Inadequate selection of the dose to bring forward in confirmatory trials has been identified as one of the key drivers of the decreasing success rates observed in drug development programs across the pharmaceutical industry. In recognition of this problem, the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America (PhRMA), formed a working group to evaluate and develop alternative approaches to dose finding, including adaptive dose-ranging designs. This paper summarizes the work of the group, including the results and conclusions of a comprehensive simulation study, and puts forward recommendations on how to improve dose ranging in clinical development, including, but not limited to, the use of adaptive dose-ranging methods.

The statistical methodology for the design and analysis of clinical Phase II dose-response studies, with related software implementation, is well developed for the case of a normally distributed, homoscedastic response considered for a single timepoint in parallel group study designs. In practice, however, binary, count, or time-to-event endpoints are encountered, typically measured repeatedly over time and sometimes in more complex settings like crossover study designs. In this paper, we develop an overarching methodology to perform efficient multiple comparisons and modeling for dose finding, under uncertainty about the dose-response shape, using general parametric models. The framework described here is quite broad and can be utilized in situations involving for example generalized nonlinear models, linear and nonlinear mixed effects models, Cox proportional hazards models, with the main restriction being that a univariate dose-response relationship is modeled, that is, both dose and response correspond to univariate measurements. In addition to the core framework, we also develop a general purpose methodology to fit dose-response data in a computationally and statistically efficient way. Several examples illustrate the breadth of applicability of the results. For the analyses, we developed the R add-on package DoseFinding, which provides a convenient interface to the general approach adopted here.

No abstract

The search for an adequate dose involves some of the most complex series of decisions to be made in developing a clinically viable product. Typically decisions based on such dose-finding studies reside in two domains: (i) "proof" of evidence that the treatment is effective and (ii) the need to choose dose(s) for further development. We consider a unified strategy for designing and analyzing dose-finding studies, including the testing of proof-of-concept and the selection of one or more doses to take into further development. The methodology combines the advantages of multiple comparisons and modeling approaches, consisting of a multi-stage procedure. Proof-of-concept is tested in the first stage, using multiple comparison methods to identify statistically significant contrasts corresponding to a set of candidate models. If proof-of-concept is established in the first stage, the best model is then used for dose selection in subsequent stages. This article describes and illustrates practical considerations related to the implementation of this methodology. We discuss how to determine sample sizes and perform power calculations based on the proof-of-concept step. A relevant topic in this context is how to obtain good prior values for the model parameters: different methods to translate prior clinical knowledge into parameter values are presented and discussed. In addition, different possibilities of performing sensitivity analyses to assess the consequences of misspecifying the true parameter values are introduced. All methods are illustrated by a real dose-response phase II study for an anti-anxiety compound.

A randomized trial allows estimation of the causal effect of an intervention compared to a control in the overall population and in subpopulations defined by baseline characteristics. Often, however, clinical questions also arise regarding the treatment effect in subpopulations of patients, which would experience clinical or disease related events post‐randomization. Events that occur after treatment initiation and potentially affect the interpretation or the existence of the measurements are called intercurrent events in the ICH E9(R1) guideline. If the intercurrent event is a consequence of treatment, randomization alone is no longer sufficient to meaningfully estimate the treatment effect. Analyses comparing the subgroups of patients without the intercurrent events for intervention and control will not estimate a causal effect. This is well known, but post‐hoc analyses of this kind are commonly performed in drug development. An alternative approach is the principal stratum strategy, which classifies subjects according to their potential occurrence of an intercurrent event on both study arms. We illustrate with examples that questions formulated through principal strata occur naturally in drug development and argue that approaching these questions with the ICH E9(R1) estimand framework has the potential to lead to more transparent assumptions as well as more adequate analyses and conclusions. In addition, we provide an overview of assumptions required for estimation of effects in principal strata. Most of these assumptions are unverifiable and should hence be based on solid scientific understanding. Sensitivity analyses are needed to assess robustness of conclusions.

Bayesian approaches to the monitoring of group sequential designs have two main advantages compared with classical group sequential designs: first, they facilitate implementation of interim success and futility criteria that are tailored to the subsequent decision making, and second, they allow inclusion of prior information on the treatment difference and on the control group. A general class of Bayesian group sequential designs is presented, where multiple criteria based on the posterior distribution can be defined to reflect clinically meaningful decision criteria on whether to stop or continue the trial at the interim analyses. To evaluate the frequentist operating characteristics of these designs, both simulation methods and numerical integration methods are proposed, as implemented in the corresponding R package gsbDesign. Normal approximations are used to allow fast calculation of these characteristics for various endpoints. The practical implementation of the approach is illustrated with several clinical trial examples from different phases of drug development, with various endpoints, and informative priors.

A key objective of Phase II dose finding studies in clinical drug development is to adequately characterize the dose response relationship of a new drug. An important decision is then on the choice of a suitable dose response function to support dose selection for the subsequent Phase III studies. In this paper, we compare different approaches for model selection and model averaging using mathematical properties as well as simulations. We review and illustrate asymptotic properties of model selection criteria and investigate their behavior when changing the sample size but keeping the effect size constant. In a simulation study, we investigate how the various approaches perform in realistically chosen settings. Finally, the different methods are illustrated with a recently conducted Phase II dose finding study in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Inadequate dose selection for confirmatory trials is currently still one of the most challenging issues in drug development, as illustrated by high rates of late‐stage attritions in clinical development and postmarketing commitments required by regulatory institutions. In an effort to shift the current paradigm in dose and regimen selection and highlight the availability and usefulness of well‐established and regulatory‐acceptable methods, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in collaboration with the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries Association (EFPIA) hosted a multistakeholder workshop on dose finding (London 4–5 December 2014). Some methodologies that could constitute a toolkit for drug developers and regulators were presented. These methods are described in the present report: they include five advanced methods for data analysis (empirical regression models, pharmacometrics models, quantitative systems pharmacology models, MCP‐Mod, and model averaging) and three methods for study design optimization (Fisher information matrix (FIM)‐based methods, clinical trial simulations, and adaptive studies). Pairwise comparisons were also discussed during the workshop; however, mostly for historical reasons. This paper discusses the added value and limitations of these methods as well as challenges for their implementation. Some applications in different therapeutic areas are also summarized, in line with the discussions at the workshop. There was agreement at the workshop on the fact that selection of dose for phase III is an estimation problem and should not be addressed via hypothesis testing. Dose selection for phase III trials should be informed by well‐designed dose‐finding studies; however, the specific choice of method(s) will depend on several aspects and it is not possible to recommend a generalized decision tree. There are many valuable methods available, the methods are not mutually exclusive, and they should be used in conjunction to ensure a scientifically rigorous understanding of the dosing rationale.