Efficient two-stage sequential arrays of proof of concept studies for pharmaceutical portfolios

Abstract

Previous work has shown that individual randomized “proof-of-concept” (PoC) studies may be designed to maximize cost-effectiveness, subject to an overall PoC budget constraint. Maximizing cost-effectiveness has also been considered for arrays of simultaneously executed PoC studies. Defining Type III error as the opportunity cost of not performing a PoC study, we evaluate the common pharmaceutical practice of allocating PoC study funds in two stages. Stage 1, or the first wave of PoC studies, screens drugs to identify those to be permitted additional PoC studies in Stage 2. We investigate if this strategy significantly improves efficiency, despite slowing development. We quantify the benefit, cost, benefit-cost ratio, and Type III error given the number of Stage 1 PoC studies. Relative to a single stage PoC strategy, significant cost-effective gains are seen when at least one of the drugs has a low probability of success (10%) and especially when there are either few drugs (2) with a large number of indications allowed per drug (10) or a large portfolio of drugs (4). In these cases, the recommended number of Stage 1 PoC studies ranges from 2 to 4, tracking approximately with an inflection point in the minimization curve of Type III error.

Keywords

Decision analysis portfolio optimization cost-effectiveness proof of concept

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Nottage

Siu

. Principles of clinical trial design. J Clin Oncol 2002; 20: 42S–46S.

Murthy

Krumholz

Gross

. Participation in cancer clinical trials: race-, sex-, and age-based disparities. JAMA 2004; 291: 2720–2726.

Chen

Beckman

. Optimal cost-effective go-no go decisions in late-stage oncology drug development. Stat Biopharmaceut Res 2009; 1: 159–169.

Chen C and Beckman RA. Optimal cost-effective designs of proof of concept trials and associated go-no go decisions. Proceedings of the American Statistical Association, Biometrics Section; 2007.

Chen

Beckman

. Optimal cost-effective designs of stage II proof of concept trials and associated go–no go decisions. J Biopharmaceut Stat 2009; 19: 424–436.

Chen

Beckman

. Maximizing return on socioeconomic investment in phase II proof-of-concept trials. Clin Cancer Res 2014; 20: 1730–1734.

Beckman

Clark

Chen

. Integrating predictive biomarkers and classifiers into oncology clinical development programmes. Nat Rev Drug Discov 2011; 10: 735.

Simon

. Optimal two-stage designs for phase II clinical trials. Control Clin Trials 1989; 10: 1–10.

Chen

Deng

, et al. How many tumor indications should be initially screened in development of next generation immunotherapies? Contemporary Clin Trials 2017; 59: 113–117.

10.

Stallard

. Sample size determination for phase II clinical trials based on Bayesian decision theory. Biometrics 1998; 54: 279–294.

11.

Claxton Kand Thompson

. A dynamic programming approach to the efficient design of clinical trials. J Health Econ 2001; 20: 797–822.

12.

Gittins

Pezeshk

. How large should a clinical trial be? J Royal Stat Soc: Series D (The Statistician) 2000; 49: 177–187.

13.

Kikuchi

Pezeshk

Gittins

. A Bayesian cost-benefit approach to the determination of sample size in clinical trials. Stat Med 2008; 27: 68–82.

14.

Hee

Stallard

. Designing a series of decision-theoretic phase II trials in a small population. Stat Med 2012; 31: 4337–4351.

15.

Stallard

. Optimal sample sizes for phase II clinical trials and pilot studies. Stat Med 2012; 31: 1031–1042.

16.

Chen

Sun

. Evaluation of early efficacy endpoints for proof-of-concept trials. J Biopharm Stat 2013; 23: 413–424.

17.

Miller

Burman

. A decision theoretical modeling for Phase III investments and drug licensing. J Biopharm Stat 2018; 28: 698–721.

18.

Antonijevic

. The impact of adaptive design on portfolio optimization. Ther Innov Regul Sci 2016; 50: 615–619.

19.

Trusheim

Shrier

Antonijevic

, et al. PIPELINEs: creating comparable clinical knowledge efficiently by linking trial platforms. Clin Pharmacol Therapeut 2016; 100: 713–729.