Search

SUMMARY: For the clinical development of a new drug, the determination of dose‐proportionality is an essential part of the pharmacokinetic evaluations, which may provide early indications of non‐linear pharmacokinetics and may help to identify sub‐populations with divergent clearances. Prior to making any conclusions regarding dose‐proportionality, the goodness‐of‐fit of the model must be assessed to evaluate the model performance. We propose the use of simulation‐based visual predictive checks to improve the validity of dose‐proportionality conclusions for complex designs. We provide an illustrative example and include a table to facilitate review by regulatory authorities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Subgroup analysis has important applications in the analysis of controlled clinical trials. Sometimes the result of the overall group fails to demonstrate that the new treatment is better than the control therapy, but for a subgroup of patients, the treatment benefit may exist; or sometimes, the new treatment is better for the overall group but not for a subgroup. Hence we are interested in constructing a simultaneous confidence interval for the difference of the treatment effects in a subgroup and the overall group. Subgroups are usually formed on the basis of a predictive biomarker such as age, sex, or some genetic marker. While, for example, age can be detected precisely, it is often only possible to detect the biomarker status with a certain probability. Because patients detected with a positive or negative biomarker may not be truly biomarker positive or negative, responses in the subgroups depend on the treatment therapy as well as on the sensitivity and specificity of the assay used in detecting the biomarkers. In this work, we show how (approximate) simultaneous confidence intervals and confidence ellipsoid for the treatment effects in subgroups can be found for biomarker stratified clinical trials using a normal framework with normally distributed or binary data. We show that these intervals maintain the nominal confidence level via simulations. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Historically, phase II oncology trials assessed a treatment's efficacy by examining its tumor response rate in a single-arm trial. Then, approximately 25 years ago, certain statistical and pharmacological considerations ignited a debate around whether randomized designs should be used instead. Here, based on an extensive literature review, we review the arguments on either side of this debate. In particular, we describe the numerous factors that relate to the reliance of single-arm trials on historical control data and detail the trial scenarios in which there was general agreement on preferential utilization of single-arm or randomized design frameworks, such as the use of single-arm designs when investigating treatments for rare cancers. We then summarize the latest figures on phase II oncology trial design, contrasting current design choices against historical recommendations on best practice. Ultimately, we find several ways in which the design of recently completed phase II trials does not appear to align with said recommendations. For example, despite advice to the contrary, only 66.2% of the assessed trials that employed progression-free survival as a primary or coprimary outcome used a randomized comparative design. In addition, we identify that just 28.2% of the considered randomized comparative trials came to a positive conclusion as opposed to 72.7% of the single-arm trials. We conclude by describing a selection of important issues influencing contemporary design, framing this discourse in light of current trends in phase II, such as the increased use of biomarkers and recent interest in novel adaptive designs., (© The Author(s) 2019. Published by Oxford University Press.)