We think you have liked this presentation. If you wish to download it, please recommend it to your friends in any social system. Share buttons are a little bit lower. Thank you!
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byChristian McCabe
Modified over 5 years ago
©2004 Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. © 2004 Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc. Opportunities and Challenges in Utilizing Biomarkers for Drug Development Mark Chang, Ph.D. Director, Biostatistics Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. USA Sept. 27-29, 2006, Washington, D.C. USA
©2004 Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. What to Cover Opportunities of Enrichment Strategies with Biomarkers Prognostic and Predictive Biomarkers Challenges in Biomarker Validations Adaptive Design using Biomarkers Optimization using Bayesian Utility Theory Summary & Discussion
©2004 Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Biomarker, Surrogate and Clinical Endpoint Biomarker: –A characteristic that is objectively measured and evaluated as an indicator of normal biological processes, pathogenic processes, or pharmacologic responses to a therapeutic intervention (Biomarkers Definitions Working Group,2001) Surrogate: –A biomarker that is intended to substitute for a clinical endpoint. A surrogate endpoint is expected to predict clinical benefit (or harm or lack of benefit or harm) based on epidemiologic, therapeutic, pathophysiologic, or other scientific evidence. True/Clinical Endpoint –A characteristic or variable that reflects how a patient feels, functions, or survives.
©2004 Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Why Biomarkers Compared to a gold standard endpoint, such as survival, a biomarker can often have following characteristics: –Being measured earlier, easier, and more frequently –Less subject to competing risks, less affected by other treatment modalities –A larger effect size The utilization of biomarker could lead to: –Better target population –Larger effect size –Smaller sample size –Faster decision-making
©2004 Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Enrichment Strategies with a Biomarker Population Size Response (Treatment A) Response (Treatment B) Sample size (90% power ) Biomarker (+) 10M50%25%160* Biomarker (-) 40M30%25% Total50M34%25%1800 * 800 subjects for screening.
©2004 Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Impact of Screening Testing Target patient size with biomarker (+): N = N + Sensitivity + N - (1-Specificity) Treatment effect for diagnostic biomarker (+) patients: = [ + N + Sensitivity + - N - (1-Specificity)] / N Definition of utility: Utility = N Power Feasibility of diagnostic/screening testing: Cost, safety, regulatory requirements
©2004 Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Prognostic and Predictive Markers A prognostic marker informs the clinical outcomes, independent of treatment. –NSCLC patients receiving EGFR inhibitors or chemotherapy => better outcome with a mutation than without a mutation. A predictive biomarker informs the treatment effect on the clinical endpoint. –Predictive marker can be population-specific: a marker can be predictive for population A but not population B.
©2004 Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Treatment-Biomarker-Endpoint Three-Way Relationship True-endpoint Y E Biomarker Y B R TE = 0 Treatment X R BE = 0.90 R TB = 0.45 Pearsons Correlation Regression: Y T = Y B – 2 X
©2004 Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Correlation Versus Prediction R between marker and endpoint in Test =1 R in Control =1 R in Test + Control = 0.9 Endpoint response in Test = 4 Endpoint response in Control = 4 Biomarker response in Test = 6 Biomarker response in Control = 4 Note: R = Pearsons correlation
©2004 Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. The Regression Flaw In Prediction Y T = Y B – 2 X R² = 1, p-values for model and all parameters = 0, where the 2 is the separation between the two lines. =>False conclusions: –The first model is perfect based on model-fitting p-value and R². –Both biomarker and treatment affect the true- endpoint. Correlation => Prognostic marker Correction > Predictive marker
©2004 Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Multiplicity and False Positive Rate Often the same biomarker or compound has been studied by different companies without adjustment for multiplicity. The unadjusted-alpha used in biomarker discovery leads to a high false positive rate Publication Bias –A publication of negative findings could save a large amount of resources and time for the development. Solution: Validation?
©2004 Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Validation of Biomarkers Prentice's operational criteria – for binary surrogate (Molenberghs, 2005, Alonso, 2006) Proportion of treatment effect on true endpoint explained by biomarker – a large proportion required (Freedman, Graubard & Schatzkin, 1992) Internal validation metrics –Relative Effect –Adjusted Association (Buyse & Molenberghs, 1998) External validation –Meta-analysis Two-stage validation for fast track program
©2004 Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Is the Statistical Evidence the Only Evidence Acceptable? Oncology physicians consider PD as a sign of treatment failure and will provide an alternative treatment to the patient when PD is observed. It is generally accepted that PD will reduce the expected survival time. –2 nd line cancer patients have shorter survival time than 1 st line patients, and 3 rd line patients have shorter survival time than 2 nd line patients. Is either of the above facts an evidence to prove Time to PD is a surrogate for survival? –Do you trust oncology physicians in general? –Arent there enough evidences out there to show that 2 nd line cancer patients survive longer than 3 rd line patients? –Is the statistical evidence the only evidence acceptable?
©2004 Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Latent Survival Analysis with Treatment Switching What to Compare? Survival time is latent due to switching –More effective drug => more patients switching –ITT analysis could failed=> Dramatically inflate type-I error Statistical methods: –Statistical inference for trials with treatment switching (Shao, Chang & Chow, 2003). –Mixed exponential model for trial with treatment switching (Chang, 2006) –Mixture of Wiener Models (Brownian motions) for adaptive treatment switching (Chang, Lee & Whitmore, 2006).
©2004 Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Biomarkers in Reality Sample size is often insufficient for validation A biomarker is often not validated adequately Precision of prediction of treatment effect on true-endpoint is lower using biomarkers Soft validation scientifically (e.g., pathway, physicians overall options) is important
©2004 Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Scenarios with Biomarkers Same effective size for biomarker and true- endpoint, but biomarker response is earlier Bigger effective size for biomarker and smaller for true endpoint No treatment effect on true endpoint; limited treatment effect on biomarker Treatment effect on true endpoint only occurs after biomarker response reaches a threshold. A probability is associated with each of the above scenarios.
©2004 Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. What is the utility of partially validated biomarkers?
©2004 Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Adaptive Design Using Biomarkers An adaptive design is a design that allows modifications to some aspects of the trial after its initiation without undermining the validity and integrity of the trial. Adaptive design using biomarker: –Response-adaptive randomization –Drop-loser/Adaptive dose selection design –Sample size re-estimation –Adaptive target population
©2004 Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Adaptive Design Using Biomarkers Futility design Interim analysis with biomarker Final analysis with true-endpoint Correlated endpoints
©2004 Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Prior Knowledge about Treatment Effect ScenarioEffect Size Ratio* Prior Probability H o1 0/00.2 H o2 0/0.250.1 HaHa 0.5/0.50.7 *The ratio of the effect size of the true endpoint at final to the effect size of the biomarker at interim analysis
©2004 Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Comparison of Various Designs in Different Scenarios DesignScenarioPowerExpected N/arm Early Stopping boundary ClassicH o1 H o2 Ha0.89 70 116 145 Seamless phase II/III Adaptive Design using Biomarker H o1 H o2 Ha0.94 75 95 100 Z = 0.0 (p=0.5) H o1 H o2 Ha0.89 58 80 98 Z = 1.0 (p=0.15) Note: Correlation coefficient r = 0.5. One-sided Alpha = 0.025. Maximum N per group = 100. Interim analysis performed at info-time = 0.5. 20,000 simulation runs per scenario. In the classic design one-sided alpha = 0.2 for phase II and 0.025 for phase III. Sample size = 50/group and 100/group. Z = test statistic with standard normal distribution.
©2004 Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Bayesian Decision Theory for Optimizing Adaptive Design Many different scenarios of reality with associated probabilities (prior distribution) Many possible adaptive designs with associated probabilistic outcomes (good and bad) Evaluation Criteria: Utility Bayesian optimal design = maximum expected utility under financial, time, regulatory, and other constraints –For each design, calculate the utility for each design and weighted by its prior probability to obtain the expected utility for the design. The optimal design is the one with maximum utility.
©2004 Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Bayesian Optimization DesignClassicIntegrated phase II/III design using biomarker Z = 0Z = 1.0 Expected Utility $56M$61M$58M Assumptions: Per-patient cost in the trial = $50k Value of approval before deducting the trial cost = $100M Time savings are not included in the calculation.
©2004 Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Different Perspectives about Utility of A Drug: Benefit-Risk Ratio (BRR) Patient: –The BRR applied to Me. Investigator: –The BRR applied to my patients Regulatory Body: –The BRR shown by the patients in the pivotal studies. Sponsor: –The BRR for patients in the trials, future patients, and potential benefits for patients with other diseases. Common ground: personalized medicine?
©2004 Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Personalized Medicine Requires Some Fundamental Changes in Drug Development World Things worked before may not work in the new century. Alpha-requirement does not control ineffective drugs into market effectively. Philosophical differences between Asian and Western countries in drug development Rules of Bayesian Approaches
©2004 Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Summary and Discussion Biomarkers provide tremendous opportunities, and challenges in drug development Adaptive design using biomarkers can be beneficial even when they are not fully validated.
©2004 Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. References 1.Molenberghs G., Buyse, M. and Burzykowski, T. The history of surrogate endpoint validation, in The evaluation of surrogate endpoint, Burzykowski, Molenberghs, and Buyse (eds.) 2005. Springer. 2.Chakravarty, A. (2005), Regulatory aspects in using surrogate markers in clinical trials. in The evaluation of surrogate endpoint, Burzykowski, Molenberghs, and Buyse (eds.) 2005. Springer. 3.Fleming, T.R. and Demets, D.L. (1996) Surrogate endpoint in clinical trials: are we being misled? Annals of internal medicine, 125, 605-613. 4.Buyse, M. et. al. Statistical validation of surrogate endpoint. Drug Information Journal, 34, 49-67 & 447-454. 5.Freedman, L.S. (1992) Statistical validation of intermediate endpoints for chronic diseases. Statistics in Medicine, 11, 167- 178. 6.Chang, M. Bayesian Adaptive Design Method with Biomarkers, Biopharmaceutical Report, Summer 2006. p.7-11. 7.Simon, R. Adaptive Signature Design, Clin Cancer Res 2005; 11(21). Nov. 1, 2005. 8.Alonso, A., et al. (2006), A unifying approach for surrogate marker validation based on Prentices criteria. Stat. In med. 25:205-221 9.Weir, C.J. and Walley, R.J. (2006) Statistical evaluation of biomarkers as endpoints: a literature review. Stat. In med. 25:183- 203 10.Qu, Y. and Case, M. (2006). Quantifying the indirect effect via surrogate markers. Stat. In med. 25:223-231 11.Biomarkers Definitions Working Group Bethesda, Md. Biomarkers and surrogate endpoints: Preferred definitions and conceptual framework. CLINICAL PHARMACOLOGY & THERAPEUTICS (2001). 12.Kevin Carroll. Biomarkers in Drug Development: Friend or Foe? Biopharmaceutical Report, Summer 2006. p.3-6. 13.Chang, M. (2006). Improving the Efficiency of drug development using Bayesian approaches. Int J Pharmaceutical Medicine. Submitted. 14.Chang, M. (2006). Analysis and Modeling of Clinical Trial with Adaptive Witching. Conference on Analysis of Latent Variables in Health Science. Sept. 6-8, 2006, Perugia Italy. 15.Shao, J., Chang, M., and Chow, S.C. (2005). Statistical inference for cancer trials with treatment switching. Statistics in Medicine, 24, 1783-1790. 16.Chang, M, Chow, S.C. & Pong, A. (2006). Adaptive design in clinical research: issues, opportunities, and recommendations. Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics, 16: 299–309, 2006
©2004 Millennium Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Breakthrough science. Breakthrough medicine. SM
If you are viewing this slideshow within a browser window, select File/Save as… from the toolbar and save the slideshow to your computer, then open it.
Design of Dose Response Clinical Trials
Bayesian Trial Designs: Drug Case Study Donald A. Berry Donald A. Berry
Patient Selection Markers in Drug Development Programs
Matthew M. Riggs, Ph.D. metrum research group LLC
Flexible designs for pivotal clinical trials Vlad Dragalin, RSU-SDS-BDS-GSK FDA/Industry Workshop Session: Flexible Designs – Are We Ready Yet? Washington,
1 Bayesian CTS FDA/Industry Workshop September 18, 2003Copyright Pharsight Case Study in the Use of Bayesian Hierarchical Modeling and Simulation.
Interim Analysis in Clinical Trials: A Bayesian Approach in the Regulatory Setting Telba Z. Irony, Ph.D. and Gene Pennello, Ph.D. Division of Biostatistics.
The Application of Propensity Score Analysis to Non-randomized Medical Device Clinical Studies: A Regulatory Perspective Lilly Yue, Ph.D.* CDRH, FDA,
1 FDA Industry Workshop Statistics in the FDA & Industry The Future David L DeMets, PhD Department of Biostatistics & Medical Informatics University of.
FDA/Industry Workshop September, 19, 2003 Johnson & Johnson Pharmaceutical Research and Development L.L.C. 1 Uses and Abuses of (Adaptive) Randomization:
Regulation of Consumer Tests in California AAAS Meeting June 1-2, 2009 Beatrice OKeefe Acting Chief, Laboratory Field Services California Department of.
Taking Research and Development to the Clinic: Issues for Physicians AAAS/FDLI Colloquium I Diagnostics and Diagnoses Paths to Personalized Medicine Howard.
T H O M S O N S C I E N T I F I C Ann Wescott April 8, 2008 Prous Science Update SLA DPHT Spring Meeting 2008.
1 Eloise E. Kaizar The Ohio State University Combining Information From Randomized and Observational Data: A Simulation Study June 5, 2008 Joel Greenhouse.
Mentor: Dr. Kathryn Chaloner Iowa Summer Institute in Biostatistics
Hypothesis Testing Goal: Make statement(s) regarding unknown population parameter values based on sample data Elements of a hypothesis test: Null hypothesis.
Phase II/III Design: Case Study
Lecture 3 Validity of screening and diagnostic tests
Statistical Analysis SC504/HS927 Spring Term 2008
© 2019 SlidePlayer.com Inc. All rights reserved.