Aspects of Modernizing Drug Development Using Clinical Scenario Planning and Evaluation

Modern drug development requires an efficient clinical development program to have a reasonable chance of successfully leading to the submission of the therapy, given that the therapy is effective, or to early stopping if this is not the case. Clinical trials and programs should be designed to effectively support this final goal. Currently, the statistical planning in drug development is based on parts of a clinical program in isolation, conditioned on one fixed setting, focusing on sample size calculation or simple design questions. There is, however, an increasing demand for a clinical program optimization and acceleration as well as an unconditional evaluation of relative program efficiency, robustness, and validity. The complexity of the development process, however, often does not allow for simple solutions, frequently requiring computer simulations to support these assessments. We propose a general framework for comparing competing options for clinical programs, trial designs, and analysis methods as a basis for decision making and to facilitate the internal and external dialogue with key stakeholders. The final decision making ultimately needs to factor in quantitative aspects as well as additional qualitative dimensions such as logistic feasibility, regulatory acceptance, and so on. A terminology is introduce that clearly describes the different aspects of such a framework, the range of underlying assumptions, the competing options, and the metrics that are used to assess and compare these options. Three specific case studies are presented that illustrate these concepts at three different levels: program planning, trial design, and analysis methods.

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

[2]  Cary W. Adams Chapter 3 – Six Sigma Deployment Overview , 2003 .

[3]  Frank Bretz,et al.  Confirmatory Seamless Phase II/III Clinical Trials with Hypotheses Selection at Interim: General Concepts , 2006, Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift.

[4]  Meinhard Kieser,et al.  Sample Size Recalculation in Internal Pilot Study Designs: A Review , 2006, Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift.

[5]  P. Armitage Interim analysis in clinical trials. , 1991, Statistics in medicine.

[6]  T. Keelin,et al.  How SmithKline Beecham makes better resource-allocation decisions. , 1998, Harvard business review.

[7]  G G Koch,et al.  Issues for covariance analysis of dichotomous and ordered categorical data from randomized clinical trials and non-parametric strategies for addressing them. , 1998, Statistics in medicine.

[8]  Michael S. Allen Business Portfolio Management: Valuation, Risk Assessment, and EVA Strategies , 1999 .

[9]  W. Brannath,et al.  An Adaptive Hierarchical Test Procedure for Selecting Safe and Efficient Treatments , 2006, Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift.

[10]  Jean-Yves Reginster,et al.  Effect on blood pressure of lumiracoxib versus ibuprofen in patients with osteoarthritis and controlled hypertension: a randomized trial , 2008, Journal of hypertension.

[11]  Meinhard Kieser,et al.  Simple procedures for blinded sample size adjustment that do not affect the type I error rate , 2003, Statistics in medicine.

[12]  Paul Gallo,et al.  Sample Size Reestimation: A Review and Recommendations , 2006 .

[13]  Praveen Gupta,et al.  Six Sigma Deployment , 2003 .

[14]  Nigel Stallard,et al.  Dose selection in seamless phase II/III clinical trials based on efficacy and safety , 2009, Statistics in medicine.

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

[16]  Frank Bretz,et al.  Confirmatory Seamless Phase II/III Clinical Trials with Hypotheses Selection at Interim: Applications and Practical Considerations , 2006, Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift.