D-E-R at the centre of drug development and regulatory approval - a viewpoint

1 messages 1 people Latest: Mar 27, 2015
Dear All, I have been meaning to send this out for a while now, and Nele's mail about MCP-MOD was a good trigger (since I believe D-E-R should extend far beyond being a Phase 2 activity). I am keen to see drug development, and the regulatory requirements for approval, change. This short text summarises my viewpoint, and I hope in the coming years I will see it a reality! A new paradigm; Dose response for efficacy and safety at the centre of drug development and regulatory approval The Problem: Drug development needs to change. Despite huge expenditure, pharmaceutical companies and regulators are frequently faced with trying to interpret weak and contradictory data from poorly designed studies. The Solution: The goal of drug development should be to generate data and results which facilitate a clear assessment of the benefits and risks of the investigational drug. Thus the clinical development program should seek to accurately and precisely determine the Dose Response (DR) for multiple efficacy and safety endpoints in the target patient population. This should be achieved through integrated DR and Exposure Response (ER) analyses using all data from late stage studies, allowing regulators and pharmaceutical companies to agree on both the best starting dose and maximum dose for potential approval. The Roadmap: When DR/ER analyses are correctly placed at the centre of the approval process, it highlights the significant inadequacies in the historic Phase 2/3 paradigm. Fundamentally, all late stage studies should be designed to achieve (for a given total sample size), the maximum accuracy and precision across multiple endpoints in the pivotal integrated DR/ER analyses. The technical methodology to achieve this is known. That is, forget about p-values from single doses and single studies, and instead focus on the precision of the treatment effects across the dose range using all late stage study data simultaneously (and design your studies accordingly). These results should be the central foundations to identifying potential dose regimens for approval, for the drug company and regulators alike. Along those lines, I have begun making some YouTube presentations on various topics that relate is some way to the above (some more general, some more technical). Here is the list, and the YouTube link. L1 - The Goal of Clinical Drug Development L2 - Phase 2 Study Design - General Principles L3 - Why the Sigmoidal Emax Model is Special L4 - Phase 2 Study Design - Technical Details L5 - Individual and Population Dose Response L6 - Statistical Modelling - Uncertainty and Sensitivity Analysis https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCxHZo1i0Hqo4dBDHrcKPtaQ Since the videos can be painfully slow to watch, I wanted to share the raw presentations as well, as you can more quickly flick through any that might be of some interest. This link should send you to the PowerPoint and PDF versions of the above (you do not need to sign up to Dropbox to view the files). In case it doesn't work, just email me and I will send them to you. Please share with anyone you think might be interested. https://www.dropbox.com/sh/ylsjnqdv8d5586c/AACZWFNyLuNUChosSkXEeiDia?dl=0# If you do review them and have any comments or questions, I would be very happy to hear from you. Kind regards, Al p.s. I am not expecting this audience to be strongly in disagreement with the above from a scientific viewpoint, since I expect we all see an integrated POP PK analysis across studies as superior to a "by study" type analysis, and hence doing the same for efficacy and safety endpoints seems equally sound. Hence even though I have been involved in conducting the above type of analyses, the Phase 2 and 3 studies were never designed (/optimised) with these integrated analyses in mind, and the results were not used as the primary analysis. Thus I feel we need the regulators to say "this is the analyses we want to see and will base our assessment on" before we will move forward. This will profoundly help companies see that larger (and longer) Phase 2 studies are not "wasted" investments, but will indeed contribute to the final results (as they should). Al Maloney Consultant Pharmacometrician Phone: +46 35 10 39 78 E-mail:[email protected] E-mail:[email protected]