Professional development of statisticians in the pharmaceutical sector: evolution over the past decade and into the future

The adoption of The International Conference on Harmonization Tripartite Guideline: Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials (ICH-E9) has provided a foundation for the application of statistical principles in clinical research and raised awareness of the value of a statistical contribution to the wider pharmaceutical R&D process. In addition, over the past decade globalization of the pharmaceutical R&D process and the measures taken to address reduced productivity and spiralling costs have impacted on the roles and career opportunities for statisticians working in the pharmaceutical sector. This has enhanced the need for continuing professional development to equip statisticians with the skills to fully contribute to creating innovative solutions. In the future, key areas of focus are the establishment of professional standards for statistical work and increasing the collaboration between statisticians working in industry, regulatory agencies and academia. In addition, the diversity of roles and potential career paths for statisticians embarking on a career in the pharmaceutical sector emphasizes the importance of mentoring and coaching. For the more experienced statisticians, there are unprecedented opportunities to lead and innovate.     

REGULATORY UPDATES: ICH E14 draft consensus guideline on clinical evaluation of QT/QTc interval prolongation

ICH E14 calls for public comment by epidemiologists and statisticians on the practical implications of thresholds to be used for regulatory decision‐making. Readers involved in QT/QTc assessment in drug development and those with an interest in this area are encouraged to give the topic some thought and to be prepared to engage in public debate on the proposed ICH E14 guidance in late 2004 and early 2005. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.     

The potential for bias in reporting of industry-sponsored clinical trials

Concerns about potentially misleading reporting of pharmaceutical industry research have surfaced many times. The potential for duality (and thereby conflict) of interest is only too clear when you consider the sums of money required for the discovery, development and commercialization of new medicines. As the ability of major, mid-size and small pharmaceutical companies to innovate has waned, as evidenced by the seemingly relentless decline in the numbers of new medicines approved by Food and Drug Administration and European Medicines Agency year-on-year, not only has the cost per new approved medicine risen: so too has the public and media concern about the extent to which the pharmaceutical industry is open and honest about the efficacy, safety and quality of the drugs we manufacture and sell. In 2005 an Editorial in Journal of the American Medical Association made clear that, so great was their concern about misleading reporting of industry-sponsored studies, henceforth no article would be published that was not also guaranteed by independent statistical analysis. We examine the precursors to this Editorial, as well as its immediate and lasting effects for statisticians, for the manner in which statistical analysis is carried out, and for the industry more generally.     

Issues in applying recent CPMP ‘Points to Consider’ and FDA guidance documents with biostatistical implications

The International Conference on Harmonisation guideline ‘Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials’ was adopted by the Committee for Proprietary Medicinal Products (CPMP) in March 1998, and consequently is operational in Europe. Since then more detailed guidance on selected topics has been issued by the CPMP in the form of ‘Points to Consider’ documents. The intent of these was to give guidance particularly to non‐statistical reviewers within regulatory authorities, although of course they also provide a good source of information for pharmaceutical industry statisticians. In addition, the Food and Drug Administration has recently issued a draft guideline on data monitoring committees. In November 2002 a one‐day discussion forum was held in London by Statisticians in the Pharmaceutical Industry (PSI). The aim of the meeting was to discuss how statisticians were responding to some of the issues covered in these new guidelines, and to document consensus views where they existed. The forum was attended by industry, academic and regulatory statisticians. This paper outlines the questions raised, resulting discussions and consensus views reached. It is clear from the guidelines and discussions at the workshop that the statistical analysis strategy must be planned during the design phase of a clinical trial and carefully documented. Once the study is complete the analysis strategy should be thoughtfully executed and the findings reported. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Adjusting overall survival for treatment switches: commonly used methods and practical application

In parallel group trials, long‐term efficacy endpoints may be affected if some patients switch or cross over to the alternative treatment arm prior to the event. In oncology trials, switch to the experimental treatment can occur in the control arm following disease progression and potentially impact overall survival. It may be a clinically relevant question to estimate the efficacy that would have been observed if no patients had switched, for example, to estimate ‘real‐life’ clinical effectiveness for a health technology assessment. Several commonly used statistical methods are available that try to adjust time‐to‐event data to account for treatment switching, ranging from naive exclusion and censoring approaches to more complex inverse probability of censoring weighting and rank‐preserving structural failure time models. These are described, along with their key assumptions, strengths, and limitations. Best practice guidance is provided for both trial design and analysis when switching is anticipated. Available statistical software is summarized, and examples are provided of the application of these methods in health technology assessments of oncology trials. Key considerations include having a clearly articulated rationale and research question and a well‐designed trial with sufficient good quality data collection to enable robust statistical analysis. No analysis method is universally suitable in all situations, and each makes strong untestable assumptions. There is a need for further research into new or improved techniques. This information should aid statisticians and their colleagues to improve the design and analysis of clinical trials where treatment switch is anticipated. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Who wants to be an ICH Euro billionaire?

The ICH E9 guideline on Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials is a pivotal document for statisticians in clinical research in the pharmaceutical industry guiding, as it does, statistical aspects of the planning, conduct and analysis of regulatory clinical trials. New statisticians joining the industry require a thorough and lasting understanding of the 39-page guideline. Given the amount of detail to be covered, traditional (lecture-style) training methods are largely ineffective. Directed reading, perhaps in groups, may be a helpful approach, especially if experienced staff are involved in the discussions. However, as in many training scenarios, exercise-based training is often the most effective approach to learning. In this paper, we describe several variants of a training module in ICH E9 for new statisticians, combining directed reading with a game-based exercise, which have proved to be highly effective and enjoyable for course participants.     

Subgroup analyses in cost‐effectiveness analyses to support health technology assessments

‘Success’ in drug development is bringing to patients a new medicine that has an acceptable benefit–risk profile and that is also cost‐effective. Cost‐effectiveness means that the incremental clinical benefit is deemed worth paying for by a healthcare system, and it has an important role in enabling manufacturers to obtain new medicines to patients as soon as possible following regulatory approval. Subgroup analyses are increasingly being utilised by decision‐makers in the determination of the cost‐effectiveness of new medicines when making recommendations. This paper highlights the statistical considerations when using subgroup analyses to support cost‐effectiveness for a health technology assessment. The key principles recommended for subgroup analyses supporting clinical effectiveness published by Paget et al. are evaluated with respect to subgroup analyses supporting cost‐effectiveness. A health technology assessment case study is included to highlight the importance of subgroup analyses when incorporated into cost‐effectiveness analyses. In summary, we recommend planning subgroup analyses for cost‐effectiveness analyses early in the drug development process and adhering to good statistical principles when using subgroup analyses in this context. In particular, we consider it important to provide transparency in how subgroups are defined, be able to demonstrate the robustness of the subgroup results and be able to quantify the uncertainty in the subgroup analyses of cost‐effectiveness. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Subgroup analyses of clinical effectiveness to support health technology assessments

Subgroup analysis is an integral part of access and reimbursement dossiers, in particular health technology assessment (HTA), and their HTA recommendations are often limited to subpopulations. HTA recommendations for subpopulations are not always clear and without controversies. In this paper, we review several HTA guidelines regarding subgroup analyses. We describe good statistical principles for subgroup analyses of clinical effectiveness to support HTAs and include case examples where HTA recommendations were given to subpopulations only. Unlike regulatory submissions, pharmaceutical statisticians in most companies have had limited involvement in the planning, design and preparation of HTA/payers submissions. We hope to change this by highlighting how pharmaceutical statisticians should contribute to payers' submissions. This includes early engagement in reimbursement strategy discussions to influence the design, analysis and interpretation of phase III randomized clinical trials as well as meta-analyses/network meta-analyses. The focus on this paper is on subgroup analyses relating to clinical effectiveness as we believe this is the first key step of statistical involvement and influence in the preparation of HTA and reimbursement submissions.     

Statistical resource needs to be increased in the European regulatory agencies

The following viewpoint from PSI and EFSPI regarding the current level of statistical resource in the European regulatory agencies was first presented as a position paper to a meeting of the EU Heads of Agencies in July 2009, and was endorsed by EFPIA. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

On estimands and the analysis of adverse events in the presence of varying follow‐up times within the benefit assessment of therapies

The analysis of adverse events (AEs) is a key component in the assessment of a drug's safety profile. Inappropriate analysis methods may result in misleading conclusions about a therapy's safety and consequently its benefit‐risk ratio. The statistical analysis of AEs is complicated by the fact that the follow‐up times can vary between the patients included in a clinical trial. This paper takes as its focus the analysis of AE data in the presence of varying follow‐up times within the benefit assessment of therapeutic interventions. Instead of approaching this issue directly and solely from an analysis point of view, we first discuss what should be estimated in the context of safety data, leading to the concept of estimands. Although the current discussion on estimands is mainly related to efficacy evaluation, the concept is applicable to safety endpoints as well. Within the framework of estimands, we present statistical methods for analysing AEs with the focus being on the time to the occurrence of the first AE of a specific type. We give recommendations which estimators should be used for the estimands described. Furthermore, we state practical implications of the analysis of AEs in clinical trials and give an overview of examples across different indications. We also provide a review of current practices of health technology assessment (HTA) agencies with respect to the evaluation of safety data. Finally, we describe problems with meta‐analyses of AE data and sketch possible solutions.     

Web based resource for Statistical Consultants in the Pharmaceutical Industry

The intention of this article is to highlight sources of web-based reference material and software that will aid consulting statisticians when designing clinical trials. The article includes websites that provide links to explanation of statistical concepts for non-statisticians, regulatory guidelines, and free statistical study design software.     

Viewpoint: observations on scaled average bioequivalence

The two one-sided test procedure (TOST) has been used for average bioequivalence testing since 1992 and is required when marketing new formulations of an approved drug. TOST is known to require comparatively large numbers of subjects to demonstrate bioequivalence for highly variable drugs, defined as those drugs having intra-subject coefficients of variation greater than 30%. However, TOST has been shown to protect public health when multiple generic formulations enter the marketplace following patent expiration. Recently, scaled average bioequivalence (SABE) has been proposed as an alternative statistical analysis procedure for such products by multiple regulatory agencies. SABE testing requires that a three-period partial replicate cross-over or full replicate cross-over design be used. Following a brief summary of SABE analysis methods applied to existing data, we will consider three statistical ramifications of the proposed additional decision rules and the potential impact of implementation of scaled average bioequivalence in the marketplace using simulation. It is found that a constraint being applied is biased, that bias may also result from the common problem of missing data and that the SABE methods allow for much greater changes in exposure when generic-generic switching occurs in the marketplace.     

A proposal for a new PhD level curriculum on quantitative methods for drug development

This paper provides an overview of “Improving Design, Evaluation and Analysis of early drug development Studies” (IDEAS), a European Commission–funded network bringing together leading academic institutions and small‐ to large‐sized pharmaceutical companies to train a cohort of graduate‐level medical statisticians. The network is composed of a diverse mix of public and private sector partners spread across Europe, which will host 14 early‐stage researchers for 36 months. IDEAS training activities are composed of a well‐rounded mixture of specialist methodological components and generic transferable skills. Particular attention is paid to fostering collaborations between researchers and supervisors, which span academia and the private sector. Within this paper, we review existing medical statistics programmes (MSc and PhD) and highlight the training they provide on skills relevant to drug development. Motivated by this review and our experiences with the IDEAS project, we propose a concept for a joint, harmonised European PhD programme to train statisticians in quantitative methods for drug development.     

Statistical aspects in comparative benefit-risk assessment: challenges and opportunities for pharmaceutical statisticians

Benefit-risk assessment is a fundamental element of drug development with the aim to strengthen decision making for the benefit of public health. Appropriate benefit-risk assessment can provide useful information for proactive intervention in health care settings, which could save lives, reduce litigation, improve patient safety and health care outcomes, and furthermore, lower overall health care costs. Recent development in this area presents challenges and opportunities to statisticians in the pharmaceutical industry. We review the development and examine statistical issues in comparative benefit-risk assessment. We argue that a structured benefit-risk assessment should be a multi-disciplinary effort involving experts in clinical science, safety assessment, decision science, health economics, epidemiology and statistics. Well planned and conducted analyses with clear consideration on benefit and risk are critical for appropriate benefit-risk assessment. Pharmaceutical statisticians should extend their knowledge to relevant areas such as pharmaco-epidemiology, decision analysis, modeling, and simulation to play an increasingly important role in comparative benefit-risk assessment.     

Leading beyond regulatory approval: Opportunities for statisticians to optimize evidence generation and impact clinical practice

The role and value of statistical contributions in drug development up to the point of health authority approval are well understood. But health authority approval is only a true ‘win’ if the evidence enables access and adoption into clinical practice. In today's complex and evolving healthcare environment, there is additional strategic evidence generation, communication, and decision support that can benefit from statistical contributions. In this article, we describe the history of medical affairs in the context of drug development, the factors driving post-approval evidence generation needs, and the opportunities for statisticians to optimize evidence generation for stakeholders beyond health authorities in order to ensure that new medicines reach appropriate patients.     

网络技术下统计的变革和统计教育面临的任务

网络经济的发展使现行的统计信息生产方式和统计制度发生深刻变革,使统计人才的知识结构发生重大变化,从而对统计教育的着力点和培养目标、培养方式提出了新的要求。如何培养大量优秀的复合型统计人才,极大地提高统计人员的素质,是统计教育面临的艰巨任务。     

Assessing the impact of ICH E9

The ICH harmonized tripartite guideline 'Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials', more commonly referred to as ICH E9, was adopted by the regulatory bodies of the European Union, Japan and the USA in 1998. This document united related guidance documents on statistical methodology from each of the three ICH regions, and meant that for the first time clear consistent guidance on statistical principles was available to those conducting and reviewing clinical trials. At the 10th anniversary of the guideline's adoption, this paper discusses the influence of ICH E9 by presenting a perspective on how approaches to some aspects of clinical trial design, conduct and analysis have changed in that time in the context of regulatory submissions in the European Union.     

Web‐based resources to assist the statistical analysis and presentation of data

The intention of this article is to highlight sources of web‐based reference material, courses and software that will aid statisticians and researchers. The article includes websites that: assist in writing a protocol or proposal; link to online statistical textbooks; and provide statistical calculators or links to free statistical software and other guidance documents. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Looking Forward into the 1980's: A Personal View of the Problems and Prospects for the Statistical Profession

The paper begins with a discussion of the state of research and development in Australia, and the effect of technological change, and then provides an assessment of consequent Government policy on the funding of research and development and of tertiary educational institutions. This is then related to likely consequences for the statistical profession. Various issues facing the Statistical Society and statisticians in general are discussed. These include public responsibility in the face of scepticism resulting from widespread statistical misrepresentation, employment opportunities for graduates, the relationships between theoreticians and practitioners, and the state of the statistical literature.