Luveris ® New Drug Application (21-322 ) Kate Meaker, M.S. Statistical Reviewer Division of Biometrics II Kate Meaker, M.S. Statistical Reviewer Division.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Labeling claims for patient- reported outcomes (A regulatory perspective) FDA/Industry Workshop Washington, DC September 16, 2005 Lisa A. Kammerman, Ph.D.
Advertisements

Single-Patient Use of Investigational Drugs and Biologic Products for Treating Cancer Grant Williams, M.D. Medical Team Leader DODP/CDER/FDA.
Statistical Analysis for Two-stage Seamless Design with Different Study Endpoints Shein-Chung Chow, Duke U, Durham, NC, USA Qingshu Lu, U of Science and.
Design and analysis of clinical trials MULTIPLE COMPARISONS.
Clinical Trials Importance in future therapies. What are the Requirements to Produce New Drugs? Drug must work significantly better than a control treatment.
ODAC May 3, Subgroup Analyses in Clinical Trials Stephen L George, PhD Department of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics Duke University Medical Center.
1 Efficacy of Testosterone Transdermal System (TTS) for Treatment of HSDD in Surgically Menopausal Women on Concomitant Estrogen Daniel Davis, MD, MPH.
Welcome Ask The Experts March 24-27, 2007 New Orleans, LA.
1 A Bayesian Non-Inferiority Approach to Evaluation of Bridging Studies Chin-Fu Hsiao, Jen-Pei Liu Division of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics National.
Journal Club Alcohol and Health: Current Evidence July-August 2006.
Chapter 11: Sequential Clinical Trials Descriptive Exploratory Experimental Describe Find Cause Populations Relationships and Effect Sequential Clinical.
Common Problems in Writing Statistical Plan of Clinical Trial Protocol Liying XU CCTER CUHK.
RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIALS. What is a randomized clinical trial?  Scientific investigations: examine and evaluate the safety and efficacy of new drugs.
NDA Study MP-US-M01. Division of Oncology Drug Products 2 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act of 1962 Substantial Evidence = Adequate and well-controlled.
Norisuke Kawai Clinical Statistics, Pfizer Japan Inc.
Adaptive designs as enabler for personalized medicine
1 Statistical Perspective Acamprosate Experience Sue-Jane Wang, Ph.D. Statistics Leader Alcoholism Treatment Clinical Trials May 10, 2002 Drug Abuse Advisory.
Background to Adaptive Design Nigel Stallard Professor of Medical Statistics Director of Health Sciences Research Institute Warwick Medical School
Study design P.Olliaro Nov04. Study designs: observational vs. experimental studies What happened?  Case-control study What’s happening?  Cross-sectional.
Antidepressants and Suicidality in Adults: Statistical Evaluation Mark Levenson, Ph.D.* and Chris Holland, M.S. Statistical Safety Reviewers Quantitative.
Lessons Learned from Opioid Addiction Trials
Key Compliance Risks in Clinical Trials Kathleen Meriwether Principal, ERNST & YOUNG, LLP Fraud Investigation & Dispute Services.
1 Statistical Review Dr. Shan Sun-Mitchell. 2 ENT Primary endpoint: Time to treatment failure by day 50 Placebo BDP Patients randomized Number.
Joint Meeting of Anti-Infective Drugs & Drug Safety and Risk Management Advisory Committees December 14-15, 2006 Ketek  (telithromycin) Regulatory History.
1 ENTEREG ® (Alvimopan) Special Safety Section Marjorie Dannis, M.D. Division of Gastroenterology Products Office of Drug Evaluation III CDER, FDA The.
Statistical Review of Intergel by Richard Kotz Statistician, CDRH/OSB.
1 Statistics in Drug Development Mark Rothmann, Ph. D.* Division of Biometrics I Food and Drug Administration * The views expressed here are those of the.
Pulmonary-Allergy Drugs Advisory Committee May 1, 2007 FDA Presentation Advair Diskus 500/50 Carol Bosken, MD, ScM, MPH Medical Officer Division of Pulmonary.
Regulatory Affairs and Adaptive Designs Greg Enas, PhD, RAC Director, Endocrinology/Metabolism US Regulatory Affairs Eli Lilly and Company.
The Use of Predictive Biomarkers in Clinical Trial Design Richard Simon, D.Sc. Chief, Biometric Research Branch National Cancer Institute
DHHS / FDA / CDRH 1 FDA Summary CardioSEAL® STARFlex™ Septal Occlusion System with Qwik Load NMT Medical P000049/S3.
NDA SE-011 Docetaxel FDA Review. FDA Review Team Biostatistics –Clara Chu, PhD. –Gang Chen, PhD. Biopharmaceutics –Safaa Ibrahim PhD –Atiq Rahman,
History of Pediatric Labeling
Some Design Issues in Microbicide Trials August 20, 2003 Thomas R. Fleming, Ph.D. Professor and Chair of Biostatistics University of Washington FDA Antiviral.
FDA’s Osteoporosis Guidance Center for Drug Evaluation and Research Division of Metabolic and Endocrine Drugs Eric Colman, MD September 25, 2002.
AprepitantAprepitant Division of Gastrointestinal and Coagulation Drug Products Division of Gastrointestinal and Coagulation Drug Products Center for Drug.
1 Study Design Issues and Considerations in HUS Trials Yan Wang, Ph.D. Statistical Reviewer Division of Biometrics IV OB/OTS/CDER/FDA April 12, 2007.
CRESTOR ® (ZD4522, rosuvastatin calcium) TABLETS Comments on Efficacy Joy Mele FDA Statistical Reviewer Division of Biometrics 2 Joy Mele FDA Statistical.
Advisory Committee Presentation on Vioxx (Rofecoxib) Discussion on the meta analyses for cardiovascular risk assessment Qian Li, Sc. D.
Statistical Considerations on NDA Sonia Castillo, Ph.D. Division of Biometrics 2 June 26, 2000.
1 BLA Sipuleucel-T (APC-8015) FDA Statistical Review and Findings Bo-Guang Zhen, PhD Statistical Reviewer, OBE, CBER March 29, 2007 Cellular, Tissue.
Division of Oncology Drug Products 1 AREAS OF MAJOR STATISTICAL CONCERNS IN THE M01 STUDY Overall (ITT Population) Finding Liver Metastasis Subgroup Finding.
THE ROLE OF SUBGROUPS IN CLINICAL TRIALS Ralph B. D’Agostino, Sr., PhD Boston University September 13, 2005.
European Patients’ Academy on Therapeutic Innovation Ethical and practical challenges of organising clinical trials in small populations.
1 Pulminiq™ Cyclosporine Inhalation Solution Pulmonary Drug Advisory Committee Meeting June 6, 2005 Statistical Evaluation Statistical Evaluation Jyoti.
1 EXPERIENCES IN EARLY PHASE STUDIES AIMED TO SELECT APPROPRIATE DOSE REGIMENS THAT LED TO SUCCESS VS. FAILURE Naitee Ting, Pfizer Global R&D.
Agency Review of sNDA SE-006 DOXIL for Ovarian Cancer Division of Oncology Drug Products Office of Drug Evaluation 1 Center for Drug Evaluation.
SNDA # GLIADEL® WAFER (Polifeprosan 20 with Carmustine Implant) APPLICANT: GUILFORD PHARMACEUTICALS ODAC: December 6, 2001 Medical Reviewer: Alla.
Hepatitis C: Perspective on Drug Development Issues Debra Birnkrant, M.D. Director, Division of Antiviral Products FDA Antiviral Drugs Advisory Committee.
Pulmonary-Allergy Drugs Advisory Committee May 1, 2007 OutlineOutline History of development programHistory of development program –Dr. Carol Bosken Introduction.
Clinical Trials - PHASE II. Introduction  Important part of drug discovery process  Why important??  Therapeutic exploratory trial  First time in.
Zometa for Prostate Cancer Bone Metastases Protocol 039 Amna Ibrahim, M.D. Oncology Drug Products FDA.
CLINICAL EFFICACY Oral Telithromycin George Rochester, PhD, CCRN Statistical Reviewer Division of Biometrics III Division of Anti-infective Drug Products.
Safety, Efficacy and Duration of Effect of RT002, a Botulinum Toxin Type A for Injection, to Treat Glabellar Lines: The Phase 2 BELMONT Study Authors:
1 Statistical Issues in NDA Laura Lu, Ph.D FDA/CDER.
1 Clinical Studies Section of Labeling Joseph Porres, M.D., Ph.D. Medical Officer Division of Dermatologic and Dental Drug Products FDA.
An Alternative to Data Imputation in Analgesic Clinical Trials David Petullo, Thomas Permutt, Feng Li Division of Biometrics II, Office of Biostatistics.
Patient Focused Drug Development An FDA Perspective
ICH E17 General Principles for Planning and Design of MRCTs
Martha Carvour, MD, PhD March 2, 2017
Deputy Director, Division of Biostatistics No Conflict of Interest
Medical Device Regulatory Essentials: An FDA Division of Cardiovascular Devices Perspective Bram Zuckerman, MD, FACC Director, FDA Division of Cardiovascular.
Critical Reading of Clinical Study Results
O’Connor Efficacy and Safety of Exercise Training as a Treatment Modality in Patients With Chronic Heart Failure: Results of A Randomized Controlled.
Strategies for Implementing Flexible Clinical Trials Jerald S. Schindler, Dr.P.H. Cytel Pharmaceutical Research Services 2006 FDA/Industry Statistics Workshop.
Common Problems in Writing Statistical Plan of Clinical Trial Protocol
CIBIS II: Cardiac Insufficiency Bisoprolol Study II
Section III: Neurohormonal strategies in heart failure
Improving the Standards of Reporting of Clinical Trial Data
Addressing the Issue of Subject Confusion Due to the Use of two Visual Analog Scales in Human Abuse Potential Studies Ling Chen, Ph.D. FDA/CDER/OTS/DBVI.
Presentation transcript:

Luveris ® New Drug Application ( ) Kate Meaker, M.S. Statistical Reviewer Division of Biometrics II Kate Meaker, M.S. Statistical Reviewer Division of Biometrics II Center for Drug Evaluation and Research

Title of Advisory Committee Meeting Date 2 Objectives Present FDA analyses of three main studies Discuss lack of sufficient evidence of efficacy Present FDA analyses of three main studies Discuss lack of sufficient evidence of efficacy

Title of Advisory Committee Meeting Date 3 Main Issue FDA believes that patients whose cycles were cancelled due to risk of OHSS should be classified as treatment failures.

Title of Advisory Committee Meeting Date 4 Studies Reviewed Study 6905 – Dose-finding Phase II Study 6253 – Dose-finding Phase II Study – Phase III Study 6905 – Dose-finding Phase II Study 6253 – Dose-finding Phase II Study – Phase III

Title of Advisory Committee Meeting Date 5 Phase II Studies Planned Analysis = Trend Test Appropriate for dose-finding Weights are assigned to each dose group Typically weights reflect a linear dose response or other dose relationship Appropriate for dose-finding Weights are assigned to each dose group Typically weights reflect a linear dose response or other dose relationship

Title of Advisory Committee Meeting Date 6 Phase II Studies Planned Analyses = Trend test In these Phase II protocols the weights were not pre-specified Sponsor selected weights after unblinding data Sponsor applied equal weight to 75 and 225 IU groups In these Phase II protocols the weights were not pre-specified Sponsor selected weights after unblinding data Sponsor applied equal weight to 75 and 225 IU groups

Title of Advisory Committee Meeting Date 7 Phase II Studies Planned Analyses = Trend test Selected weights: placebo-2 25 IU0 75 IU1 225 IU1

Title of Advisory Committee Meeting Date 8 % Success – Follicular Development Study 6905 (Phase II)

Title of Advisory Committee Meeting Date 9 Study 6905 (Phase II) FDA analysis classified OHSS risk as treatment failure Conclusion: The evidence is insufficient to show a statistically significant difference between Luveris 75 IU and placebo (p=0.670). FDA analysis classified OHSS risk as treatment failure Conclusion: The evidence is insufficient to show a statistically significant difference between Luveris 75 IU and placebo (p=0.670).

Title of Advisory Committee Meeting Date 10 % Success – Follicular Development Study 6253 (Phase II)

Title of Advisory Committee Meeting Date 11 Study 6253 (Phase II) FDA analysis classified OHSS risk as treatment failure Conclusion: The evidence is insufficient to show a statistically significant difference between Luveris 75 IU and placebo (p=0.157) FDA analysis classified OHSS risk as treatment failure Conclusion: The evidence is insufficient to show a statistically significant difference between Luveris 75 IU and placebo (p=0.157)

Title of Advisory Committee Meeting Date 12 % Success – Follicular Development Study (Phase III)

Title of Advisory Committee Meeting Date 13 Study (Phase III) FDA analysis classified OHSS risk as treatment failure Conclusion: The evidence is insufficient to show a statistically significant difference between Luveris 75 IU and placebo (p=0.063). FDA analysis classified OHSS risk as treatment failure Conclusion: The evidence is insufficient to show a statistically significant difference between Luveris 75 IU and placebo (p=0.063).

Title of Advisory Committee Meeting Date 14 % Success – Follicular Development Risk of OHSS = Failure

Title of Advisory Committee Meeting Date 15 Secondary Endpoint: Ovulation Rate Desired indication was ovulation induction FDA requested sponsor use ovulation rate (determined by P 4 level) as primary endpoint Sponsor included ovulation rate as secondary endpoint Desired indication was ovulation induction FDA requested sponsor use ovulation rate (determined by P 4 level) as primary endpoint Sponsor included ovulation rate as secondary endpoint

Title of Advisory Committee Meeting Date 16 Secondary Endpoint Ovulation Rate (determined by P 4 level)

Title of Advisory Committee Meeting Date 17 Summary of Individual Studies None of the placebo-controlled studies provides sufficient evidence to support the efficacy of Luveris 75 IU

Title of Advisory Committee Meeting Date 18 Post hoc Pooled Analyses FDA does not typically consider unplanned pooling of studies, particularly when the individual studies do not meet statistical significance on their own.

Title of Advisory Committee Meeting Date 19 Post hoc Pooled Analyses ICH E9: Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials “ Only results from analyses envisaged in the protocol (including amendments) can be regarded as confirmatory.”

Title of Advisory Committee Meeting Date 20 Post hoc Pooled Analyses If pooled analyses were to be considered, a more stringent level of statistical significance would be required than alpha = Need to adjust alpha for all possible ways studies could be picked to combine (multiplicity issue) If pooled analyses were to be considered, a more stringent level of statistical significance would be required than alpha = Need to adjust alpha for all possible ways studies could be picked to combine (multiplicity issue)

Title of Advisory Committee Meeting Date 21 Post hoc Pooled Analyses Combine two studies which have same endpoint definition and patient population ( ) Combine all 3 gives largest sample size (Note: 6905 has design differences) Neither of these combination achieves statistical significance Combine two studies which have same endpoint definition and patient population ( ) Combine all 3 gives largest sample size (Note: 6905 has design differences) Neither of these combination achieves statistical significance

Title of Advisory Committee Meeting Date 22 Post hoc Pooled Analyses Conclusions Pooled analyses were not prospectively planned FDA would generally not consider for confirmatory evidence Analyses of the combined studies do not show sufficient evidence of efficacy of Luveris 75 IU vs. placebo Pooled analyses were not prospectively planned FDA would generally not consider for confirmatory evidence Analyses of the combined studies do not show sufficient evidence of efficacy of Luveris 75 IU vs. placebo

Title of Advisory Committee Meeting Date 23 SummarySummary Compare Luveris 75 IU to placebo FDA endpoint classifies patients whose cycles were cancelled due to risk of OHSS as treatment failures Compare Luveris 75 IU to placebo FDA endpoint classifies patients whose cycles were cancelled due to risk of OHSS as treatment failures

Title of Advisory Committee Meeting Date 24 SummarySummary The three studies do not provide sufficient evidence to conclude the differences between Luveris 75 IU and placebo are statistically significantly. Post hoc pooled analyses do not show Luveris 75 IU is statistically significantly different from placebo. The three studies do not provide sufficient evidence to conclude the differences between Luveris 75 IU and placebo are statistically significantly. Post hoc pooled analyses do not show Luveris 75 IU is statistically significantly different from placebo.