Eliciting judgements about dependent quantities of interest: The SHELF extension and copula methods illustrated using an asthma case study
Authors:
Björn Holzhauer,
Lisa V. Hampson,
John Paul Gosling,
Björn Bornkamp,
Joseph Kahn,
Markus R. Lange,
Wen-Lin Luo,
Caterina Brindicci,
David Lawrence,
Steffen Ballerstedt,
Anthony O'Hagan
Abstract:
Pharmaceutical companies regularly need to make decisions about drug development programs based on the limited knowledge from early stage clinical trials. In this situation, eliciting the judgements of experts is an attractive approach for synthesising evidence on the unknown quantities of interest. When calculating the probability of success for a drug development program, multiple quantities of…
▽ More
Pharmaceutical companies regularly need to make decisions about drug development programs based on the limited knowledge from early stage clinical trials. In this situation, eliciting the judgements of experts is an attractive approach for synthesising evidence on the unknown quantities of interest. When calculating the probability of success for a drug development program, multiple quantities of interest - such as the effect of a drug on different endpoints - should not be treated as unrelated.
We discuss two approaches for establishing a multivariate distribution for several related quantities within the SHeffield ELicitation Framework (SHELF). The first approach elicits experts' judgements about a quantity of interest conditional on knowledge about another one. For the second approach, we first elicit marginal distributions for each quantity of interest. Then, for each pair of quantities, we elicit the concordance probability that both lie on the same side of their respective elicited medians. This allows us to specify a copula to obtain the joint distribution of the quantities of interest.
We show how these approaches were used in an elicitation workshop that was performed to assess the probability of success of the registrational program of an asthma drug. The judgements of the experts, which were obtained prior to completion of the pivotal studies, were well aligned with the final trial results.
△ Less
Submitted 15 February, 2021; v1 submitted 4 February, 2021;
originally announced February 2021.
Improving the assessment of the probability of success in late stage drug development
Authors:
Lisa V Hampson,
Björn Bornkamp,
Björn Holzhauer,
Joseph Kahn,
Markus R Lange,
Wen-Lin Luo,
Giovanni Della Cioppa,
Kelvin Stott,
Steffen Ballerstedt
Abstract:
There are several steps to confirming the safety and efficacy of a new medicine. A sequence of trials, each with its own objectives, is usually required. Quantitative risk metrics can be useful for informing decisions about whether a medicine should transition from one stage of development to the next. To obtain an estimate of the probability of regulatory approval, pharmaceutical companies may st…
▽ More
There are several steps to confirming the safety and efficacy of a new medicine. A sequence of trials, each with its own objectives, is usually required. Quantitative risk metrics can be useful for informing decisions about whether a medicine should transition from one stage of development to the next. To obtain an estimate of the probability of regulatory approval, pharmaceutical companies may start with industry-wide success rates and then apply to these subjective adjustments to reflect program-specific information. However, this approach lacks transparency and fails to make full use of data from previous clinical trials. We describe a quantitative Bayesian approach for calculating the probability of success (PoS) at the end of phase II which incorporates internal clinical data from one or more phase IIb studies, industry-wide success rates, and expert opinion or external data if needed. Using an example, we illustrate how PoS can be calculated accounting for differences between the phase IIb data and future phase III trials, and discuss how the methods can be extended to accommodate accelerated drug development pathways.
△ Less
Submitted 21 October, 2021; v1 submitted 4 February, 2021;
originally announced February 2021.
