Traditionally, sample size considerations for phase 2 trials are based on the desired properties of the design and response information from the trials. In this article, we propose to design phase 2 trials based on program-level optimization. We present a framework to evaluate the impact that several phase 2 design features have on the probability of phase 3 success and the expected net present value of the product. These factors include the phase 2 sample size, decision rules to select a dose for phase 3 trials, and the sample size for phase 3 trials. Using neuropathic pain as an example, we use simulations to illustrate the framework and show the benefit of including these factors in the overall decision process.
HornbergerJCBrownBWMHalperinJ. Designing a cost-effective clinical trials. Stat Med. 1995;14:2249–2259.
2.
HornbergerJEghtesadyP. The cost-benefit of a randomized trial to a health care organization. Controlled Clinical Trials. 1998;19:198–211.
3.
ChenCBeckmanRA. Optimal cost-effective designs of phase II proof of concept trials and associated go-no-go decisions. J Biopharm Stat. 2009;19:424–436.
4.
O’HaganAStevensJWCampbellMJ. Assurance in clinical trial design. Pharm Stat. 2005;4:187–201.
5.
Chuang-SteinC. Sample size and the probability of a successful trial. Pharm Stat. 2006;5(4):305–309.
6.
Chuang-SteinCYangR. A revisit of sample size decision in confirmatory trials. Stat Biopharm Res. 2010;2:239–248.
7.
Chuang-SteinCKirbySFrenchJ. A quantitative approach for making go/no go decisions in drug development. Drug Inf J. 2011;45:187–202.
8.
JuliousSASwankDJ. Moving statistics beyond the individual clinical trial: applying decision science to optimize a clinical development plan. Pharm Stat. 2005;4:37–46.
9.
BurmanCFGrieveAPSennS. Decision analysis in drug development. In: DmitrienkoAChuang-SteinCD’AgostinoR, eds. Pharmaceutical Statistics Using SAS®: A Practical Guide. Cary NC: SAS Institute; 2007:385–428.
10.
AntonijevicZ. Impact of dose selection strategies on the success of drug development programs. Drug Inf J. 2009;4:104–106.
11.
AntonijevicZPinheiroJFardipourPRogerJL. Impact of dose selection strategies used in phase II on the probability of success in phase III. Stat Biopharm Res. 2010;2(4):469–486.
12.
PinheiroJSaxFAntonijevicZ. Adaptive and model-based dose-ranging trials: quantitative evaluation and recommendations (with discussions and rejoinder). Stat Biopharm Res. 2010;2(4):435–454.
13.
KowalskiKGEwyWHutmacherMMMillerRKrishnaswamiS. Model-based drug development—a new paradigm for efficient drug development. Biopharm Rep. 2007;15(2):2–22.
14.
KowalskiKGOlsonSRemmersAEHutmacherMM. Modeling and simulation to support dose selection and clinical development of SC-75416, a selective COX-2 inhibitor for the treatment of acute and chronic pain. Clin Pharm Ther. 2008;83:857–866.
15.
PatelNRAnkolekarS. A Bayesian approach for incorporating economic factors in sample size and design for clinical trials and portfolios of drugs. Stat Med. 2007;26:4976–4988.
16.
MehtaCRPatelNR. Adaptive, group sequential and decision theoretic approaches to sample size determination. Stat Med. 2006;25:3250–3269.
17.
TorranceNSmithBHBennettMILeeAJ. The epidemiology of chronic pain of predominantly neuropathic origin. Results from a general population survey. J Pain. 2006;7(4):281–289.
18.
BouhassiraDLantéri-MinetMAttalNLaurentBTouboulC. Prevalence of chronic pain with neuropathic characteristics in the general population. Pain. 2008;136(3):380–387.
19.
HewittDJHoTWGalerB. Impact of responder definition on the enriched enrollment randomized withdrawal trial design for establishing proof of concept in neuropathic pain. Pain. 2011;152(3):514–521.
ChappellASOssannaMJLiu-SeifertH. Duloxetine, a centrally acting analgesic, in the treatment of patients with osteoarthritis knee pain: a 13-week, randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Pain. 2009;146:253–260.
22.
EhrichEWDaviesGMWatsonDJBologneseJASeidenbergBCBellamyN. Minimal perceptible clinical improvement with the Western Ontario and McMaster Universities Osteoarthritis Index questionnaire and global assessments in patients with osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol. 2000;27(11):2635–2641.
23.
BornkampBBretzFDmitrienkoA. Innovative approaches for designing and analyzing adaptive dose-ranging trials (with discussion). J Biopharm Stat. 2007;17:965–995.
24.
DragalinVHsuanFPadmanabhanSK. Adaptive designs for dose-finding studies based on sigmoid Emax model. J Biopharm Stat. 2007;17:1051–1070.
25.
TukeyJWCimineraJLHeyseJF. Testing the statistical certainty of a response to increasing doses of a drug. Biometrics. 1985;41:295–301.
26.
KeeneyRLRaiffaH. Decisions with multiple objectives: preferences and value tradeoffs. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 1976.
27.
HolfordNSheinerL. Understanding the dose-effect relationship: clinical application of pharmacodynamic models. Clin Pharmacokin. 1981;6:429–453.
28.
FedorovVVLeonovSL. Optimal design of dose response experiments: a model oriented approach. Drug Inf J. 2001;35:1373–1383.
29.
MacDougallJ. Analysis of dose-response studies—Emax model. In: TingN, ed. Dose Finding in Drug Development. New York, NY: Springer; 2006:127–145.
30.
DragalinVBornkampBBretzF. A simulation study to compare new adaptive dose-ranging designs. Stat Biopharm Res. 2010;2(4):487–512.
31.
MillerFGuilbaudODetteH. Optimal designs for estimating the interesting part of a dose-effect curve. J Biopharm Stat. 2007;17:1097–1115.
32.
ChibS.Markov chain Monte Carlo methods. In: Press SJ. Subjective and Objective Bayesian Statistics: Principles, Models, and Applications. 2nd ed. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. 2003:119–171.
33.
RobertsonTWrightFTDykstraRL. Order Restricted Statistical Inference. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons; 1988.
34.
ParmigianiGInoueLYT. Decision Theory: Principles and Approaches. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons; 2009.
35.
Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use. CHMP Reflection Paper on Methodological Issues in Confirmatory Clinical Trials Planned with an Adaptive Design. www.ema.europa.eu/pdfs/human/ewp/245902enadopted.pdf. Adopted by CHMP on October 18, 2007. Accessed March 27, 2012.
