companion diagnostics, personalized medicine and drug ... - s2 - benda...• complementary...
TRANSCRIPT
Norbert Benda
Companiondiagnostics,personalizedmedicineanddrugregulation
Disclaimer:Views expressed in this presentation are the author's personal views and not necessarily the views of BfArM
N Benda | Companion Diagnostics| 06 November 2017 | Page 2/42
EU regulation:• a device which is essential for the safe and effective use of a
corresponding medicinal product to identify, before and/or during treatment • patients who are most likely to benefit from the corresponding
medicinal productor
• patients likely to be at increased risk of serious adverse reactions as a result of treatment with the corresponding medicinal product
FDA:• in‐vitro companion diagnostic device that provides information essential
for the safe and effective use of a corresponding therapeutic product• complementary diagnostics: test identifying a biomarker‐defined subset
of patients that responds differentially to a drug and aids in the risk/benefit assessment for individual patients
Companion diagnostics (CDx)
N Benda | Companion Diagnostics| 06 November 2017 | Page 3/42
Upcoming EMA regulation
N Benda | Companion Diagnostics| 06 November 2017 | Page 4/42
EMA regulation
N Benda | Companion Diagnostics| 06 November 2017 | Page 5/42
EMA regulation
N Benda | Companion Diagnostics| 06 November 2017 | Page 6/42
EMA regulation
N Benda | Companion Diagnostics| 06 November 2017 | Page 7/42
FDA regulation
N Benda | Companion Diagnostics| 06 November 2017 | Page 8/42
• companion diagnostics:• diagnostic medical device• requires conformity assessment by notified bodies• defines population to be treated
• investigational therapeutic product • new pharmaceutical product• requires approval by medicines agency
• to be effective and safe in a well defined population• co‐development of companion diagnostics and new medicine
• new biomarker + companion diagnostics to determine patients to be treated
or• new diagnostics (“generic” or “me‐too” ) for known biomarker
Companion diagnostics and regulation
N Benda | Companion Diagnostics| 06 November 2017 | Page 9/42
Companion diagnostics used as a• prognostic biomarker
• identify patients with good/bad prognosis• patients with unfavorable predicted outcome expected to
potentially profit from new treatment
• predictive biomarker• identify patients that benefit differentially to a drug
• patients with larger expected treatment difference to control• patients with less drug related side effects
Companion diagnostics (CDx) and prognostic/predictive biomarker
N Benda | Companion Diagnostics| 06 November 2017 | Page 10/42
Predictive and prognostic biomarker
BM ‐ BM +
Outcome
Predictive non‐prognostic Biomarker
Active drug Placebo
BM ‐ BM +
Outcome
Predictive and prognostic Biomarker
Active drug Placebo
BM ‐ BM +
Outcome
Non‐predictive non‐prognostic Biomarker
Active drug Placebo
BM ‐ BM +
Outcome
Prognostic non‐predictive Biomarker
Active drug Placebo
N Benda | Companion Diagnostics| 06 November 2017 | Page 11/42
• diagnostic test:• identify diseased patients
• companion diagnostics:• identify patients that profit (differentially) from treatment
• potential relation:• diagnostic test to identify diseased patients with expected
unfavorable outcome (death, tumor progression, etc.) • expected unfavorable outcome (if untreated)
patients considered eligible for treatment • however: no evidence that patients defined by diagnostic test would
benefit from treatment compared to control
Companion vs usual diagnostics
N Benda | Companion Diagnostics| 06 November 2017 | Page 12/42
different conceptions of diagnostic properties• Properties of assay, e.g.
• Sens = Pr( test + | true positive BM status ), etc.• Properties w.r.t. to outcome, e.g.
• Sens = Pr( BM + | unfavorable outcome if untreated )• PPV = Pr( unfavorable outcome if untreated | BM + )
• however: not fully informative w.r.t. predictive biomarker / differential treatment effect
• Properties w.r.t. to differential outcome, e.g.• Sens = Pr( BM + | response under active and no response under
placebo )• however: usually not identifiable
Companion diagnostics: Diagnostic properties
N Benda | Companion Diagnostics| 06 November 2017 | Page 13/42
• Using (genetic) biomarkers to define subgroups of patients with• improved efficacy• improved tolerability• improved benefit/risk
• Stratification according to biomarker defined patient characteristics• stratified medicine = precision medicine
• Biomarker to select patients that are likely to respond to treatment
≠• Biomarker as a surrogate to measure response to treatment
Companion diagnostics and personalized/stratified medicine: Biomarker defined subgroups
N Benda | Companion Diagnostics| 06 November 2017 | Page 14/42
• Unique therapies• e.g. implants using rapid prototyping, (stem) cell therapy• complex /expensive therapies impeding large clinical trials
• Stratification according to specific patient characteristics• e.g. biomarker defined subpopulation
• Individualized regimen• dose adjustment by age/weight/renal function• individual dose titration• etc.
Personalized/individualized/stratified medicine
N Benda | Companion Diagnostics| 06 November 2017 | Page 15/42
• Cetuximab• treatment of colorectal cancer in patients with wild‐type K‐ras
mutation• Trastuzumab
• treatment of HER‐2‐positive breast cancer• Gefitinib
• treatment of NSCLC in patients with EGFR mutation
Stratified therapies: Examples
N Benda | Companion Diagnostics| 06 November 2017 | Page 16/42
• Example: Gefitinib (IRESSA)• IPASS Study: Gefitinib vs Paclitaxel
• progression‐free survival (PFS)• BM+: HR = 0.482, 95% ci (0.362; 0.642)• BM‐: HR = 2.853 , 95% ci (2.048; 3.975)
• overall response rate (ORR)• BM+: OR = 2.751, 95% ci (1.646; 4.596)• BM‐: OR = 0.036, 95% ci (0.005; 0.273)
• overall survival (OS)• BM+: HR = 0.776, 95% ci (0.500; 1.202)• BM‐: HR = 1.384 , 95% ci (0.915; 2.092)
Stratified therapies
N Benda | Companion Diagnostics| 06 November 2017 | Page 17/42
• Conventional development:• looking for a safe and effective treatment in a given
population/indication• Stratified medicine
• looking for a treatment and a population where this treatment is safe and effective
• given a broader population: • looking for a subgroup in which benefit is more favorable
than in the complementary group= Looking for positive treatment x subgroup interaction= Looking for a treatment and a predictive biomarker
• Development: Exploration and confirmation
Biomarker used for stratified therapies
N Benda | Companion Diagnostics| 06 November 2017 | Page 18/42
1. empirical investigation of evidence on subgroup effects 2. comparing exploratory statistical methods for subgroup identification 3. method assessment based on regulatory criteria4. method development
• modelling between‐study heterogeneity 5. assessment of regulatory consequences of between‐study heterogeneity6. combining exploratory and confirmatory subgroup identification in
clinical development• using adaptive enrichment designs and basket trials.
7. updated comprehensive biomarker classification 8. systematic assessment of European SmPCs and the FDA drug labels
Research project on biomarker defined populationsUniversity Medical Centre Göttingen – BfArM (2016 ‐ 2019)
N Benda | Companion Diagnostics| 06 November 2017 | Page 19/42
• Looking for most promising interaction• predictive biomarker (BM)• inconsistency between subgroups
• in‐vitro / clinical randomize‐all studies• Positive interaction re.
• efficacy• tolerability
• Questions/issues• optimized strategy may consider multiple biomarkers• repeatability of the diagnostic tool / adjudication process• interaction may relate to a surrogate endpoint• relevant interaction size• positive interaction in efficacy but negative interaction in
tolerability?
Stratified therapies: Exploration
N Benda | Companion Diagnostics| 06 November 2017 | Page 20/42
• Treatment x subgroup interaction• implies treatment x subject interaction
• treatment effect varies across subject• may be difficult to verify w/o within‐subject comparison/cross‐over• interaction tests w.r.t. subgroups often lack power
• S. Senn (Mastering variation: variance components and personalised medicine, SiM 2015): • “Thus, I am not claiming that elements of individual response can hardly
ever be identified. I am claiming that the effort necessary, whether in design or analysis, is rarely made .. “
• “In short, the business of personalising medicine is likely to be difficult. We already know that it has turned out to be much more difficult than many thought it would be.”
Stratified therapies
N Benda | Companion Diagnostics| 06 November 2017 | Page 21/42
Differentiate Setting 1 Setting 2
Any subject‐by‐treatment interaction?
pA=0.9pC=0.5
pA=0.9pC=0.5
pA=0.9pC=0.5
pA=0.9pC=0.5
pA=0.9pC=0.5
pA=0.9pC=0.7
pA=0.9pC=0.7
pA=0.7pC=0.5
pA=0.7pC=0.5
pA=0.9pC=0.7
pA=0.9pC=0.5
pA=0.7pC=0.5
pA=0.7pC=0.7
pA=0.7pC=0.7
pA=0.7pC=0.7
pA=0.7pC=0.7pA=0.7
pC=0.7
pA=0.7pC=0.7
Subpopulation 1
Subpopulation 2
pA=0.9pC=0.7
pA=0.9pC=0.7
pA=0.7pC=0.5
pA=0.7pC=0.5
pA=0.9pC=0.7
pA=0.7pC=0.5
individual subjects
responseC= 0observingresponseA= 1
N Benda | Companion Diagnostics| 06 November 2017 | Page 22/42
Or ?Setting 3
Any subject‐by‐treatment interaction?
pA=0.9pC=0.5
pA=0.7pC=0.7
Subpopulation 1
Subpopulation 2
e.g.50% always respond to A and C40% always respond to A10% always respond to none
population
• between subject variability • vs
• within subject variability
N Benda | Companion Diagnostics| 06 November 2017 | Page 23/42
ObserveSetting 1
Any subject‐by‐treatment interaction?
pA=0.9
pC=0.5
pA=0.7
pC=0.7
Subpopulation 1
Subpopulation 2
covariate(biomarker) < c
biomarker > c
lots of biomarker options:chance finding ?
N Benda | Companion Diagnostics| 06 November 2017 | Page 24/42
• Regulatory requirement• confirm efficacy in subgroup (BM+) in an independent Phase III
trial with proper type‐1 error control• show positive benefit risk in BM+• plausibility for a reduced efficacy in BM ̶
• Study design options• study in BM+ only
• (some) other data in BM ̶ needed• stratification in BM+ and BM ̶• adaptive design that decides at interim for BM+ or all
Stratified therapies: Confirmation
N Benda | Companion Diagnostics| 06 November 2017 | Page 25/42
Stratified therapies: Confirmation, what confirmation?
N Benda | Companion Diagnostics| 06 November 2017 | Page 26/42
Study in BM + only• Issues
• population size• information on BM ̶
• Population size• weaker requirements depending on medical need
• increased model assumptions / type‐1 error• Information on BM ̶
• usefulness of the biomarker• justification to exclude BM ̶
• usually no confirmatory proof of effect irrelevance in BM ̶
Stratified therapies: Confirmation
N Benda | Companion Diagnostics| 06 November 2017 | Page 27/42
Adaptive design to decide on BM+ • Interim analysis to decide on subgroup or all
• fully pre‐specified BM subgroup• two null hypotheses
• no effect in all• no effect in BM +
• multiplicity adjustment required• p‐value combination test allows for free decision rule
• decision rule may use external information• Bayesian rules could be applied (e.g. Brannath et al SiM 2009)
• some information on BM ̶ generated• usefulness of the biomarker
Stratified therapies: Confirmation
N Benda | Companion Diagnostics| 06 November 2017 | Page 28/42
Possible adaptive designs• Predefined subgroup to be decided on at interim• no subgroup definition or refinement at interim to limit the number of hypotheses to
be tested
• use of all data with adequate multiplicity adjustment
• Adaptive signature design • adjust for full population vs (any) subpopulation
• if full population is unsuccessful • use first stage to define subpopulation
• use second stage to confirm
• Biomarker adaptive threshold design• Adjust for full population vs biomarker defined subpopulation with any threshold b of
biomarker score B
• If full population is unsuccessful
• use resampling methods to analyse Z* = max{Z(b)} for test statistic Z
Stratified therapies: Confirmation
N Benda | Companion Diagnostics| 06 November 2017 | Page 29/42
Stratified design BM + and BM ‐• Full information on different effect sizes
• usefulness of biomarker tested• exclusion or inclusion of BM – justified
• Borrowing strength from BM –• safety may be concluded from total population
• biological plausibility required• efficacy may be extrapolated based on covariates
• but difficult to justify when fundamental difference assumed
Stratified therapies: Confirmation
N Benda | Companion Diagnostics| 06 November 2017 | Page 30/42
• Internal consistency• assessing homogeneity or heterogeneity
• evaluating interaction subgroup x treatment• Predefined confirmatory subgroup analysis
• designed to assess efficacy in subgroup• Exclusion of subgroups in successful trials
• optimizing the study population
Role of subgroups in pivotal trials in general
N Benda | Companion Diagnostics| 06 November 2017 | Page 31/42
• Assessment of interaction / different effect sizes• interaction test less informative
• lack of power• scale dependency
• in general, descriptive assessment
scale dependency:• equal treatment effects on risk difference means different
effect sizes on odds ratios and vice versa• decision on multiplicative or additive model may not be well
justified
Stratified therapies: Issues
N Benda | Companion Diagnostics| 06 November 2017 | Page 32/42
Predictive BM w.r.t. to odds ratio but not w.r.t. risk difference:
Predictive and prognostic biomarker: Scale dependency
Subgroup Response probability (placebo)
Response probability (verum)
Risk difference Odds ratio
BM ‐ 0.50 0.65 0.15 1.86
BM + 0.75 0.90 0.15 3.00
N Benda | Companion Diagnostics| 06 November 2017 | Page 33/42
Issues in stratified design• Potential selection bias of treatment effect
• when deciding on BM+ or all• adaptive design alleviates selection bias
• Success in BM+ but no clear interaction• exclusion of BM ‐may not be informative and may be challenged• proof of irrelevance in BM – would require large sample sizes
Stratified therapies: Issues
N Benda | Companion Diagnostics| 06 November 2017 | Page 34/42
• Approval related to (CDx, drug) pair• change in CDx influences benefit‐risk in selected patients• change in CDx may change subgroup‐by‐treatment interaction
• changing “usefulness”• Approval related to evaluated effect/risk in selected patients only
• similar drugs with same effects may be approved in different patients due to different development strategies• e.g. NSCLC
• Pembrolizumab approved in PD‐L1 + patients• Nivolumab approved in all
• active drug comparisons may require evaluation of overall benefit in full population• comparison of treatment strategies ?
• (drug A in BM + and SoC in BM –) vs. (drug B in all)
Companion diagnostics: Issues
N Benda | Companion Diagnostics| 06 November 2017 | Page 35/42
• Average effect in BM + and BM ‐• cut‐off determines
• effect size in BM – and BM +• subgroup‐by‐treatment interaction
BM cut‐off
outcome
BM distribution biomarker
cut‐off
active
placebo
N Benda | Companion Diagnostics| 06 November 2017 | Page 36/42
• new diagnostics: effects may change• larger measurement error
larger measurement error variance ‐ smaller interaction / benefit
BM cut‐off
outcome
BM distribution biomarker
cut‐off
active
placebo
N Benda | Companion Diagnostics| 06 November 2017 | Page 37/42
• Biomarker/CDx defined subgroups Stratified therapies • main focus of the current discussion• based on predictive biomarkers• requires the identification of relevant interaction
(biomarker/subgroup‐by‐therapy interaction)• repeatability of the adjudication process paramount• may not be restricted to one biomarker only
• discrimination procedures related to multiple biomarkers could be optimized
Summary (1)
N Benda | Companion Diagnostics| 06 November 2017 | Page 38/42
• Promise of stratified therapies depends on• size of the interaction• further restriction appears less promising
• residual variability limits the precision of precision medicine• In general more evidence required to support selection
• generally weak evidence on the usefulness of the selection• blurred by different sources of variability
• Confirmatory strategies based on• pivotal study in subgroup only• adaptive design to decide on subgroup or all• stratified design
• borrowing information from BM– to be further justified• e.g. similar safety profile ?
Summary (2)
N Benda | Companion Diagnostics| 06 November 2017 | Page 39/42
• Companion diagnostics (CDx) to identify biomarker related subgroups• co‐development (CDx, drug)• approval related to benefit‐risk in BM+ determined by CDx
• change in CDx may change benefit‐risk• lack of evaluation in the overall population according to the
treatment strategy • separate approvals of CDx as a medical device and drug
• common regulatory strategies required
Summary (3)