Optimal Decision Criteria for the Study Design and Sample Size of a Biomarker-Driven Phase III Trial

BACKGROUND The design and sample size of a phase III study for new medical technologies were historically determined within the framework of frequentist hypothesis testing. Recently, drug development using predictive biomarkers, which can predict efficacy based on the status of biomarkers, has attracted attention, and various study designs using predictive biomarkers have been suggested. Additionally, when choosing a study design, considering economic factors, such as the risk of development, expected revenue, and cost, is important. METHODS Here, we propose a method to determine the optimal phase III design and sample size and judge whether the phase III study will be conducted using the expected net present value (eNPV). The eNPV is defined using the probability of success of the study calculated based on historical data, the revenue that will be obtained after the success of the phase III study, and the cost of the study. Decision procedures of the optimal phase III design and sample size considering historical data obtained up to the start of the phase III study were considered using numerical examples. RESULTS Based on the numerical examples, the optimal study design and sample size depend on the mean treatment effect in the biomarker-positive and biomarker-negative populations obtained from historical data, the between-trial variance of response, the prevalence of the biomarker-positive population, and the threshold value of probability of success required to go to phase III study. CONCLUSIONS Thus, the design and sample size of a biomarker-driven phase III study can be appropriately determined based on the eNPV.

[1]  Dirk Deleu,et al.  A 1-year, randomized, placebo-controlled study of donepezil in patients with mild to moderate AD. , 2001, Neurology.

[2]  Joseph G Ibrahim,et al.  Bayesian probability of success for clinical trials using historical data , 2015, Statistics in medicine.

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

[4]  M. Posch,et al.  Optimizing Trial Designs for Targeted Therapies , 2016, PloS one.

[5]  Zoran Antonijevic,et al.  A mathematical model for maximizing the value of phase 3 drug development portfolios incorporating budget constraints and risk , 2013, Statistics in medicine.

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

[7]  D. Spiegelhalter,et al.  Summarizing historical information on controls in clinical trials , 2010, Clinical trials.

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

[9]  K. Schulman,et al.  Drug development risk and the cost of capital , 2012, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[10]  A D Roses,et al.  Efficacy of rosiglitazone in a genetically defined population with mild-to-moderate Alzheimer's disease , 2006, The Pharmacogenomics Journal.

[11]  Christy Chuang-Stein,et al.  Sample size and the probability of a successful trial , 2006, Pharmaceutical statistics.

[12]  Nitin R Patel,et al.  A Bayesian approach for incorporating economic factors in sample size design for clinical trials of individual drugs and portfolios of drugs , 2007, Statistics in medicine.

[13]  S. Gauthier,et al.  Apolipoprotein E4 allele as a predictor of cholinergic deficits and treatment outcome in Alzheimer disease. , 1995, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.

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

[15]  J. Gittins,et al.  A behavioral Bayes method to determine the sample size of a clinical trial considering efficacy and safety , 2009, Statistics in medicine.

[16]  R. Sperling,et al.  Donepezil therapy in clinical practice: a randomized crossover study. , 2000, Archives of neurology.

[17]  J. Haines,et al.  Effects of Age, Sex, and Ethnicity on the Association Between Apolipoprotein E Genotype and Alzheimer Disease: A Meta-analysis , 1997 .

[18]  Stephen A. Buser LaPlace Transforms as Present Value Rules: A Note , 1986 .

[19]  P. Raina,et al.  Effectiveness of Cholinesterase Inhibitors and Memantine for Treating Dementia: Evidence Review for a Clinical Practice Guideline , 2008, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[20]  Bart Spiessens,et al.  Adjusted significance levels for subgroup analyses in clinical trials. , 2010, Contemporary clinical trials.

[21]  Daniel J Sargent,et al.  Clinical trial designs for predictive marker validation in cancer treatment trials. , 2005, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[22]  Olga Marchenko,et al.  Improving Oncology Clinical Programs by Use of Innovative Designs and Comparing Them via Simulations , 2013, Therapeutic innovation & regulatory science.

[23]  Hamid Pezeshk,et al.  A Bayesian cost–benefit approach to the determination of sample size in clinical trials , 2008, Statistics in medicine.

[24]  J. Haines,et al.  Effects of age, sex, and ethnicity on the association between apolipoprotein E genotype and Alzheimer disease. A meta-analysis. APOE and Alzheimer Disease Meta Analysis Consortium. , 1997, JAMA.

[25]  Martin Posch,et al.  Adaptive designs for subpopulation analysis optimizing utility functions , 2014, Biometrical journal. Biometrische Zeitschrift.

[26]  J. Jawitz Moments of truncated continuous univariate distributions , 2004 .

[27]  D. Schaid,et al.  Apolipoprotein E: risk factor for Alzheimer disease. , 1994, American journal of human genetics.

[28]  Meinhard Kieser,et al.  Utility‐based optimization of phase II/III programs , 2016, Statistics in medicine.