Cytel Blog

This new case study shares how Cytel supported a specialist biopharmaceutical company from Phase 2 trial design through to an FDA submission for their lead product candidate. We assembled an expert multidisclipinary team of data coding specialists, biostatisticians, statistical programmers and medical writers to support a number of the studies in the ongoing program, including pivotal Phase 2b and 3 trials, and the subsequent creation of the Integrated Summary of Safety (ISS) and Integrated Summary of Effectiveness (ISE). 

 Robust go/no-go (GNG) decision-making is essential for effectively managing risk across a clinical portfolio. In early phase development, it is particularly important to have the correct tools in place to terminate ineffective compounds quickly, while accelerating promising ones through the process. 

Challenge

Our client had the following key questions which they wanted our pharmacometrics group to address for an upcoming phase 2 trial of their ulcerative colitis compound .

1) Can knowledge from pre-clinical and Phase 1 data inform on the optimal range of doses for an upcoming Phase 2 dose-ranging study?

2) How may the dose response observed in PD markers in Phase 1 healthy volunteers translate to the patient population?

Our Client's Challenge:

Can knowledge of the relationship between biomarkers and clinical endpoints help us to optimize an early development program and improve the probability of selecting the right dose in Phase 3?

Our client approached us hoping to expedite dose-finding with biomarkers in Phase 1b, and to design an optimal Phase 2b clinical endpoint trial to maximize probability of correct Phase 3 dose selection.

The Journal of the American Medical Association recently published an article entitled ‘The Anatomy of Medical Research: US and International Comparisons.’ The stated objective of the study was to “quantify total public and private investment and personnel (economic inputs) and to evaluate resulting patents, publications, drug and device approvals, and value created (economic outputs)“ [1]

Amongst the many findings of this comprehensive study, a vital observation is the reduction of early phase spending by about 4% per year from 2004 to 2012. One attribution for this decline involves the financial constraints placed upon proof-of-concept trials, particularly when compared to the expected financial benefits of Phase 3 trials and medical devices. According to the authors, “Many new basic discoveries that have probable clinical value are stymied by financial constraints at the critical proof-of-concept stage, where utility in humans is demonstrated.” [1] They add that the number of new discoveries that will be underfunded at the proof-of-concept stage is expected to increase.