Estimation of clinical trial success rates and related parameters

@article{Wong2019EstimationOC,
  title={Estimation of clinical trial success rates and related parameters},
  author={Chi Heem Wong and Kien Wei Siah and Andrew W. Lo},
  journal={Biostatistics (Oxford, England)},
  year={2019},
  volume={20},
  pages={273 - 286}
}
&NA; Previous estimates of drug development success rates rely on relatively small samples from databases curated by the pharmaceutical industry and are subject to potential selection biases. Using a sample of 406 038 entries of clinical trial data for over 21 143 compounds from January 1, 2000 to October 31, 2015, we estimate aggregate clinical trial success rates and durations. We also compute disaggregated estimates across several trial features including disease type, clinical phase… 

Figures and Tables from this paper

Underperformance of Contemporary Phase III Oncology Trials and Strategies for Improvement.

Applying an alternative P value threshold and/or sample size could reduce false-positive errors and slightly increase false-negative errors in phase III clinical trials, but they generate many false-positives.

Improving the assessment of the probability of success in late stage drug development

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 is described.

Cancer patient survival can be parametrized to improve trial precision and reveal time-dependent therapeutic effects

Analysis of more than 150 Phase 3 oncology clinical trials supports parametric statistical analysis, significantly increasing the precision of small early-phase trials and relating deviations from the Cox proportional hazards model to trial duration.

Clinical development success rates and social value of pediatric Phase 1 trials in oncology

An analysis shows that treatments tested in pediatric Phase 1 trials in oncology have low rates of regulatory approval, however, a large proportion of Phase 1 Trials inform further testing and development of tested interventions.

Evaluating the Completeness of ClinicalTrials.gov

Wide variation exists in clinical trial site and country information for trials with identical NCT numbers suggesting that caution should be used when relying solely on ClinicalTrials.gov to assess the clinical trial landscape.

Cancer patient survival can be accurately parameterized, revealing time-dependent therapeutic effects and doubling the precision of small trials

Mining IPD showed that frequent violations of the proportional hazards assumption, particularly in trials of immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs), arise from time-dependent therapeutic effects and hazard ratios, and the duration of ICI trials has an underappreciated impact on the likelihood of their success.

Estimating the Clinical Pipeline of Cell and Gene Therapies and Their Potential Economic Impact on the US Healthcare System.

The role of biomarkers in clinical endpoint success

Using a global dataset of 4,450 phase I to phase IV trials that includes specific indexing for biomarker strategy and trial outcomes, a correlation between the average number of biomarkers employed and reported trial outcomes is found.

Predicting Success of Phase III Trials in Oncology

Compared to other approaches, this is the first study generating a fully transparent model resulting in trial specific PoS distributions and has shown that qualitative concepts such as PhII knowledge or sponsor R&D strength can be captured in quantitative scores and that these scores have a high predictive power.

Proportion of Patients in Phase 1 Oncology Trials Receiving Treatments that are Ultimately Approved.

One in 83 patients in phase 1 cancer trials received a treatment that was approved for their indication at the doses received, which represents low therapeutic value for phase 1 trial participation.
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 12 REFERENCES

Trends in Risks Associated With New Drug Development: Success Rates for Investigational Drugs

The study examined the development histories of these investigational compounds from the time point at which they first entered clinical testing through June 2009 and estimated clinical approval success rates and phase transition probabilities differed significantly by therapeutic class.

Pharmaceutical Development Phases: A Duration Analysis

The results suggest that drugs with longer durations are less likely to success, drugs from larger firms are more likely to succeed and faster in the later phases of development, and that durations fell between 1995 and 2002.

Productivity in Pharmaceutical Biotechnology R&D: The Role of Experience and Alliances

It is found that success probabilities vary substantially across therapeutic categories and are negatively correlated with mean sales by category, which is consistent with a model of dynamic, competitive entry.

Trends in clinical success rates

This analysis of the industry's clinical-stage portfolio in the past two decades reveals several trends, including a recent improvement in success rates in late-stage trials, an increase in overall

Nonparametric Kernel Density Estimation Near the Boundary

A refined version of the gamma kernel with an additional tuning parameter adjusted according to the shape of the density close to the boundary is suggested and it is found that the finite sample performance of the proposed new estimator is superior in all settings.

Clinical development success rates for investigational drugs

The most comprehensive survey of clinical success rates across the drug industry to date shows productivity may be even lower than previous estimates.

Biogen Idec MovesAggressively,AdvancesAlzheimer Drug into Phase 3

  • https://www.clinicalleader. com/doc/biogen-idec-movesaggressively-advances-alzheimer-drug-into-phase-0001.
  • 2014

Novel Drugs Summary 2015

  • http://www.fda.gov/Drugs/DevelopmentApprovalProcess/DrugInnovation/ucm474696.htm.
  • 2016

Comparison of result for biomarker trials against other papers Our result for trials using biomarkers is very different from extant papers such as Thomas et al

  • As the authors of the Thomas et al
  • 2016