1 / 30

FDA Experience with End of Phase IIa Meetings: An Attempt to Improve Drug Development Decisions

FDA Experience with End of Phase IIa Meetings: An Attempt to Improve Drug Development Decisions. Acknowledge: Larry Lesko, Don Stanski, Joga Gobburu, Peter Lee, Yaning Wang, Jenny Zheng and many others. Bob Powell, Pharm.D. Office of Clinical Pharmacology FDA powellr@cder.fda.gov

Antony
Download Presentation

FDA Experience with End of Phase IIa Meetings: An Attempt to Improve Drug Development Decisions

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript


  1. FDA Experience with End of Phase IIa Meetings: An Attempt to Improve Drug Development Decisions Acknowledge: Larry Lesko, Don Stanski, Joga Gobburu, Peter Lee, Yaning Wang, Jenny Zheng and many others Bob Powell, Pharm.D. Office of Clinical Pharmacology FDA powellr@cder.fda.gov (301) 796-1589

  2. INFLUENCE SWEET SPOT When to Influence Clinical Drug Development ? • Flexibility • Learning • $ R&D Expense • $ Revenue NDA Market Phase 1 Discovery Phase 2 Phase 3 Preclinical

  3. True + True - False + False - OBJECTIVE: 50% Clinical Trial Failure Rate:Is it true? What to do? • Root Cause • Ø Efficacy • ↑ Toxicity • Placebo • Baseline • Dropouts • Patient Selection Account for known failure sources (prior information) in clinical trial design

  4. Reasons for Poor Decisions(Definition: an outcome which should/could have been anticipated) • Conspiracy of optimism • Framing the problem too narrowly to bring it inside my own comfort zone • Not involving the right people • Avoiding uncertainty • Ignoring information I do not understand • Being attached to ‘sunk costs’ – high spent development costs • Ignoring risks • Assuming no uncertainty in potential outcomes • Making decision alone BIAS Hammond, Keeney, Raiffa. Smart Choices Harvard Business School Press, 1999

  5. Model Based Drug DevelopmentWhat is it? • Objective: improve decision quality by employing drug-disease models & clinical trial simulation • Model: mathematical explanation of relationships thought to explain outcome over time period of interest • Drug-Disease Model (empiric & mechanistic) • Disease model: relationship of patient (e.g., gender, age, genotype), biomarker (e.g., biochemical, imaging) relationship to disease morbidity and mortality • Drug-Disease model: addition of drug (dose, concentration, combination, placebo) and patient (e.g., size, age, adherence, dropout) effects and adverse effects to the disease model • Simulation- Target • Clinical trial design- optimal • New designs-enrichment, randomized withdraw, adaptive • Dosage regimen(s) selection • Go/No go- Sponsor &/or FDA • Labeling- Sponsor &/or FDA

  6. End of Phase 2a Meetings • Purpose: ↓ Late phase clinical trial (2b, 3) unnecessary failure • Format: non-binding scientific interchange. Marketing issues should be in the development plan, not at this meeting. • Deliverables: • Perform modeling (relevant phase 1/2a data) & simulation of next trial design employing • Mechanistic or empirical drug-disease model • Literature estimates for comparative drug effects if relevant • Placebo effect (magnitude & time-course) • Rates for dropout and compliance. (prior FDA experience) • Recommendation on sponsors trial design + alternative including patient selection, dosage regimen,… • Code from FDA work, Sponsor can extend work (EOP2, NDA) • Answers to other questions from the clinical and clinical pharmacology development plan • Time-course: ~ 6 weeks • Key sponsor & FDA participants: physician, biostatistician, clinical pharmacology (pharmacometrics), project management

  7. EOP2a Meeting Process Meeting Request Letter & Questions FDA Evaluation & Approval Sponsor Phone Meeting: Explain Process & Data Needed FDA Receive Briefing Package, Data, Next Trial Design 6 week start • Final Meeting • Focus on Drug-disease modeling & Clinical trial simulations • 30-40 min Presentation • 1 hour dialogue focused on trial design, dosage regimens, patient selection • Simulation Strategy • Trial Design Alternatives • Dosage Regimens • Sample Size • Patient Selection • Sponsor or FDA? FDA begin data analysis Sponsor Questions Answer other question in writing before meeting

  8. Roles & Responsibilities • Project manager • Sponsor communication • FDA meetings • Documentation • Physician • Primary endpoints • Disease information • Trial design • Draft guidance • Clinical Pharmacology/ Pharmacometrics • Drug-disease modeling • Dosage regimens • Drug interactions • Simulations • Statistician • Trial Design • Prior trial information • Placebo • Dropout rates • Simulation

  9. Case Study: HIV Phase 2a Meeting Key Questions for ‘Drug X’ • Is the target AUC of 950 ng∙h/mL (based on relationship to viral load suppression at day 11 of Phase IIa trial) reasonable to select the best dose for Phase III? • Is testing BID and QD regimens appropriate? • Are 4 weeks adequate to select the dosage regimen for Phase III?

  10. 1.5 Day 11 HIV change from baseline (log10 copies/mL) 950 Drug X AUC (ng-hr/mL) RNA Change from BL vs AUC(0-24) An AUC(0-24) of ~950 ng-h/mL is predicted to achieve a 1.5 log10 decrease in HIV-1 RNA from BL

  11. A Mechanistic PK/PD Model • Mechanistic viral dynamic model offers potential advantages over empirical models: • Time course of virus load described • Schedules (bid vs. qd) can be differentiated • Drug-drug interactions • Different design scenarios can be evaluated • Adherence • Pharmacodynamic interactions • Drop out • Resistance

  12. Proposed Phase IIb Design Cohort 1 (N=50): ‘Drug X’ 1 mg BID + LPV/r 400/100mg BID Cohort 2 (N=50): ‘Drug X’ 2 mg BID + LPV/r 400/100mg BID Cohort 3 (N=50): ‘Drug X’ 4 mg QD + LPV/r 400/100mg BID Standard of Care (SOC) (N=25): COMBIVIR (ZDV/3TC 300/150mg BID) + LPV/r 400/100mg BID

  13. Virus Dynamic Model (virus load vs time) p d2 PI Active Infected l:production rate of target cell d1: dying rate of target cell c: dying rate of virus b: infection rate constant d2: dying rate of active cells d3: dying rate of latent cells p: production rate of virus l fAbVT CD4+ Cells (N)NRTI Virus a + fLbVT Latent Infected (N)NRTI d1 c d3 fA=0.96 and fL=0.03 J Acquir Immun Defic Syndr 26:397, 2001

  14. ‘Drug X’ Observed and Model Predicted Mean Virus Load vs Time & Dose 2 mg QD 4 mg QD 2 mg BID 6 mg BID

  15. Individual Patients Fit for Drug X

  16. Drug-Disease Model ComponentsApplication • Adherence ↑Dose → GI Adverse Effects → ↓Adherence • Dropout rate: biphasic Prior experience from other drugs • Drug-drug interaction • PK • PD • Verified model with data from prior drugs…did not share with sponsor

  17. Viral Dynamics During 4 Weeks‘Drug X’ + Kaletra Kaletra BID HIV RNA (Log10 copies/mL) 2Log Drop Drug X 0.5, 1, 2 mg BID and 4QD Log10(50) Time (week)

  18. Dropout Model: Prior Study Submission

  19. 20 Simulated trials (2 log drop, 90% Adherence, No Drop-out) suggest 2 BID is most likely the winner 100% 90% 80% 70% EQUAL 60% 4 QD Chances of Being the Winner 50% 2 BID 40% 1 BID 30% 20% 10% 0% 4 8 12 16 20 24 28 32 36 40 44 48 Week

  20. HIV Phase 2a Meeting Key FDA Response to Questions for ‘Drug X’ • Is the target AUC of 950 ng∙h/mL reasonable? • Concentration targeted dose selection is more appropriate to compare schedule (BID vs QD). • Is testing BID and QD regimens appropriate? • BID regimen is preferable • 0.5 mg BID, instead of 4 mg QD, is worth considering • Are 4 weeks adequate to select the dose? • Low power to discern dose-viral load response thr’ 96wks. Selection of doses based on toxicity might be possible. • No, weeks 12-16 acceptable for preliminary assessment (pick dose for Phase III trial) and week 24 for confirmation based upon prior experience. Continue trial through week 48 for all doses. • In addition: • Kaletra effect is so strong that it may be difficult to demonstrate ‘Drug X’ dose-response in combination • Phase IIb trial was adequately designed to determine dose-response

  21. EOP2a Meeting Metrics • Completed 5 over past year, 3 in progress • Therapeutic area: problem: • HIV: new mechanism, dosing • Prostate Ca: Formulation/dosing • Type 2 Diabetes: Genotype, dosing • Anticonvulsant: New mechanism • VMS (hot flashes): New mechanism, dosing • Pain: receptor specificity/adr’s, dosing • Weight-loss: new mechanism, dosing • Workload: 5-7 person-months/project • Sponsor evaluation (post-meeting): 4.1-4.3 (1=worthless, 5=pivotal)

  22. Sponsor’s Comments on the Experience (Abstracted from their Senior R&D Meeting slides) • FDA’s Clinical Pharmacologists are very serious about leveraging Clin Pharm to: • Aid selection of dosage regimens for Phases 2b & 3 • Reduce attrition in Phase 3 • Design better Phase 3 studies • FDA is inviting sponsors to participate for certain drugs • Drugs with reliable, quantitative measures of response and reasonable pk-pd models • Projects in early Phase 2 • Particular interest in novel compounds • FDA’s preparation was very extensive • Analyzed our exposure-response data • Applied pk-pd models (based on literature) • Had very detailed feedback • Our preparation must be extensive • Need high caliber Clin Pharm expertise • Be ready to submit datasets & programs from all pk-pd studies - be ready for urgent queries • Work with our scientific team to prepare thoroughly for the meeting

  23. IND/NDA Data Review & AnalysisFDA Clinical Pharmacology Work Plan NDA Quantitative Analysis & CP Review Report (Disease specific) • Benefit/Risk • Dose-Response • Drug Interaction • Special Populations • Pharmacogenomic Data Input • EDR • CDISC • SAS data set • (Janus) NDA Disease Modules Data Analysis • Nonmem • SAS • S-Plus EOP2a Disease Models Data Visualization & Data Set Creation (I-Review) Data Warehouse (PKS) Clinical Trial Simulation (TS2) End of Phase 2a Recommendation (2b/3 trial design)

  24. GREEK FRENCH FARSI Māori DUTCH Zulu MANDARIN VIETNAMESE SWEDISH DUTCH Swahili CANTONESE • UNITED NATIONS • WORLD BANK • INSEAD • NOVARTIS MONGOLIAN German RUSSIAN ARABIC PORTUGESE ENGLISH ITALIAN NORWEGIAN TURKISH Japanese HINDI ENGLISH SPANISH KOREAN

  25. Ferring GENENTECH MERCK GENZYME AMGEN GSK ROCHE Elan NovoNordisk J&J FDA Barr Millenium Daiichi IDEC Berlex Eli Lilly CDISC AstraZeneca Biogen MYLAN Clinical Data Interchange Standards Consortium www.cdisc.org MEDIMMUNE ALLERGAN PFIZER ABBOTT Sanofi

  26. Drug-disease models at FDA • Primary sources: literature, scientists, prior NDA’s • Types • Mechanistic • Empirical • Diseases over past year • HIV • Diabetes Mellitus • Parkinson’s Disease • Vasomotor Symptoms (Hot Flashes) • SLE-renal flare • Prostate Cancer- chemical castration • Kidney transplant rejection • In Development • Osteoporosis • Non-small cell lung cancer • Considering • How to share models & some data on public website. Public dialogue on growing models

  27. Diabetes 1st order Oral Absorption FPG Cmt 1 Cmt 2 HbA1c Drug Conc. FPG HbAlc Time (Week)

  28. Modeling Results for FPG & HBA1CDrug X in 1,000 patients FPG HbA1c

  29. ‘Save a Disease’ Prototype • Objective: Quantitative library → ↑ trial outcome • 3 levels: clinical trial data, derived quantitative information, drug-disease models • Derived quantitative information (mean, variability, time-course) Create Standards • Disease, clinical trial, patient description • Biomarker/1° endpoint(s) • Placebo • Dropout rate • Drug (biomarker, 1° endpoint(s), adverse effects) • Covariates • 2 diseases chosen for prototype • Process: Prototype → small to larger groups (FDA>Sponsors>Academics) Test value, set standards, fund

  30. In Summary • End of Phase 2a Meetings pilot started • Program evaluation & progression request within 2 months • Draft guidance publication • Literature publication(s) • Model based drug development • ‘Save a Disease’ prototype • Send an academic friend to FDA to create a disease model (funding available) • Software system for Clinical Pharmacology • CDISC standard needs to accelerate. This is a rate limiting step! • Your comments & recommendations?

More Related