Improving pediatric multiple sclerosis interventional phase III study design: a meta-analysis.

Background: To support innovative trial designs in a regulatory setting for pediatric-onset multiple sclerosis (MS), the study aimed to perform a systematic literature review and meta-analysis of relapse rates with interferon ß (IFN ß), fingolimod, and natalizumab and thereby demonstrate potential benefits of Bayesian and non-inferiority designs in this population. Methods: We conducted a literature search in MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception until 17 June 2020 of all studies reporting annualized relapse rates (ARR) in IFN ß-, fingolimod-, or natalizumab-treated patients with pediatric-onset relapsing-remitting MS. These interventions were chosen because the literature was mainly available for these treatments, and they are currently used for the treatment of pediatric MS. Two researchers independently extracted data and assessed study quality using the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care - Quality Assessment Tool. The meta-analysis estimates were obtained by Bayesian random effects model. Data were summarized as ARR point estimates and 95% credible intervals. Results: We found 19 articles, including 2 randomized controlled trials. The baseline ARR reported was between 1.4 and 3.7. The meta-analysis-based ARR was significantly higher in IFN ß-treated patients (0.69, 95% credible interval: 0.51-0.91) versus fingolimod (0.11, 0.04-0.27) and natalizumab (0.17, 0.09-0.31). Based on the meta-analysis results, an appropriate non-inferiority margin versus fingolimod could be in the range of 2.29-2.67 and for natalizumab 1.72-2.29 on the ARR ratio scale. A Bayesian design, which uses historical information for a fingolimod or natalizumab control arm, could reduce the sample size of a new trial by 18 or 14 patients, respectively. Conclusion: This meta-analysis provides evidence that relapse rates are considerably higher with IFNs versus fingolimod or natalizumab. The results support the use of innovative Bayesian or non-inferiority designs to avoid exposing patients to less effective comparators in trials and bringing new medications to patients more efficiently.

Eliciting judgements about dependent quantities of interest: The SHeffield ELicitation Framework extension and copula methods illustrated using an asthma case study.

Pharmaceutical companies regularly need to make decisions about drug development programs based on the limited knowledge from early stage clinical trials. In this situation, eliciting the judgements of experts is an attractive approach for synthesising evidence on the unknown quantities of interest. When calculating the probability of success for a drug development program, multiple quantities of interest-such as the effect of a drug on different endpoints-should not be treated as unrelated. We discuss two approaches for establishing a multivariate distribution for several related quantities within the SHeffield ELicitation Framework (SHELF). The first approach elicits experts' judgements about a quantity of interest conditional on knowledge about another one. For the second approach, we first elicit marginal distributions for each quantity of interest. Then, for each pair of quantities, we elicit the concordance probability that both lie on the same side of their respective elicited medians. This allows us to specify a copula to obtain the joint distribution of the quantities of interest. We show how these approaches were used in an elicitation workshop that was performed to assess the probability of success of the registrational program of an asthma drug. The judgements of the experts, which were obtained prior to completion of the pivotal studies, were well aligned with the final trial results.

A New Comprehensive Approach to Assess the Probability of Success of Development Programs Before Pivotal Trials.

The point at which clinical development programs transition from early phase to pivotal trials is a critical milestone. Substantial uncertainty about the outcome of pivotal trials may remain even after seeing positive early phase data, and companies may need to make difficult prioritization decisions for their portfolio. The probability of success (PoS) of a program, a single number expressed as a percentage reflecting the multitude of risks that may influence the final program outcome, is a key decision-making tool. Despite its importance, companies often rely on crude industry benchmarks that may be "adjusted" by experts based on undocumented criteria and which are typically misaligned with the definition of success used to drive commercial forecasts, leading to overly optimistic expected net present value calculations. We developed a new framework to assess the PoS of a program before pivotal trials begin. Our definition of success encompasses the successful outcome of pivotal trials, regulatory approval and meeting the requirements for market access as outlined in the target product profile. The proposed approach is organized in four steps and uses an innovative Bayesian approach to synthesize all relevant evidence. The new PoS framework is systematic and transparent. It will help organizations to make more informed decisions. In this paper, we outline the rationale and elaborate on the structure of the proposed framework, provide examples, and discuss the benefits and challenges associated with its adoption.

Improving the assessment of the probability of success in late stage drug development.

There are several steps to confirming the safety and efficacy of a new medicine. A sequence of trials, each with its own objectives, is usually required. Quantitative risk metrics can be useful for informing decisions about whether a medicine should transition from one stage of development to the next. To obtain an estimate of the probability of regulatory approval, pharmaceutical companies may start with industry-wide success rates and then apply to these subjective adjustments to reflect program-specific information. However, this approach lacks transparency and fails to make full use of data from previous clinical trials. We describe a quantitative Bayesian approach for calculating the probability of success (PoS) at the end of phase II which incorporates internal clinical data from one or more phase IIb studies, industry-wide success rates, and expert opinion or external data if needed. Using an example, we illustrate how PoS can be calculated accounting for differences between the phase II data and future phase III trials, and discuss how the methods can be extended to accommodate accelerated drug development pathways.

Analysis of clinical trials with biologics using dose-time-response models.

Biologics such as monoclonal antibodies are increasingly and successfully used for the treatment of many chronic diseases. Unlike conventional small drug molecules, which are commonly given as tablets once daily, biologics are typically injected at much longer time intervals, that is, weeks or months. Hence, both the dose and the time interval have to be optimized during the drug development process for biologics. To identify an adequate regimen for the investigated biologic, the dose-time-response relationship must be well characterized, based on clinical trial data. The proposed approach uses semi-mechanistic nonlinear regression models to describe and predict the time-changing response for complex dosing regimens. Both likelihood-based and Bayesian methods for inference and prediction are discussed. The methodology is illustrated with data from a clinical study in an auto-immune disease.

Optimal design of clinical trials with biologics using dose-time-response models.

Biologics, in particular monoclonal antibodies, are important therapies in serious diseases such as cancer, psoriasis, multiple sclerosis, or rheumatoid arthritis. While most conventional drugs are given daily, the effect of monoclonal antibodies often lasts for months, and hence, these biologics require less frequent dosing. A good understanding of the time-changing effect of the biologic for different doses is needed to determine both an adequate dose and an appropriate time-interval between doses. Clinical trials provide data to estimate the dose-time-response relationship with semi-mechanistic nonlinear regression models. We investigate how to best choose the doses and corresponding sample size allocations in such clinical trials, so that the nonlinear dose-time-response model can be precisely estimated. We consider both local and conservative Bayesian D-optimality criteria for the design of clinical trials with biologics. For determining the optimal designs, computer-intensive numerical methods are needed, and we focus here on the particle swarm optimization algorithm. This metaheuristic optimizer has been successfully used in various areas but has only recently been applied in the optimal design context. The equivalence theorem is used to verify the optimality of the designs. The methodology is illustrated based on results from a clinical study in patients with gout, treated by a monoclonal antibody.