Identifying a Subpopulation for a Tailored Therapy: Bridging Clinical Efficacy From a Laboratory-Developed Assay to a Validated In Vitro Diagnostic Test Kit

In the United States, regulatory approval of a therapy that is tailored to a subpopulation may require the coapproval of a companion in vitro diagnostic (IVD) tool for identifying that subpopulation. Unfortunately, for many reasons, development of the companion IVD may lag such that it is unavailable during a pivotal clinical trial of the therapy. Instead, a laboratory-developed test (LDT) may be used on clinical trial specimens to identify the subpopulation on whom to evaluate the therapy. However, remaining specimen material is saved so that when the companion IVD is ready for market, the specimens can be retested, in an effort to “bridge” from the LDT to the IVD. Unfortunately, retest results can be missing or invalid because some subjects lack remaining specimen material or because what remains is unevaluable (e.g., due to insufficient specimen material, inadequate specimen quality). We frame the bridging analysis problem as one of estimating drug efficacy in the IVD-defined subpopulation. We develop a closed-form approach, as well as approaches based on multiple imputation and bootstrapping to address the missing data problem. We discuss this in the context of a case study involving a recent submission and approval in the United States of a drug and IVD in oncology.

[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]  Anthony C. Davison,et al.  Bootstrap Methods and Their Application , 1998 .

[3]  R. Simon Clinical trials for predictive medicine: new challenges and paradigms , 2010, Clinical trials.

[4]  Roderick J. A. Little,et al.  Statistical Analysis with Missing Data: Little/Statistical Analysis with Missing Data , 2002 .

[5]  Bradley Efron,et al.  Missing Data, Imputation, and the Bootstrap , 1994 .

[6]  J. Schafer,et al.  Missing data: our view of the state of the art. , 2002, Psychological methods.

[7]  Raymond J. Carroll,et al.  Measurement error in nonlinear models: a modern perspective , 2006 .

[8]  Xu Yan,et al.  Missing Data Handling Methods in Medical Device Clinical Trials , 2009, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.

[9]  J. Woodcock Assessing the Clinical Utility of Diagnostics Used in Drug Therapy , 2010, Clinical pharmacology and therapeutics.

[10]  Roderick J. A. Little,et al.  Statistical Analysis with Missing Data , 1988 .

[11]  A Note on Stratification in Clinical Trials , 2007 .

[12]  J. Schafer,et al.  A comparison of inclusive and restrictive strategies in modern missing data procedures. , 2001, Psychological methods.

[13]  Nicole A. Lazar,et al.  Statistical Analysis With Missing Data , 2003, Technometrics.

[14]  Gene A Pennello,et al.  Analytical and clinical evaluation of biomarkers assays: When are biomarkers ready for prime time? , 2013, Clinical trials.

[15]  D. Hall Measurement Error in Nonlinear Models: A Modern Perspective , 2008 .

[16]  Gregory Campbell,et al.  Missing Data in the Regulation of Medical Devices , 2011, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.

[17]  J. Schafer Multiple imputation: a primer , 1999, Statistical methods in medical research.

[18]  E. Van Cutsem,et al.  Cetuximab and chemotherapy as initial treatment for metastatic colorectal cancer. , 2009, The New England journal of medicine.