Advances in Small Trials dEsign for Regulatory Innovation and eXcellence Egbert Biesheuvel Nutricia Research, Utrecht On behalf of Kit Roes, Armin Koch, Martin Posch, Ferran Torres, Hanneke vd Lee, Cor Oosterwijk, Caroline van Baal and all the researchers of the Asterix consortium
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Advances in Small Trials dEsign for Regulatory Innovation and eXcellence
Egbert BiesheuvelNutricia Research, Utrecht
On behalf of Kit Roes, Armin Koch, Martin Posch, Ferran Torres,Hanneke vd Lee, Cor Oosterwijk, Caroline van Baal and
90 orphanmedicineauthorised (7 in 2013, 14 in 2014)
Authorised does not automatically lead to available for patients
Perspective of market authorisation of a new drugEvidence based decision of allowing physicians to add a new drugto their treatment options
EMA Orphan medicinesfigures 2000-‐2014
Perspectives, Patients and Evidence
In the meantime I passed away
Perspectives, Patients and Evidence
The European legislation on orphan medicinal products [Regulation (EC) No 141/2000] emphasises that patients suffering from rare conditions should be
“entitled to the same quality of treatment as other patients.”
Current rationale is to present evidence at the sameconfidence levels
Small populations guidancedoes stimulate alternatives for design and analyses
Careful case-‐by-‐case decisions are made, that essentially may “relax” level of evidence
Concept and objectives of asterix
• Unmet need for drugs to treat rare diseases
• Difficulty to establish efficient and reliable evidence from clinical trials in small populations
• Absence of methods to include patients and patient perspectives to generate results that matter to patients
• Uncertainty in regulatory decision making on new treatments
PatientThinkTank
Patient Think Tank
• Systematic involvement of patients and their perspectives• PTT comprises of 12 members
Provide input in the development of methods to• optimize use of info in patient registries to decide on trial design• include patients preferences in the weighting of outcomes• includepatient opinionson novel trial designs
1st F-‐2-‐F meeting in October 2014 A’dam on adaptive designs andweighing of outcomes
2nd F-‐2-‐F meeting in October 2015 Barcelona on Framework
Example: Framework for guidance
• Guidance on design at disease level no longer practical (over 8000 rare diseases)
• One general document (at present) may not providesufficient guidance
• Framework with intermediate approach, driven by keycharacteristics of disease and treatment
Caridad Pontes, Ferran Torres, Josep Torrent et al.
Predictable course, surrogatesSOC generally available
Adults, disablingMultidimensional single organPatient reported outcomes, QoLSurrogates requiring validationChildren, life lasting, registriesMultidimensional multiorganPatient/caregiver otucomes
Poor SOC
Poor prognosisSubgroups requiredTime to end-‐pointsSurrogates validated
Rareor very
rareFrequency
Ultrarare(<1/10
5)
Example: Multiple endpoints
• New Fall back procedures– Allow inference on subsets of endpoints– Control the Family Wise Error Rate (Type I error)– Can be designed to bemore powerful,
taking joint distribution (correlations) into account
• Simulation studies show benefit,also for small sample sizes
• Traditional level of evidencelimits power Robin Ristl, Martin Posch
Example: Series of trials
• In drug development for rare diseases, synthesis throughmeta-‐analysis might improve robustness of (regulatory) assesment
• Sequential meta-‐analysis can improve efficiency of drug development plans
• Facilitating adaptive licensing
Armin Koch, Kristina Weber, Ingeborg van der Tweel, Konstantinos Pateras
Adaptive licensing
Eichler et al., Clin Pharm & Therapeutics 2012; 91: 42-‐37
Example: Series of trials
Initial idea:• Bayesian methods for extrapolation in rare disease • Reduce the burden for formal proof of efficacy
Impact on decision making needs to be fully understood• Frequentist and Bayesian strategies are compared from a
decision making perspective• In case of 2 (completed) trials: (1) full meta-‐analysis, (2) one
trial as prior for the other, (3) down-‐weighing the first trial
Concluding
• Innovations in design possible– but more complicated to comprehend
• Serious reconsideration of level of evidence needed, in concert with new models of decision making
• Framework will help to provide guidance in theheterogenousworld of rare diseases