. Simon,et al.  Biomarker-adaptive threshold design: a procedure for evaluating treatment with possible biomarker-defined subset effect. , 2007, Journal of the National Cancer Institute.

[37]  H. Schäfer,et al.  A general statistical principle for changing a design any time during the course of a trial , 2004, Statistics in medicine.

[38]  H. Schäfer,et al.  Adaptive Group Sequential Designs for Clinical Trials: Combining the Advantages of Adaptive and of Classical Group Sequential Approaches , 2001, Biometrics.

[39]  Daniel J Sargent,et al.  Statistical issues in the validation of prognostic, predictive, and surrogate biomarkers , 2013, Clinical trials.

[40]  Y. Hochberg A sharper Bonferroni procedure for multiple tests of significance , 1988 .

[41]  A. Egberts,et al.  Optimizing trial design in pharmacogenetics research: comparing a fixed parallel group, group sequential, and adaptive selection design on sample size requirements , 2013, Pharmaceutical statistics.