Search

Despite advances in clinical trial design, failure rates near 80% in phase 2 and 50% in phase 3 have recently been reported. The challenges to successful drug development are particularly acute in central nervous system trials such as for pain, schizophrenia, mania, and depression because high‐placebo response rates lessen assay sensitivity, diminish estimated treatment effect sizes, and thereby decrease statistical power. This paper addresses the importance of rigorous patient selection in major depressive disorder trials through an enhanced enrichment paradigm. This approach led to a redefinition of an ongoing, blinded phase 3 trial algorithm for patient inclusion (1) to eliminate further randomization of transient placebo responders and (2) to exclude previously randomized transient responders from the primary analysis of the double blind phase of the trial. It is illustrated for a case study for the comparison between brexpiprazole + antidepressant therapy and placebo + antidepressant therapy. Analysis of the primary endpoint showed that efficacy of brexpiprazole versus placebo could not be established statistically if the original algorithm for identification of placebo responders was used, but the enhanced enrichment approach did statistically demonstrate efficacy. Additionally, the enhanced enrichment approach identified a target population with a clinically meaningful treatment effect. Through its successful identification of a target population, the innovative enhanced enrichment approach enabled the demonstration of a positive treatment effect in a very challenging area of depression research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

A likelihood-based analytical approach has been proposed for the control-based pattern-mixture model and its extension. In this note, we derive equivalent but simpler analytical expressions for the treatment effect and its variance for these control-based pattern mixture models. Our formulae are easier to use and interpret. An application of our formulae to an antidepressant trial is provided, in which the likelihood-based analysis is compared with the multiple imputation approach. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]