1. Efficient Design and Analysis of
Combination Experiments to Improve
Early Stage Clinical Development
Hong-Bin Fang, Ph.D.
Division of Biostatistics
University of Maryland Greenebaum Cancer Center
and Department of Epidemiology and Preventive Medicine
Baltimore, MD 21201, USA
Email: hfang@som.umaryland.edu
•First •Prev •Next •Last •Go Back •Full Screen •Close •Quit
3. Outline
• Introduction
• Existing Methods for Combination Study Design
• Maximal Power Experimental Design
• Existing Analysis Methods for Synergy
• Statistical Analysis of Interaction Index
• Conclusion and Further Research
•First •Prev •Next •Last •Go Back •Full Screen •Close •Quit
4. Introduction: Combination Therapy
• Reduce the frequency of acquired resistance
• Achieve greater efficacy with lower doses and reduced toxicity
• Achieve enhanced potency (or sensitization) exploring synergistic ac-
tivities
• Provide a firmer basis for potential clinical trials
Joint action is divided into three types:
1. Independent joint action
2. Simple similar (additive) action
3. Synergistic/antagonistic action
Refs.: Berenbaum MC. (1989). Pharmacological Reviews 41: 93-141.
Greco WR, et al. (1995). Pharmacological Reviews 47, 331-385.
Fitzgerald et al.(2006). Nature Chemical Biology 2, 458 - 466
•First •Prev •Next •Last •Go Back •Full Screen •Close •Quit
5. Interaction Index
To assess the interaction of two drugs at the combination of (xA, xB ),
Berenbaum (1977) defined an interaction index (τ ),
xA xB
τ= +
XA XB
XA and XB are the doses of drugs A and B that when administered alone
yield the same effect as does the combination (xA, xB ).
• τ = 1, A and B are additive at (xA, xB );
Loewe Independence (Additivity)
• τ < 1, A and B are synergistic at (xA, xB );
• τ > 1, A and B are antagonistic at (xA, xB ).
Refs.: Berenbaum MC. (1977). Clin. Exp. Immunol. 28: 1-18.
Berenbaum MC. (1989). Pharmacological Reviews 41: 93-141.
•First •Prev •Next •Last •Go Back •Full Screen •Close •Quit
6. Bliss Independence (Additivity)
• The joint effect of inhibitors A and B is the product of the effect of
each
EAB = EA ∗ EB
• Assumption: Inhibitors can bind simultaneously and mutually nonex-
clusively through distinct mechanism
•First •Prev •Next •Last •Go Back •Full Screen •Close •Quit
7. Fitzgerald et al. Nature 2006
•First •Prev •Next •Last •Go Back •Full Screen •Close •Quit
8. Statistical Approaches for Design
• Statistical (instead of mechanistic) evaluation is very valuable in
clinical trials because it is impractical for a measure of success (such
as synergism between two drugs) to change with every biochemical
advance.
• Variation: the administration of precisely the same dose to aliquots
(or virtually genetically identical animals) may result in different levels
of dose effect.
• Sample Size: how many samples are needed, namely, how to identify
doses in the combinations and how many replicates at each combina-
tion and how to analyze the data produced
•First •Prev •Next •Last •Go Back •Full Screen •Close •Quit
9. Current Methods of Design
• Equal regression lines (Finney, 1971)
• An optimal design by fixing the total dose for
specific models (Abdelbasit and Plackett, 1982)
• Fixed ratio/ray design (Tallarida et al., 1992)
• Checkerboard (Lattice) design (Martinez-Irujo et
al., 1996)
• A D-optimal design for in vitro combination
studies in linear models (Greco et al., 1995) but
n too large
Refs.: Finney DJ (1971). Probit Analysis. Cambridge University Press.
Abdelbasit KM, Plackett RL (1982). Biometrics 38, 171-179.
Greco WR, et al. (1995). Pharmcological Reviews 47, 331-385.
Martinez-Irujo, et al.(1997). Biochemical Pharmacology 51, 635-644.
Tallarida RJ, et al.(1997). Life Science 61, 417-425.
•First •Prev •Next •Last •Go Back •Full Screen •Close •Quit
10. Fixed Ratio/Ray Design
• Assume that two drugs are synergistic, additive or antagonistic for all
doses of a fixed ratio;
• Suboptimal dose allocations result in false synergistic combinations or
miss an apparent interaction at a particular combination;
• Statistical power to detect additivity is undermined substantially.
•First •Prev •Next •Last •Go Back •Full Screen •Close •Quit
11. Maximal Power Design
Statistical Model
Single dose effect: y = fA(XA), y = fB (XB )
−1
Potency of B relative to A: ρ(XB ) = fA fB (XB )/XB
The joint model at the combination x is assumed
y = fA(xA + ρ(XB )xB ) + g(xA, xB ) + ε
• g(xA, xB ) = 0, A and B are additive at x;
• g(xA, xB ) > 0, A and B are synergistic at x;
• g(xA, xB ) < 0, A and B are antagonistic at x.
Experimental design is based on testing the additive
action of drugs A and B H0 : g = 0 versus H1 :
g = 0.
•First •Prev •Next •Last •Go Back •Full Screen •Close •Quit
12. Statistical Inference
After transformation, the additive model
y = fA(xA + ρ(XB )xB ) = (or ≈)g(z1) + g(z2)
(i) (i)
Let z(i) = (z1 , z2 )T , i = 1, 2, . . . , m,
y = (y11, · · · , y1k , · · · , ymk )T ,
(i) (i)
Z: m × 2 matrix, its ith row: (g1(z1 ), g2(z2 ))
Then, under H0,
yT (J − V )y/(m − 2)
F = T ∼ Fm−2,m(k−1)
y (I − J)y/(mk − m)
where U = I 1 k , V = U Z(Z T U T U Z)−1Z T U T , J = U (U T U )−1U T
•First •Prev •Next •Last •Go Back •Full Screen •Close •Quit
13. Statistical Inference
If z(1), . . . , z(m) are uniformly scattered in S, under
H1, the F statistic has a noncentral F -distribution
with degrees of freedom m − 2 and m(k − 1) and
the noncentrality parameter,
mk
δ= 2 g 2(z)dz,
σ S
is maximized. Thus, the power for detecting de-
partures from additivity of two drugs is maximized
when m mixtures z(1), . . . , z(m) are uniformly scat-
tered in S.
Refs.: Wiens (1991). Statistics & Probability Letters, 12: 217-221.
Tan et al.(2003). Statistics in Medicine, 22: 2091-221.
•First •Prev •Next •Last •Go Back •Full Screen •Close •Quit
14. Sample Size Determination
Given the type I error rate: α, power: 1 − β
the smallest meaningful difference: η
the measurement variation: σ 2
the sample sizes can be obtained from the noncen-
tral F -distribution function,
∞
e−δ/2(δ/2)k (m − 2)x
P (F ≤ x) = P Fm−2+2k,n−m ≤ ,
k! m − 2 + 2k
k=0
δ = nη 2/σ 2.
•First •Prev •Next •Last •Go Back •Full Screen •Close •Quit
15. Sample Size Calculation
α = 0.05, 1 − β = 0.8,
d = η 2/σ 2 # of Replications n0
1 2 3 4 5 6
d = 0.1 − − 139(556) 87(435) 61(366) 46(322)
d = 0.2 − 78(234) 42(168) 27(135) 19(114) 14(98)
d = 0.3 107(214) 40(120) 21(84) 14(70) 10(60) 7(49)
d = 0.4 68(136) 25(75) 14(56) 9(45) 3(18) 3 (21)
d = 0.5 48(96) 18(54) 10(40) 6(30) 3(18) 3(21)
d = 0.8 24(48) 9(27) 4(16) 3(15) 3(18) 3(21)
d=1 18(36) 6(18) 3(12) 3(15) 3(18) 3(21)
•First •Prev •Next •Last •Go Back •Full Screen •Close •Quit
16. Experimental Design I
The sample sizes are based on the F-test to detect
departures from additive action with 80% power at
a significance level of 0.05
• Choose the dose range of significance: e.g., ED20-
ED80 (based on pharmacology)
• Choose the meaningful difference in the dose-
effect outcome to be detected: η
• Choose the number of replicates at each combi-
nation
• The variance is estimated based on the pooled
variations from the two single drug experiments.
•First •Prev •Next •Last •Go Back •Full Screen •Close •Quit
17. Experimental Design II
• The additive model depends on the individual
dose-response;
• Different individual dose-responses result in dif-
ferent experimental designs;
We have considered three classes of drugs classified
by the shape of individual dose-response curves:
• both log-linear;
• both linear;
• linear + log-linear.
•First •Prev •Next •Last •Go Back •Full Screen •Close •Quit
18. Log-linear + Log-linear
Let the dose-response of drugs A and B be
y(xA) = αA+βA log xA, y(xB ) = αB +βB log xB
The potency ρ of B relative to A is
βB /βA−1
ρ(xB ) = ρ0xB , ρ0 = exp[(αB − αA)/βA].
The additive model at combination (xA, xB ):
y(xA, xB ) = αA + βA log(xA + ρxB )
(βB −βA)/βA
ρ = ρ0 ρ−1x A + xB .
•First •Prev •Next •Last •Go Back •Full Screen •Close •Quit
19. Log-linear + Log-linear
Ray Design: Using lattice points undermines the power to detect the
additivity;
Maximum Power Design: Using uniformly scattered points achieves
maximum power to detect departures from additivity.
•First •Prev •Next •Last •Go Back •Full Screen •Close •Quit
20. Results of Simulation Studies
Number of combinations 9 16
Maximum Discrepancy (CL2) 0.003583 0.001190
Power Type I error 0.0501 0.0493
Design Power 0.7949 0.8345
Discrepancy (CL2) 0.022719 0.017986
Ray/Lattice Type I error 0.0532 0.0501
Design Power 0.6540 0.4062
Discrepancy (CL2) average: 0.035943 0.020812
SD: 0.0173668 0.0147279
Monte Type I error average: 0.0503 0.0502
Carlo SD: 0.00311 0.00227
method Power average: 0.5330 0.7439
SD: 0.31456 0.26184
y = 20 log(z1 ) + 70 log(z2 ) + g(z1 , z2 ) + ε, g(z1 , z2 ) = 50(z1 − 2) sin(z1 ) cos(z2 ), ε ∼ N (0, σ 2 ) and
σ 2 = 250.
η 2 = 100, with 10,000 replications
•First •Prev •Next •Last •Go Back •Full Screen •Close •Quit
21. Example: SAHA + Ara-C against K562
y = 43.69 − 10.93 log(S), y is the viability
y = 35.98 − 8.25 log(C)
Shiozawa et al. (2009). CCR. 15:1698-1707
•First •Prev •Next •Last •Go Back •Full Screen •Close •Quit
22. Example: SAHA + Ara-C against K562
Mixtures SAHA and Ara-C for combination experiment
Exper. SAHA Ara-C Exper. SAHA Ara-C
# (µM) (µM) # (µM) (µM)
1 0.706 0.101 7 1.427 3.193
2 3.035 0.099 8 3.402 2.681
3 2.160 2.030 9 1.008 0.924
4 0.635 5.122 10 3.139 0.781
5 0.393 0.727 11 4.524 0.724
6 0.118 2.684
dose range: ED20-ED80; η = 15%(viability); 5 replicates; σ 2 = 804.564
ˆ
•First •Prev •Next •Last •Go Back •Full Screen •Close •Quit
23. Analysis of Synergy
Estimation of the Interaction Index Surface
(i) (i)
yij : the jth response at (xA , xB ),
(i) (i)
With the single dose-response curves, the interaction indexes at (xA , xB )
are
(i) (i)
xA xB
τij = +
exp{(yij − αA)/βA} exp{(yij − αB )/βB }
j = 1, . . . , k, i = 1, . . . , m.
The method of two-dimensional B-splines (thin plate splines) is employed
to estimate the interaction index surface τ = h(xA, xB ),
Ref.: Fang, et al. Stat. Medicine 2008
•First •Prev •Next •Last •Go Back •Full Screen •Close •Quit
24. SAHA: Estimation of relative potency
0.842
The potency of Vorinostat relative to Etoposide is ρ(XB ) = 0.368XB ,
which is non-constant and depends on dose.
The predicted additive model is
y(xA, xB ) = 41.52 − 13.02 log(xA + ψ(xA, xB )xB ),
where ψ(xA, xB ) is determined by ψ(xA, xB ) = 0.368(ψ −1(xA, xB )xA +
xB )0.842.
•First •Prev •Next •Last •Go Back •Full Screen •Close •Quit
25. Example: SAHA + Ara-C against K562
Dose-response surface
Observations: 66(11 combinations with 5 replicates at each combination)
Maximum viability: 82.81%; Minimum viability: 17.72%; Mean: 30.67%;
Standard deviation: 13.40.
Output: F9,55 = 8.14, p-value< 0.0001
•First •Prev •Next •Last •Go Back •Full Screen •Close •Quit
26. Example: SAHA + Ara-C against K562
Interaction Index Surface
•First •Prev •Next •Last •Go Back •Full Screen •Close •Quit
27. Linear + Log-linear
Let
z1 = xA, z2 = βAξ(xA, xB )/[βB ψ(xA, xB )xB ],
then, the additive model becomes
y(xA, xB ) = αA + βAz1 + βB z2.
The m experimental points should be uniformly
scattered in the tetragon,
z1
: a < αA + βAz1 + βB z2 < b, z1 > 0, z2 > 0
z2
for given a and b.
•First •Prev •Next •Last •Go Back •Full Screen •Close •Quit
28. Example: LY-168 with Sorafnib against WM164
y = 111.85 − 9.56xA, y is the viability
y = 101.91 − 31.17xB
•First •Prev •Next •Last •Go Back •Full Screen •Close •Quit
30. Example: LY-168 + Sorafnib against WM164
Dose-response surface
Observations: 133(19 combinations with 6 replicates at each
combination) Maximum viability: 93.58%; Minimum viability: 3.53%;
Mean: 30.45%; Standard deviation: 25.347.
Output: F17,114 = 162.9696, p-value< 0.0001
•First •Prev •Next •Last •Go Back •Full Screen •Close •Quit
31. Example: LY-168 + Sorafnib against WM164
Interaction Index Surface
•First •Prev •Next •Last •Go Back •Full Screen •Close •Quit
32. Follow-up in Early Clinical Stage Trials
Three cases classified by the shape of individual
dose-response curves considered:
• both log-linear (SAHA + Ara-C; Clini-
cal trial ongoing);
• both linear (potentially resurrect a
promising drug combination) ;
• linear + log-linear (In vivo experiment
ongoing).
•First •Prev •Next •Last •Go Back •Full Screen •Close •Quit
33. Conclusion
• Maximal power design produces data efficiently.
It is optimal in that statistical power to detect
departures from additivity is maximized.
• The F test can be used to test departures from
additivity and the thin plate splines to estimate
the interaction index surface effectively with data
generated by the MP design.
• SYNSTAT R package at
www.umgcc.org/research/biostatistics.htm
•First •Prev •Next •Last •Go Back •Full Screen •Close •Quit
34. Acknowledgments
Ming Tan, PhD, UMGCC
Guo-Liang Tian, PhD, University of Hong Kong
Dr. Douglas D. Ross’s Lab, U Maryland School of Medicine
Dr. Wei Li’s Lab, U Tennessee College of Pharmacy
Dr. Pei Feng’s Lab, U Maryland Dental School
Dr. Peter Houghton, St Jude Children’s Research Hospital
•First •Prev •Next •Last •Go Back •Full Screen •Close •Quit