Bayesian Trial Designs: Drug Case Study - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 36
About This Presentation
Title:

Bayesian Trial Designs: Drug Case Study

Description:

Bayesian Trial Designs: Drug Case Study – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:126
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 37
Provided by: ams5
Category:
Tags: bayesian | case | designs | drug | study | trial

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Bayesian Trial Designs: Drug Case Study


1
Bayesian Trial Designs Drug Case Study
  • Donald A. Berry
  • dberry_at_mdanderson.org

2
Outline
  • Some history
  • Why Bayes?
  • Adaptive designs
  • Case study

3
(No Transcript)
4
2004 JHU/FDA WorkshopCan Bayesian Approaches
to Studying New Treatments Improve Regulatory
Decision-Making?
  • www.prous.com/bayesian2004
  • www.cfsan.fda.gov/frf/ bayesdl.html

5
Upcoming in 2005
  • Special issue of Clinical Trials
  • Bayesian Clinical TrialsNature Reviews Drug
    Discovery

6
Selected history of Bayesian trials
  • Medical devices (30)
  • 200 at M.D. Anderson (Phase I, II, I/II)
  • Cancer Leukemia Group B
  • Pharma
  • ASTIN (Pfizer)
  • Pravigard PAC (BMS)
  • Other
  • Decision analysis (go to phase III?)

7
Why Bayes?
  • On-line learning (ideal for adapting)
  • Predictive probabilities (including modeling
    outcome relationships)
  • Synthesis (via hierarchical modeling, for example)

8
PREDICTIVE PROBABILITIES
  • Critical component of experimental design
  • In monitoring trials

9
Herceptin in neoadjuvant BC
  • Endpoint tumor response
  • Balanced randomized, H C
  • Sample size planned 164
  • Interim results after n 34
  • Control 4/16 25
  • Herceptin 12/18 67
  • Not unexpected (prior?)
  • Predictive probab of stat sig 95
  • DMC stopped the trial
  • ASCO and JCOreactions

10
ADAPTIVE DESIGNS Approach and Methodology
  • Look at the accumulating data
  • Update probabilities
  • Find predictive probabilities
  • Use backward induction
  • Simulate to find false positive rate and
    statistical power

11
Adaptive strategies
  • Stop early (or late!)
  • Futility
  • Success
  • Change doses
  • Add arms (e.g., combos)
  • Drop arms
  • Seamless phases

12
Goals
  • Learn faster More efficient trials
  • More efficient drug/device development
  • Better treatment of patients in clinical trials

13
ADAPTIVE RANDOMIZATIONGiles, et al JCO (2003)
  • Troxacitabine (T) in acute myeloid leukemia (AML)
    combined with cytarabine (A) or idarubicin (I)
  • Adaptive randomization to IA vs TA vs TI
  • Max n 75
  • End point Time to CR (lt 50 days)

14
Adaptive Randomization
  • Assign 1/3 to IA (standard) throughout (until
    only 2 arms)
  • Adaptive to TA and TI based on current
    probability gt IA
  • Results ?

15
(No Transcript)
16
Drop TI
Compare n 75
17
Summary of results
  • CR lt 50 days
  • IA 10/18 56
  • TA 3/11 27
  • TI 0/5 0
  • Criticisms . . .

18
Consequences of Bayesian Adaptive Approach
  • Fundamental change in way we do medical research
  • More rapid progress
  • Well get the dose right!
  • Better treatment of patients
  • . . . at less cost

19
CASE STUDY PHASE III TRIAL
  • Dichotomous endpoint
  • Q P(pE gt pSdata)
  • Min n 150 Max n 600
  • 11 randomize 1st 50, then assign to arm E with
    probability Q
  • Except that 0.2 P(assign E) 0.8

Small company!
20
Recommendation to DSMB to
  • Stop for superiority if Q 0.99
  • Stop accrual for futility if P(pE pS lt
    0.10data) gt PF
  • PF depends on current n . . .

21
PF
22
Common prior density for pE pS
  • Independent
  • Reasonably non-informative
  • Mean 0.30
  • SD 0.20

23
(No Transcript)
24
Updating
  • After 20 patients on each arm
  • 8/20 responses on arm S
  • 12/20 responses on arm E

25
Q 0.79
26
Assumptions
  • Accrual 10/month
  • 50-day delay to assess response

27
Need to stratify. But how?
  • Suppose probability assign to experimental arm
    is 30, with these data . . .

28
(No Transcript)
29
One simulation pS 0.30, pE 0.45
Superiority boundary
Final Std 12/38 19/60
20/65 Exp 38/83 82/167 87/178
30
One simulation pE pS 0.30
Futility boundary
9 mos. End Final Std 8/39
15/57 18/68 Exp 11/42 32/81 22/87
31
Operating characteristics
32
FDA Why do this? Whats the advantage?
  • Enthusiasm of patients investigators
  • Comparison with standard design . . .

33
Adaptive vs tailored balanced design w/same
false-positive rate power (Mean number patients
by arm)
34
FDA
  • Use flat priors
  • Error size to 0.025
  • Other null hypotheses
  • We fixed all willing to modify as necessary

35
The rest of the story
  • PIs on board
  • CRO in place
  • IRBs approved
  • FDA nixed!

36
Outline
  • Some history
  • Why Bayes?
  • Adaptive designs
  • Case study
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com