Search

Contains fulltext : 229389.pdf (Publisher’s version ) (Closed access), Master protocols have received a growing interest during the last years. By assigning patients to specific substudies, they aim at targeting and accelerating clinical development. Given their complexity, basket, umbrella, and platform designs have raised challenging regulatory and statistical questions, especially the control of multiplicity in confirmatory trials. In basket trials, regulatory assessment of the benefit/risk in pooled populations and choice of the treatment indication is challenging. We provide here our perspectives on these topics. In master protocols, as long as the statistical hypotheses tested between the different substudies are independent, no supplementary adjustment for multiplicity over the different substudies should be required. Moreover, sharing a control arm within an umbrella or a platform trial investigating different drugs would not require a correction for the type I error rate, whereas the chance of multiple false positive regulatory decisions should be recognized. In basket trials, pooling across substudies requires a rationale supporting the intended indication and should be preplanned. Assessment of the benefit/risk in pooled target populations can be complicated by differences in design or in efficacy/safety signals between the substudies. While trials governed by a master protocol can offer logistic and financial advantages, more experience is needed to gain a deeper insight into this novel framework.

Inadequate dose selection for confirmatory trials is currently still one of the most challenging issues in drug development, as illustrated by high rates of late-stage attritions in clinical development and postmarketing commitments required by regulatory institutions. In an effort to shift the current paradigm in dose and regimen selection and highlight the availability and usefulness of well-established and regulatory-acceptable methods, the European Medicines Agency (EMA) in collaboration with the European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries Association (EFPIA) hosted a multistakeholder workshop on dose finding (London 4-5 December 2014). Some methodologies that could constitute a toolkit for drug developers and regulators were presented. These methods are described in the present report: they include five advanced methods for data analysis (empirical regression models, pharmacometrics models, quantitative systems pharmacology models, MCP-Mod, and model averaging) and three methods for study design optimization (Fisher information matrix (FIM)-based methods, clinical trial simulations, and adaptive studies). Pairwise comparisons were also discussed during the workshop; however, mostly for historical reasons. This paper discusses the added value and limitations of these methods as well as challenges for their implementation. Some applications in different therapeutic areas are also summarized, in line with the discussions at the workshop. There was agreement at the workshop on the fact that selection of dose for phase III is an estimation problem and should not be addressed via hypothesis testing. Dose selection for phase III trials should be informed by well-designed dosefinding studies; however, the specific choice of method(s) will depend on several aspects and it is not possible to recommend a generalized decision tree. There are many valuable methods available, the methods are not mutually exclusive, and they should be used in conjunction to ensure a scie

Item does not contain fulltext

The role of modeling and simulation (M&S) in the design and interpretation of phase III studies, from break out session 4 of the European Medicines Agency (EMA)/European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) M&S workshop, was divided into themes illustrated with case studies (Table 1): (1) M&S being conducted to support the design of confirmatory trials; (2) longitudinal model-based test as primary inferential analysis (biosimilarity and disease progression trials); (3) assessment of benefit–risk ratio, approval and labeling of an unstudied dose or dosing regimen, and development of future regulatory guidance.