Predictive probability of success using surrogate endpoints

Futility Interim Analysis Based on Probability of Success Using a Surrogate Endpoint

In clinical trials with time-to-event data, the evaluation of treatment efficacy can be a long and complex process, especially when considering long-term primary endpoints. Using surrogate endpoints to correlate the primary endpoint has become a common practice to accelerate decision-making. Moreover, the ethical need to minimize sample size and the practical need to optimize available resources have encouraged the scientific community to develop methodologies that leverage historical data. Relying on the general theory of group sequential design and using a Bayesian framework, the methodology described in this paper exploits a documented historical relationship between a clinical "final" endpoint and a surrogate endpoint to build an informative prior for the primary endpoint, using surrogate data from an early interim analysis of the clinical trial. The predictive probability of success of the trial is then used to define a futility-stopping rule. The methodology demonstrates substantial enhancements in trial operating characteristics when there is a good agreement between current and historical data. Furthermore, incorporating a robust approach that combines the surrogate prior with a vague component mitigates the impact of the minor prior-data conflicts while maintaining acceptable performance even in the presence of significant prior-data conflicts. The proposed methodology was applied to design a Phase III clinical trial in metastatic colorectal cancer, with overall survival as the primary endpoint and progression-free survival as the surrogate endpoint.

Incorporation of healthy volunteers data on receptor occupancy into a phase II proof-of-concept trial using a Bayesian dynamic borrowing design

Receptor occupancy in targeted tissues measures the proportion of receptors occupied by a drug at equilibrium and is sometimes used as a surrogate of drug efficacy to inform dose selection in clinical trials. We propose to incorporate data on receptor occupancy from a phase I study in healthy volunteers into a phase II proof-of-concept study in patients, with the objective of using all the available evidence to make informed decisions. A minimal physiologically based pharmacokinetic modeling is used to model receptor occupancy in healthy volunteers and to predict it in the patients of a phase II proof-of-concept study, taking into account the variability of the population parameters and the specific differences arising from the pathological condition compared to healthy volunteers. Then, given an estimated relationship between receptor occupancy and the clinical endpoint, an informative prior distribution is derived for the clinical endpoint in both the treatment and control arms of the phase II study. These distributions are incorporated into a Bayesian dynamic borrowing design to supplement concurrent phase II trial data. A simulation study in immuno-inflammation demonstrates that the proposed design increases the power of the study while maintaining a type I error at acceptable levels for realistic values of the clinical endpoint.

Utilization of treatment effect on a surrogate endpoint for planning a study to evaluate treatment effect on a final endpoint

To design a phase III study with a final endpoint and calculate the required sample size for the desired probability of success, we need a good estimate of the treatment effect on the endpoint. It is prudent to fully utilize all available information including the historical and phase II information of the treatment as well as external data of the other treatments. It is not uncommon that a phase II study may use a surrogate endpoint as the primary endpoint and has no or limited data for the final endpoint. On the other hand, external information from the other studies for the other treatments on the surrogate and final endpoints may be available to establish a relationship between the treatment effects on the two endpoints. Through this relationship, making full use of the surrogate information may enhance the estimate of the treatment effect on the final endpoint. In this research, we propose a bivariate Bayesian analysis approach to comprehensively deal with the problem. A dynamic borrowing approach is considered to regulate the amount of historical data and surrogate information borrowing based on the level of consistency. A much simpler frequentist method is also discussed. Simulations are conducted to compare the performances of different approaches. An example is used to illustrate the applications of the methods.

Bayesian multivariate probability of success using historical data with type I error rate control

In clinical trials, it is common to have multiple clinical outcomes (e.g., coprimary endpoints or a primary and multiple secondary endpoints). It is often desirable to establish efficacy in at least one of multiple clinical outcomes, which leads to a multiplicity problem. In the frequentist paradigm, the most popular methods to correct for multiplicity are typically conservative. Moreover, despite guidance from regulators, it is difficult to determine the sample size of a future study with multiple clinical outcomes. In this article, we introduce a Bayesian methodology for multiple testing that asymptotically guarantees type I error control. Using a seemingly unrelated regression model, correlations between outcomes are specifically modeled, which enables inference on the joint posterior distribution of the treatment effects. Simulation results suggest that the proposed Bayesian approach is more powerful than the method of Holm (1979), which is commonly utilized in practice as a more powerful alternative to the ubiquitous Bonferroni correction. We further develop multivariate probability of success, a Bayesian method to robustly determine sample size in the presence of multiple outcomes.

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.

Assurance in vaccine efficacy clinical trial design based on immunological responses

The assurance of a future clinical trial is a key quantitative tool for decision-making in drug development. It is derived from prior knowledge (Bayesian approach) about the clinical endpoint of interest, typically from previous clinical trials. In this paper, we examine assurance in the specific context of vaccine development, where early development (Phase 2) is often based on immunological endpoints (e.g., antibody levels), while the confirmatory trial (Phase 3) is based on the clinical endpoint (very large sample sizes and long follow-up). Our proposal is to use the Phase 2 vaccine efficacy predicted by the immunological endpoint (using a model estimated from epidemiological studies) as prior information for the calculation of the assurance.

A Review of Bayesian Perspectives on Sample Size Derivation for Confirmatory Trials

Sample size derivation is a crucial element of planning any confirmatory trial. The required sample size is typically derived based on constraints on the maximal acceptable Type I error rate and minimal desired power. Power depends on the unknown true effect and tends to be calculated either for the smallest relevant effect or a likely point alternative. The former might be problematic if the minimal relevant effect is close to the null, thus requiring an excessively large sample size, while the latter is dubious since it does not account for the a priori uncertainty about the likely alternative effect. A Bayesian perspective on sample size derivation for a frequentist trial can reconcile arguments about the relative a priori plausibility of alternative effects with ideas based on the relevance of effect sizes. Many suggestions as to how such "hybrid" approaches could be implemented in practice have been put forward. However, key quantities are often defined in subtly different ways in the literature. Starting from the traditional entirely frequentist approach to sample size derivation, we derive consistent definitions for the most commonly used hybrid quantities and highlight connections, before discussing and demonstrating their use in sample size derivation for clinical trials.

Optimal designs for phase II/III drug development programs including methods for discounting of phase II results

Background

Go/no-go decisions after phase II and sample size chosen for phase III are usually based on phase II results (e.g., the treatment effect estimate of phase II). Due to the decision rule (only promising phase II results lead to phase III), treatment effect estimates from phase II that initiate a phase III trial commonly overestimate the true treatment effect. Underpowered phase III trials are the consequence. Optimistic findings may then not be reproduced, leading to the failure of potentially expensive drug development programs. For some disease areas these failure rates are described to be quite high: 62.5%.

Methods

We integrate the ideas of multiplicative and additive adjustment of treatment effect estimates after go decisions in a utility-based framework for optimizing drug development programs. The design of a phase II/III program, i.e., the “right amount of adjustment”, the allocation of the resources to phase II and III in terms of sample size, and the rule applied to decide whether to stop or to proceed with phase III influences its success considerably. Given specific drug development program characteristics (e.g., fixed and variable per patient costs for phase II and III, probable gain in case of market launch), optimal designs with respect to the maximal expected utility can be identified by the proposed Bayesian-frequentist approach. The method will be illustrated by application to practical examples characteristic for oncological studies.

Results

In general, our results show that the program set-ups with adjusted treatment effect estimate used for phase III planning are superior to the “naïve” program set-ups with respect to the maximal expected utility. Therefore, we recommend considering an adjusted phase II treatment effect estimate for the phase III sample size calculation. However, there is no one-fits-all design.

Conclusion

Individual drug development planning for a specific program is necessary to find the optimal design. The optimal choice of the design parameters for a specific drug development program at hand can be found by our user friendly R Shiny application and package (both assessable open-source via [1]).