1 / 27

DMC Issues from a Pharmaceutical Industry Perspective

DMC Issues from a Pharmaceutical Industry Perspective. Steven Snapinn Amgen FDA-Industry Workshop September 15, 2005. Outline. Assessing the Need for a DMC Independence of the DMC Scope of the DMC’s Responsibilities Issues in Setting the Stopping Boundaries How Are Decisions Made?

keelia
Download Presentation

DMC Issues from a Pharmaceutical Industry Perspective

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. DMC Issues from a Pharmaceutical Industry Perspective Steven Snapinn Amgen FDA-Industry Workshop September 15, 2005

  2. Outline • Assessing the Need for a DMC • Independence of the DMC • Scope of the DMC’s Responsibilities • Issues in Setting the Stopping Boundaries • How Are Decisions Made? • Case Study 1: PRISM-PLUS • Stopping for Futility • Case Study 2: CONSENSUS II

  3. Assessing the Need for a DMC • Considerations • Seriousness of the Medical Condition • Uncertainty of Efficacy and Safety • Size of the Trial • Duration of the Trial • Benefits of Having a DMC • Credibility • Experience • Neutrality

  4. Internal vs. External DMCs • Early Development • Safety Monitoring by Study Team • Dose Escalation Decisions • Efficacy Monitoring by Internal DMC • Independent of Study Team • Phase III • External DMC Typical

  5. Independence of the DMC • Committee Membership • DMC Independent of Sponsor • No Sponsor Participation in Closed Session • Preparation of Interim Reports • Regulatory Guidance Frowns on This Being a Sponsor Responsibility • Sponsors Typically Contract Independent Group

  6. The Case for an Unblinded Sponsor Statistician • “Firewall” • Familiarity with the Study • Control of the Allocation Schedule and Interim Results • Sponsor’s Risk • Quality Assurance • Data Leaks • What Constitutes “Independence”?

  7. Scope of the DMC’s Responsibilities • Safety Monitoring • Efficacy Monitoring • Timeliness and Accuracy of the Database • Protocol Adherence? • Sample Size Re-estimation? • Requests for ad hoc Analyses

  8. Issues in Setting the Stopping Boundaries • Stopping Boundaries for Safety • Stopping Boundaries for Efficacy: Protect Patients in the Trial or Protect All Patients? • Require Overwhelming Evidence or Moderate Evidence? • Are Patients Fully Informed?

  9. Issues in Setting the Stopping Boundaries (continued) • Review of Efficacy Data for Risk/Benefit Assessment Only • Set Extreme Efficacy Criterion (eg, 0.0005) • Protection for Sponsor • Group Sequential vs. Conditional Probability

  10. Other Issues • Partial vs. Full Unblinding • Information Sharing Across DMCs • Monitoring Noninferiority Trials

  11. How Are Decisions Made? • Decision-Making Authority • Independent Steering Committee • Sponsor • Sponsor’s Awkward Position • Reclaiming Type I Error • Efficacy Boundary Crossed But Trial Continues • Futility Boundaries

  12. Case Study: PRISM-PLUS • Patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome • Non-Q-Wave Myocardial Infarction • Unstable Angina Pectoris • Evaluation of Tirofiban, an Inhibitor of Platelet Aggregation

  13. PRISM-PLUS Study Design • Three Treatment Arms • Control Arm: Heparin Alone • Monotherapy Arm: Tirofiban Alone • Combination Arm: Heparin+Tirofiban • Composite Endpoint • Refractory Ischemia/Readmission for UAP • Myocardial Infarction • Death

  14. Study Organization • Oversight by an Independent Steering Committee • Sponsor Representatives Attend SC Meetings • Makes Decisions on DMC Recommendations • Data Monitored by an Independent DMC • No Sponsor Representative (Other than Unblinded Statistician) • Recommendations on Trial Modification to SC

  15. Interim Results of PRISM-PLUSComposite Endpoint

  16. Interim Results of PRISM-PLUSDeath

  17. Summary of Results • Composite Endpoint Rates Similar in Heparin and Tirofiban Groups • Death Rate Higher in the Tirofiban Group • 7-Day Mortality • 16/345 vs. 4/351 - p-value = 0.006 • Pooling Heparin and Combo Groups • 16/345 vs. 9/687 - p-value = 0.001 • Is This Sufficient Evidence?

  18. The Pharmaceutical Sponsor’s Dilemma • DSMB Recommended Discontinuation of the Tirofiban Arm • Steering Committee Felt That the Evidence Was Insufficient • Representatives of the Sponsor Were Present at the Meeting • Can the Sponsor Allow Randomization to Continue when the DMC Believes That Patients Will Die Unnecessarily?

  19. Final Results of PRISMDeath

  20. Stopping for Futility • Inability of a Trial to Meet Its Objectives • Operational vs. Statistical • Goal Is to Preserve Resources • No Ethical Imperative • Group Sequential vs. Conditional Probability • Frequentist vs. Bayesian Methods

  21. Stopping for Futility (continued) • One-Sided vs. Two-Sided Boundaries • Can Alpha Be “Reclaimed”? • Cost in Power and Secondary Objectives • Need for Prior Agreement

  22. Case Study: CONSENSUS II • 9000 Patients with Acute Myocardial Infarction • Comparison of Enalapril and Placebo • Primary Endpoint is 6-Month Mortality • Assumed Rates: 12.0% vs. 9.6%

  23. CONSENSUS II Interim Monitoring • Key Design Features • Frequent Interim Analyses • Terminate If Interim Results Clearly Indicate Lack of Benefit • Monitoring Plan Based on Conditional Probability • Future Rates Assumed Between Current Rates and Originally-Assumed Rates • Alpha Reclaimed

  24. CONSENSUS II Interim Results

  25. CONSENSUS II Lessons Learned • Stopping for futility is a difficult problem • Without Clear Trend Toward Efficacy or Harm There’s No Ethical Imperative • Without Hope for Benefit Patients Should Not Be Subjected to Risks • Prior Agreement Required • Within DMC • Between DMC and Trial Leadership

  26. CONSENSUS II Lessons Learned (continued) • Stopping Boundary • Flexibility Is an Advantage • Reclaiming Alpha May Not Be Appropriate • Basing Conditional Probabilities Only on Patients With Complete Follow-Up Was a Disadvantage

More Related