Evidence map›Paper›PMID 33036572›Full record

ArticleBMC medical research methodology2020

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

Stella Erdmann, Marietta Kirchner, Heiko Götte, Meinhard Kieser

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 5 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
5citing papers in PubMed, 1 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

5 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
  5. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Stella ErdmannInstitute of Medical Biometry and Informatics, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, D-69120, Heidelberg, Germany. erdmann@imbi.uni-heidelberg.de.ORCID 0000-0003-0217-316X
Marietta KirchnerInstitute of Medical Biometry and Informatics, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, D-69120, Heidelberg, Germany.
Heiko GötteMerck Healthcare KGaA, Frankfurter Str. 250, D-64293, Darmstadt, Germany.
Meinhard KieserInstitute of Medical Biometry and Informatics, University of Heidelberg, Im Neuenheimer Feld 130.3, D-69120, Heidelberg, Germany.

Funding

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG) KI 708/2-1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundGo/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%.

methodsWe 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.

resultsIn 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.

conclusionIndividual 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]).

Indexed as

Drug DevelopmentResearch DesignBayes TheoremHumansProbabilitySample SizeAssuranceBias adjustmentDrug development programOptimizationProbability of successSample sizeSoftware

Identifiers

PMID33036572
PMCPMC7547445

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.