1 / 46

Frank Bretz Global Head – Statistical Methodology, Novartis

The Role of Statistical Methodology in Clinical Research – Shaping and Influencing Decision Making. Frank Bretz Global Head – Statistical Methodology, Novartis Adjunct Professor – Hannover Medical School, Germany Joint work with Holger Dette & Björn Bornkamp; Willi Maurer & Martin Posch

tannerj
Download Presentation

Frank Bretz Global Head – Statistical Methodology, Novartis

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. The Role of Statistical Methodology in Clinical Research – Shaping and Influencing Decision Making Frank Bretz Global Head – Statistical Methodology, Novartis Adjunct Professor – Hannover Medical School, Germany Joint work with Holger Dette & Björn Bornkamp; Willi Maurer & Martin Posch 44eJournées de Statistique– 21 au 25 mai 2012, Bruxelles

  2. Drug development ... • ... is the entire process of bringing a new drug to the market • ... costs between USD 500 million to 2 billion to bring a new drug to market, depending on the therapy • ... is performed at various stages taking 12-15 years, where out of 10’000 compounds only 1 makes it to the market • drug discovery [10’000 compounds] • pre-clinical research on animals [250] • clinical trials on humans [10] • market authorization [1] | JDS | Frank Bretz | May 25, 2011

  3. Drug development process | JDS | Frank Bretz | May 25, 2011

  4. Four clinical development phases | JDS | Frank Bretz | May 25, 2011

  5. Why do we need statisticians in the pharmaceutical industry? Remember, one way of defining Statistics is ... ... and drug development is a series of decisions under huge uncertainty ! The science of quantifying uncertainty, Dealing with uncertainty, And making decisions in the face of uncertainty. | JDS | Frank Bretz | May 25, 2011

  6. Strategic Role of Statisticians • Decision making in drug development • Integrated synthesized thinking, bringing together key information, internal and external to the drug, to influence program and study design • Optimal clinical study design • Specify probabilistic decision rules and provide operating characteristics to illustrate performance as parameters change • Exploratory Data Analysis • Take a strong supporting role in exploring and interpreting the data • Submission planning and preparation • Be integrally involved in the submission strategy, building the plans, interpreting and exploring accumulating data to provide input to a robust and well-thought through dossier | JDS | Frank Bretz | May 25, 2011

  7. Examples | JDS | Frank Bretz | May 25, 2011

  8. Four clinical development phases 1 – Ph II dose finding study 2 – Ph III confirmatory study | JDS | Frank Bretz | May 25, 2011

  9. Example 1 Adaptive Dose Finding | JDS | Frank Bretz | May 25, 2011

  10. Notation and framework | JDS | Frank Bretz | May 25, 2011

  11. Notation and framework | JDS | Frank Bretz | May 25, 2011

  12. Optimal design for MED estimation | JDS | Frank Bretz | May 25, 2011

  13. Optimal design for MED estimation | JDS | Frank Bretz | May 25, 2011

  14. Adaptive Design for MED estimation | JDS | Frank Bretz | May 25, 2011

  15. Priors for parameters | JDS | Frank Bretz | May 25, 2011

  16. Procedure: 1) Before Trial Start | JDS | Frank Bretz | May 25, 2011

  17. Procedure: 2a) At Interim | JDS | Frank Bretz | May 25, 2011

  18. Procedure: 2b) At Interim | JDS | Frank Bretz | May 25, 2011

  19. Procedure: 3) At Trial End | JDS | Frank Bretz | May 25, 2011

  20. Example 2 Multiple testing problems | JDS | Frank Bretz | May 25, 2011

  21. Scope of multiplicity in clincial trials • Wealth of information assessed per patient • Background / medical history (including prognostic factors) • Outcome measures assessed repeatedly in time: efficacy, safety, QoL, ... • Concomitant factors: Concomitant medication and diseases, compliance, ... • Additional information and objectives, which further complicate the multiplicity problem • Multiple doses or modes of administration of a new treatment • Subgroup analyses looking for differential effects in various populations • Combined non-inferiority and superiority testing • Interim analyses and adaptive designs • ... | JDS | Frank Bretz | May 25, 2011

  22. Impact of multiplicity on Type I error rate Probability to commit at least one Type I error when performingm independent hypotheses tests (= FWER, familywise error rate) | JDS | Frank Bretz | May 25, 2011

  23. Impact of multiplicity on treatment effect estimation Distribution of the maximum of mean estimates from m independent treatment groups with mean 0 (normal distribution) | JDS | Frank Bretz | May 25, 2011

  24. Phase III development of a new diabetes drug • Structured family of hypotheses with two levels of multiplicity • Clinical study with three treatment groups • placebo, low and high dose • compare each of the two active doses with placebo • Two hierarchically ordered endpoints • HbA1c (primary objective) and body weight (secondary objective) • Total of four structured hypotheses Hi H1: comparison of low dose vs. placebo for HbA1c H2: comparison of high dose vs. placebo for HbA1c H3: comparison of low dose vs. placebo for body weight H4: comparison of high dose vs. placebo for body weight • In clinical practice often even more levels of multiplicity | JDS | Frank Bretz | May 25, 2011

  25. How to construct decision strategies that reflect complex clinical constraints? | JDS | Frank Bretz | May 25, 2011

  26. Basic idea • Hypotheses H1, ..., Hk • Initial allocation of the significance level α = α1 + ... + αk • P-values p1, ..., pk • α-propagation • If a hypothesis Hi can be rejected at level αi, i.e. pi ≤ αi, reallocate its level αi to other hypotheses (according to a prefixed rule) and repeat the testing with the updated significance levels. | JDS | Frank Bretz | May 25, 2011

  27. Bonferroni-Holm test (k = 2) | JDS | Frank Bretz | May 25, 2011

  28. Bonferroni-Holm test (k = 2) Example with α = 0.05 | JDS | Frank Bretz | May 25, 2011

  29. Bonferroni-Holm test (k = 2) Example with α = 0.05 | JDS | Frank Bretz | May 25, 2011

  30. Bonferroni-Holm test (k = 2) Example with α = 0.05 | JDS | Frank Bretz | May 25, 2011

  31. Bonferroni-Holm test (k = 2) Example with α = 0.05 | JDS | Frank Bretz | May 25, 2011

  32. Bonferroni-Holm test (k = 2) Example with α = 0.05 | JDS | Frank Bretz | May 25, 2011

  33. General definition | JDS | Frank Bretz | May 25, 2011

  34. Graphical test procedure | JDS | Frank Bretz | May 25, 2011

  35. Main result | JDS | Frank Bretz | May 25, 2011

  36. Example re-visited • Two primary hypotheses H1 and H2 • Low and high dose compared with placebo for primary endpoint (HbA1c) • Two secondary hypotheses H3 and H4 • Low and high dose for secondary endpoint (body weight) • Proposed graph on next slide • reflects trial objectives, controls Type I error rate, and displays possible decision paths • can be finetuned to reflect additional clinical considerations or treatment effect assumptions | JDS | Frank Bretz | May 25, 2011

  37. Resulting test procedure | JDS | Frank Bretz | May 25, 2011

  38. Resulting test procedure | JDS | Frank Bretz | May 25, 2011

  39. Resulting test procedure | JDS | Frank Bretz | May 25, 2011

  40. Resulting test procedure | JDS | Frank Bretz | May 25, 2011

  41. Resulting test procedure | JDS | Frank Bretz | May 25, 2011

  42. Resulting test procedure | JDS | Frank Bretz | May 25, 2011

  43. Resulting test procedure | JDS | Frank Bretz | May 25, 2011

  44. Resulting test procedure | JDS | Frank Bretz | May 25, 2011

  45. Now and future • In addition to building and driving innovation internally, important to leverage strengths externally at the scientific interface between industry, academia, and regulatory agencies • At its best, cross-collaboration is greater than the sum of the individual contributions • Synergy on different perspectives and strengths • Provides opportunity to more deeply embed change throughout industry and to have greater acceptance by stakeholders An exciting time to be a statistician ! | JDS | Frank Bretz | May 25, 2011

  46. Selected References • Bornkamp, B., Bretz, F., and Dette, H. (2011) Response-adaptive dose-finding under model uncertainty. Annals of Applied Statistics (in press) • Bretz, F., Maurer, W., and Hommel, G. (2011) Test and power considerations for multiple endpoint analyses using sequentially rejective graphical procedures. Statistics in Medicine (in press) • Maurer, W., Glimm, E., and Bretz, F. (2011) Multiple and repeated testing of primary, co-primary and secondary hypotheses. Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research (in press) • Dette, H., Kiss, C., Bevanda, M., and Bretz, F. (2010) Optimal designs for the Emax, log-linear and exponential models. Biometrika97, 513-518. • Bretz, F., Dette, H., and Pinheiro, J. (2010) Practical considerations for optimal designs in clinical dose finding studies. Statistics in Medicine29, 731-742. • Dragalin, V., Bornkamp, B., Bretz, F., Miller, F., Padmanabhan, S.K., Patel, N., Perevozskaya, I., Pinheiro, J., and Smith, J.R. (2010) A simulation study to compare new adaptive dose-ranging designs. Statistics in Biopharmaceutical Research2(4), 487-512. • Bretz, F., Maurer, W., Brannath, W., and Posch, M. (2009) A graphical approach to sequentially rejective multiple test procedures. Statistics in Medicine28(4), 586-604. • Dette, H., Bretz, F., Pepelyshev, A., and Pinheiro, J.C. (2008) Optimal designs for dose finding studies. Journal of the American Statistical Association103(483), 1225-1237. • Bretz, F., Pinheiro, J.C., and Branson, M. (2005) Combining multiple comparisons and modeling techniques in dose-response studies. Biometrics, 61(3), 738-748. | JDS | Frank Bretz | May 25, 2011

More Related