WO2010015273A2 - Opportunity sector analysis tool - Google Patents
Opportunity sector analysis tool Download PDFInfo
- Publication number
- WO2010015273A2 WO2010015273A2 PCT/EP2008/010183 EP2008010183W WO2010015273A2 WO 2010015273 A2 WO2010015273 A2 WO 2010015273A2 EP 2008010183 W EP2008010183 W EP 2008010183W WO 2010015273 A2 WO2010015273 A2 WO 2010015273A2
- Authority
- WO
- WIPO (PCT)
- Prior art keywords
- compound
- compounds
- sweet spot
- study
- sector
- Prior art date
Links
Classifications
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G16—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATION FIELDS
- G16B—BIOINFORMATICS, i.e. INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR GENETIC OR PROTEIN-RELATED DATA PROCESSING IN COMPUTATIONAL MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
- G16B40/00—ICT specially adapted for biostatistics; ICT specially adapted for bioinformatics-related machine learning or data mining, e.g. knowledge discovery or pattern finding
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G06—COMPUTING; CALCULATING OR COUNTING
- G06Q—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES; SYSTEMS OR METHODS SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR ADMINISTRATIVE, COMMERCIAL, FINANCIAL, MANAGERIAL OR SUPERVISORY PURPOSES, NOT OTHERWISE PROVIDED FOR
- G06Q30/00—Commerce
-
- G—PHYSICS
- G16—INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR SPECIFIC APPLICATION FIELDS
- G16B—BIOINFORMATICS, i.e. INFORMATION AND COMMUNICATION TECHNOLOGY [ICT] SPECIALLY ADAPTED FOR GENETIC OR PROTEIN-RELATED DATA PROCESSING IN COMPUTATIONAL MOLECULAR BIOLOGY
- G16B45/00—ICT specially adapted for bioinformatics-related data visualisation, e.g. displaying of maps or networks
Definitions
- the second aspect of the invention provides a method for obtaining a ranking of compounds suitable for use in an intended pharmaceutical application.
- the present invention refers to a method for evaluating, comparing and selecting entities over a broad variety of technical fields.
- the entities are pharmaceutical drugs.
- the presented patent application can be used to better identify the optimal combination of characteristics of compounds or entities for a particular market need.
- a typical problem in research and development of a compound is to find the optimal benefit/risk ratio in context of the targeted market: If a compound is efficacious, i.e. if it has a positive biological impact on an organism, these positive effects typically are accompanied by undesired sequels, i.e. side effects. Normally efficacy and side effects stand to each other in a proportional relationship: With increased efficacy, side effects (safety) quantitatively and qualitatively increase as well.
- the presented patent application is suited to identify the optimal side effect ("safety”) / efficiency (“efficacy”) ratio of a compound. Additional aspects including a certain dosage or mode of application in context of a given indication and market situation may be included in the assessment.
- the present invention may help to extrapolate ("translate") the data obtained in animal models into the situation in man: For example, the results obtained in toxicological and efficacy models in animals may be translated into safety/efficacy in man.
- a given market situation is assessed based on other entities characterizing compounds which are already in the respective market. Based on the known risk/benefit ratios of those established entities (e.g. approved drugs) an "Opportunity Sector Analysis" may be performed. Additional analysis may be performed for subgroups of entities, e.g. by different development phase, patient sub-groups (timelines, costs, revenue, patient sub-groups), safety sub-groups (e.g. infections, immunosuppression), efficacy sub-groups (e.g. clinical endpoints, surrogate markers).
- patient sub-groups timelines, costs, revenue, patient sub-groups
- safety sub-groups e.g. infections, immunosuppression
- efficacy sub-groups e.g. clinical endpoints, surrogate markers.
- a given market situation may be assessed based on a so-called “realistic corridor analysis”.
- the "realistic corridor analysis” is based on a regression analysis including characteristics of a set or sub-set of compounds or entities, e.g. side effects and efficacy of compounds in a certain disease. This leads to a calculated value describing the interrelations of two or more characteristics (e.g. side effects and efficacy) for the entire population (e.g. the disease in which the compounds are used).
- One object underlying the present invention is to overcome the disadvantages of these prior art methods and provide an improved means for comparing and selecting pharmaceutical compounds or drugs.
- Another object underlying the present invention is to increase "safety” and/or “efficacy" of pharmaceutical drug candidates.
- Scientific aspects may cover pharmacokinetics (the effect of the body on the compound), pharmacodynamics (e.g. the effect of the drug on the body), toxicological, physical or chemical properties of a compound.
- Another object underlying the present invention is to minimize costs in pharmaceutical drug discovery and development.
- Another object underlying the present invention is to provide a universal means which assists in comparing and selecting most promising entities from a collective of candidate entities.
- Another object underlying the present invention is to provide a universal means which accerates comparing and selecting most promising entities from a collective of candidate entities.
- a method for comparing and evaluating one or more candidate compounds comprising: a) Constructing and displaying a Cartesian xy-coordinate-system, b) Accessing a dataset of a number of compounds stored in a dataset, which dataset comprises the class of compounds and two values x and y assigned to each compound, wherein x is a first Evidence Level, and y is a second Evidence Level, c) Using the data of b) for placing data points into the Cartesian coordinate-system, wherein for each compound of the dataset and its assigned x and y values of the database a point P(x/y) is obtained and displayed; d) Using the points P obtained in c) in order to determine and display d1) the point with the maximum x value and the point with the minimum x value, 62) the point with the maximum y value and the point with the minimum y value, and to draw two straight lines in parallel to the X- axis through the points obtained in d1) and two straight lines in parallel to the X-
- the "promising rectangle” obtained in d) the "sweet spot” obtained in e)
- the “sweet spot circle” obtained in f) in order to determine and display the "sweet spot circle sector" in the coordinate-system, that is the area obtained by determining the sector of the "sweet spot circle", which is limited by two straight lines drawn through the "sweet spot” and the point of the compound with the maximum x value and the point of the compound with the maximum y value and by limiting the obtained sector to the area which lies within the "promising rectangle".
- the evidence level may be the evidence level EL or the comparator adjusted evidence level CA-EL or the Value Adjusted Evidence Level VA-EL.
- a method for comparing and evaluating a candidate in a class of compounds or entities comprising: a) Placing a data point for a number of compounds into a Cartesian coordinate- system xy, wherein x and y are Evidence Levels, each data point represents a point P(Xp/y p ) in the coordinate system, and each x p and each y p is an Evidence Level of a compound P of the number of compounds; b) Defining a "promising rectangle in the coordinate-system; c) Defining a "sweet spot” in the coordinate-system; d) Defining a "sweet spot circle” in the coordinate-system; e) Optionally defining a "sweet spot circle sector” in the coordinate-system; f) Defining an "opportunity sector” in the coordinate-system; g) Placing the data point for the candidate compound into the coordinate-system, h) Evaluate the candidate compound by identifying its position relative to "prom
- the evidence level may be the evidence level EL or the comparator adjusted evidence level CA-EL or the Value Adjusted Evidence Level VA-EL.
- a data carrier comprising a programme for performing the method of 1.
- the second aspect of the invention provides a method for obtaining a ranking of compounds suitable for use in an intended pharmaceutical application.
- the method comprises the steps a) to I) below:
- step d) optionally introducing a weighing factor CA 1 which is multiplied with the RR value of a compound in order to obtain a ..Comparator Adjusted Relative Rank", CA-RR, wherein CA of each compound is the formerly calculated Summarized Evidence Level (EL sum ) of the compound in comparison to which the RR value is determined, wherein step d) is reiterated and in reiterated step d) CA-RR replaces the RR for each compound of one study in comparison to each other compound along each endpoint in the same study and steps e) to g are reiterated in order to determine Summarized Comparator Adjusted EL (CA-EL sum ), which is obtained by performing steps e) to g) upon replacing RR by CA-RR, i) ranking all compounds along the values EL sum orCA-EL SU m k) determining the best compound for the indented pharmaceutical application, which is the compound with the best value EL sum orCA-EL sum .
- CA-EL sum Summarized Comparator Adjust
- compound in the second aspect of the invention may be used synonymously with the term “study arm”, since it may be the case that only one compound is used per study arm. Entities other than compounds are equally possible to evaluate with the methodology.
- endpoints is used synonymously with the term “parameters”, since in a medical setting an endpoint is a parameter that is being assessed. Depending on the chosen entity any other endpoint may be used (e.g. side effects, pharmacokinetic measures).
- the EL and the CA-EL allow the ranking of compounds or entities regarding their safety, efficacy or any other specific outcome.
- the EL and CA-EL are obtained by comparison of data related to the compound or entity.
- m Compounds are evaluated in o studies. Studies may compare compounds tested separately in study arms based on the outcome measured by endpoints. Upon collecting the data from the studies (step a)), every compound in a study is assigned to a value of a endpoint (endpoint) measured in this study (step b)).
- step b) for every study all endpoints are assigned or plotted against all compounds in this study.
- endpoint / study arm may provide tuples (i.e. a pair of values) of (endpoint / study arm) and combine any endpoint with any compound in a study. In this manner every compound is assigned to any endpoint in a study.
- step c) a ranking is introduced by comparison of the compounds for each endpoint of a study separately.
- step d) the "Relative Rank" (RR) is calculated based on the Absolute Rank (AR).
- AR Absolute Rank
- Step e) is particularly important for studies including more than two compounds in order to assess the quantity of superiority.
- step f) the ..Evidence Level" (EL) is calculated.
- the EL is a normalized EP score.
- the EP will be divided by Factor A, i.e. the product of the number of "compounds in a study minus 1" and the number of endpoints in a study. Thus a ratio of the superior number to the total number of comparisons will be obtained. The result is a percentage 0-100%.
- step g) for each compound its "overall EL value (EL sum )" over all studies is determined.
- the EL sum values obtained allow for the comparison of the different compounds over all available data, i.e. in the present case the data derived from the three different studies.
- a weight factor may be introduced (step h)) to adequately reflect the magnitude of superiority of a compound over a comparator compound (e.g. superiority of a compound over placebo will not be weighted as much as superiority over an active treatment).
- the invention covers two main aspects:
- a first step compounds are assessed and compared with each other.
- the compounds may be characterized by quantitative measures and subsequently mapped utilizing different coordinate systems depending on the application (e.g. for geological applications with polar or spherical coordinate systems, for display of risk/ benefit ratios with a Cartesian coordinate system, multidimensional coordinate systems may be applied).
- Each of the different evaluation steps may be flexibly combined with each other, for example: first the VA-EL and then the CA-EL can be performed or first the EL and then the CA-EL.
- CA-EL Comparator Adjusted Evidence Level
- the CA-EL allows weighting the results obtained by pair-wise comparison according to the EL of the compactor. To obtain this weighting factor the Evidence Level (EL) for the comparators is accessed across all studies they were tested in (for more details, see Example 2 of PCT/EP2008/006480).
- VA-EL Value Adjusted Evidence Level
- the VA-EL does include one additional factor as described in the following.
- VA-EL The reason to obtain the VA-EL is that the magnitude of superiority of a compound in a pair-wise comparison may be supportive to achieve an adequate positioning of compounds to each other.
- the VA-EL allows weighting the results obtained from pair-wise comparison according to extend of the superiority of a compound in comparison to the comparator.
- the optimal outcome of the endpoint will be defined. This may be any reference point or range depending on the nature of the endpoint (e.g. mean, median, maximum or minimum of a range). This is called the 'reference value 1 (RV).
- RV 'reference value 1
- Study arms 1 and 2 are compared with each other.
- the Relative Value Difference is calculated as a measure to assess the magnitude of difference between the two study arms (SA1 and SA2) in relation to the reference value (RV).
- step e) and step f) of international application PCT/EP2008/006480 (“second aspect of the invention") the following steps are introduced.
- the former steps a) to e) remain unchanged.
- RVD RVD, max ((Cl Ep - RV Ep ); (C2 Ep - RV Bp )) ( C1 )
- step e2) The EP for C1 as obtained by "Patent 1, second aspect of the invention, step e)" is multiplied by the RVD (C i) resulting in the VAEP (C i)
- step f3 To determine the VAEL for C1 the following step is performed in analogy to "Patent 1 , second aspect of the invention, step f)".
- step f) of PCT/EP2008/006480 the EL will be replace by the VAEL thus leading to the calculation of the VAELsum in step g).
- VA-EL Value adjusted evidence level
- VA-EP Value adjusted evidence point
- RVD Relative Value Difference
- the coordinates of the centre of the circle ( ⁇ M ,y M ) ("sweet spot") is defined by the medians of the evidence levels ⁇ of all products as , W y M — tviea ⁇ an ⁇ r all proJucls )
- the coordinates of the launched product E are ( ⁇ E ,y E ) with information level r E greater than a predefined limit r ⁇ and maximum efficacy evidence level ⁇ ficacy of all launched products are
- the coordinates of the launched product T are ( ⁇ ⁇ ,y ⁇ ) with information level r ⁇ greater than a predefined limit r ⁇ and maximum Safety Evidence Level.
- ⁇ j ⁇ ty of all launched products are
- I x , l y , I r , I ⁇ 2 , I ⁇ , m ' be indicator functions as defined below
- the regression model may be based on the entire population (e.g. of compounds) or sub-sets.
- the regression curve may then be shifted parallel to the original regression curve to a predefined minimum or maximum point in the coordinate system, e.g. defined by an approved compound with minimal or maximal safety or efficacy.
- Two lines parallel to the original regression line are the result defining an area which is called the "realistic corridor”. This area is further limited by the limits of the "promising quadrate (please also refer to figure 2f)).
- Figure 1a demonstrates the area of the "opportunity rectangle” and the “sweet spot circle sector” which are both hatched.
- Figure 1 b demonstrates the hatched area of the "sweet spot circle sector”.
- Figure 1c shows the area of the opportunity sector minus the area of the "sweet spot circle sector”.
- Figure 2a displays the Efficacy Evidence Level (EL) of a compound (Y-axis), and the Safety EL (X-axis). Compounds are positioned in the Cartesian coordinate system, accordingly.
- Figure 2b shows four straight lines forming the "promising rectangle" (each in parallel to the X- and Y- axis): Their position equals the compound with the lowest "X-value", the lowest "Y-value", the maximally achievable Y-value, and the maximally achievable X- value.
- Figure 2c) shows the median of the X- or Y-values of all approved compounds. The intersection of the two lines representing the median safety and efficacy is called the "sweet spot". The sweet spot is the centre of a large "sweet spot circle”. Large sweet spot circle means, that the underlying circle has a relatively large radius due to the position of the underlying compound location in the coordinate system.
- Figure 2d depicts a part of a large "sweet spot circle", a so-called “sweet spot circle sector”.
- the left/upper and the right/lower limit of the "sweet spot circle sector” are defined by the compounds within the underlying "sweet spot circle” with the "best safety” or "best efficacy”.
- Figure 2e displays an "opportunity sector" which is part of a larger “sweet spot circle sector”.
- the "opportunity sector is part of the "sweet spot circle sector” and closest towards the point of "ideal” Y/X ratio (highest “X measure” and “Y measure”: 1/1 ratio) and not including other compounds at the same time, therefore indicating a market niche
- Figure 2f shows a "realistic corridor” which is the area between two curves drawn parallel to the regression curve calculated from the X- and Y-values of the compounds.
- the compounds which mark the limits of the realistic corridor in addition to the "promising quadrate” are indicated, too. Please note: For this example not all compounds are shown which have been used for the calculation of the regression curve.
- Figure 2g shows a small “sweet spot circle sector” (i.e. the underlying "sweet spot circle” has a relatively small radius) as an example for "sweet spot circles” with smaller diameter.
- Figure 3a shows the Safety and Efficacy Evidence Levels for 10 compounds which have already been launched for Indication I. Each dot represents one compound with a particular dosage and mode of application (e.g. intravenous application, oral application).
- a particular dosage and mode of application e.g. intravenous application, oral application.
- Figure 3b demonstrates the safety / efficacy ratio of the 3 dosages of compound A in comparison to ten competitors.
- Figure 3c demonstrates the "promising rectangle" for this evaluation.
- Compound 2 and 8 which represent the highest possible Safety and Efficacy Evidence Levels of already launched compounds define the limits of the "promising rectangle”.
- Figure 3d shows the "sweet spot” and a sector of one corresponding "sweet spot circle".
- the "sweet spot” represents the “optimal” benefit / safety ratio in the market for the treatment of Indication I and is defined by the crossing of the straight lines of the "Median Safety Evidence Level” and the “Median Efficacy Evidence Level”.
- the sweet spot serves as the centre of "sweet spot circles”.
- Figure 3e demonstrates the "opportunity sector” which is limited by (i) “Sweet spot circle sector”, (ii) Compound 5 (no other compound has better safety) and (iii) Compound 6 (no other compound has better efficacy). This is the so-called “opportunity sector” where no other Competitor is located.
- Figure 3f demonstrates the main locations with the coordinate system as exemplified by the three different dosages of Compound A:
- Figure 4a shows all launched products (black) and not-launched compounds (grey) for an autoimmune disease.
- the Y-axis displays the efficacy Evidence Level (EL) of a compound
- the X-axis the respective safety EL.
- the size of the circles depends on the number of endpoints that have been tested for a compound (the bigger the size of the circle the more endpoints have been evaluated to calculate the Evidence Level).
- Figure 4b shows the "promising rectangle". The lower and the left limit are marked by the compounds with the lowest Efficacy and Safety Evidence Level, respectively.
- Figure 4c shows a large "sweet spot circle sector".
- the radius is defined by the launched compound Alpha 40.
- the limits of the "sweet spot circle sector” are built by the launched compounds with most efficacy and most safety covered by the respective sweet spot circle.
- Figure 4d demonstrates the "opportunity sector”:
- the "opportunity sector” defines an area being closest towards the point of an "ideal" benefit / risk ratio (highest possible efficacy evidence level and highest possible safety evidence level: 1/1 ratio) which does not cover other compounds at the same time (not-launched compounds are not considered in this analysis).
- Figure 4e shows a "realistic corridor" which is the area between two curves drawn parallel to the regression curve calculated from the Safety and Efficacy Evidence Values of the compounds already launched in the autoimmune disease under evaluation.
- Sigma 0,6mg marks the left limit
- Phi 0,2 marks the right limit of the - and Y-values of the compounds.
- the "realistic corridor" is marked by the limits of the "promising quadrate”.
- a "target” is a structure (such as a protein or nucleic acid) within an organism (including viruses, animals, plants, fungi, bacteria) whose activity can be modified by an external stimulus.
- compound is used for (1) any substance used for diagnostic, therapeutic and prophylactic purposes consisting out of natural or synthetically produced and where applicable (pharmaceutically) specifically manufactured active ingredients.
- the term is also used for the combination of two or more compounds or the composition of ingredients. Additionally, various characteristics of the compounds, combination of compounds or ingredients of the compounds may be investigated. Such characteristics may include physical (melting point, ultraviolet absorption, ...), chemical (molecular weight, solubility, ..) or biological features (Target, Pathway, Mode of Action, PK/PD).
- the term compound is used for (2) suture material, disinfectants, diagnostics and several assistive medical devices, e.g. pacemaker and contact lenses.
- efficacy is the therapeutic effect of a drug on a disease or an affected subject and “safety” refers to the side effects of the drug on the organism.
- a compound covers all substances or measure (e.g. surgical approaches) which may impact on a biological function in vivo and in vitro.
- a compound may be a therapeutic protein (comprising artificial and/or natural amino adds), a therapeutic nuclear acid (preferably DNA, RNA, Peptide Nucleic Acid (PNAI) etc), or a so-called small molecules (preferably an organic molecule or anorganic molecule). Also mixtures of compounds are contemplated.
- Compounds are sometimes also referred to as "active agents”.
- Compounds may be characterized by their mode of administration. Two compounds may be distinct compounds in the sense of the present application, if they are to be administered in a different mode.
- the mode of administration may be characterized by the dose, amount or concentration of the compound or by the route of administration, e.g. oral, nasal, buccal, parenteral, intravenous, enteral, or by different concentrations of compound or therapeutic schedule of the compound, etc.
- the described invention may be used for other applications not evaluating compounds but other entities.
- the term compound will be used synonymously.
- An "entity” is something that has a, separate existence, preferably a material existence. Examples of entities contemplated in the present invention cover a broad range of various products / services from different industries.
- Besides pharmaceutical compounds also products from agriculture (e.g. fruits, vegetables), forestry (e.g. trees), fishing (fishes, seafood), mining (copper, iron) quarrying (e.g. marble, granite), electrical equipment, electricity, gas (e.g. natural gas), construction (buildings, bridges) or fabricated metal products, motor vehicles, motorcycles, electronic or optical products are contemplated.
- Services may comprise services in the field of trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles, financial and insurance activities, professional, scientific or technical activities (legal and accounting activities; etc). Entities may replace compounds throughout the methods of the present invention.
- a category is defined as a class of entities of a particular hierarchic level.
- a candidate compound or entity can be compared with other compounds or entities.
- compounds or entities can be ranked or arranged along a metric scale:
- compound benchmarks are particular qualities, which are assignable to a compound.
- a network is a set of items, which we will call vertices or sometimes nodes, with connections between them, called edges"; (Newman, 2003)].
- nodes within a network are any putative combination of two or more of the following terms (for the compound under evaluation and the comparator compounds and for the target indication and related indications): Compound, Target, Pathway, mode of action (in case of compounds), patho-mechanism (in case of diseases), efficacy, safety, study design (incl. timelines, study population, baseline characteristics, endpoints, biomarkers, costs)
- the Evidence Level (EL), the Value Adjusted Evidence Level (VA-EL) and the Comparator Adjusted Evidence Level (CA-EL) allow the ranking of compounds or entities regarding their safety, efficacy or any other specific outcome.
- the EL and CA-EL are obtained by comparison of data related to the compound or entity.
- mean is defined as the arithmetic mean (and is distinguished from the geometric mean or harmonic mean) and as the "expected value of a random variable, which is also called the population mean". It may be applied in form of the different subtypes of mean (e.g. arithmetic mean, harmonic mean, generalized means, weighted arithmetic mean)
- the present invention provides a variety of aspects, which are summarized below.
- the methods or uses of the present invention enable to address various questions in different industry sectors related to the question of predicting success and failure of a compound.
- the data utilized to address a question are collected, categorized, ranked and evaluated. This includes the compound to be evaluated and those it shall be compared.
- pharmaceutical refers in a first aspect to pharmacy or to drugs and in a second aspect to a medicinal drug.
- Manufacture of rubber and plastic products comprise: Manufacture of rubber and plastic products; manufacture of other non-metallic mineral products; manufacture of basic metals, manufacture of fabricated metal products, except machinery and equipment; manufacture of computer, electronic and optical products; manufacture of electrical equipment; manufacture of machinery and equipment; manufacture of motor vehicles, trailers and semi-trailers; manufacture of other transport equipment; manufacture of furniture, repair and installation of machinery and equipment, and other manufacturing)
- G Wholesale and retail trade; repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles (wholesale and retail trade and repair of motor vehicles and motorcycles; wholesale trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcycles; retail trade, except of motor vehicles and motorcycles)
- H - Transportation and storage (land transport and transport via pipelines; water transport; air transport; warehousing and support activities for transportation; postal and courier activities)
- J - Information and communication publishing activities; motion picture, video and television programme production, sound recording and music publishing activities; programming and broadcasting activities; telecommunications; computer programming, consultancy and related activities; information service activities)
- K - Financial and insurance activities financial service activities, except insurance and pension funding; insurance, reinsurance and pension funding, except compulsory social security; activities auxiliary to financial service and insurance activities
- N Administrative and support service activities (rental and leasing activities, employment activities; travel agency, tour operator, reservation service and related activities; security and investigation activities; services to buildings and landscape activities; office administrative, office support and other business support activities)
- each analysis will be divided into two parts: Firstly, a subset of the data may be used as training set to generate the hypothesis. Secondly, this hypothesis will be confirmed with the complementary data part, the validation set.
- Bayesian and Frequentist mathematical approaches may be applied.
- a method for determining whether a compound has an improved benefit / risk ratio (or particular characteristics related to benefit or risk) compared to other members in a class of compounds or entities.
- improved risk/ benefit ratio means: better safety / efficacy ratio, less toxic effects with same efficacy, better strategic fit in the commercial environment. The comparison is enabled through the position in the coordinate system:
- a “sweet spot circle sector” The angle of the respective sector defines the location within the coordinate system with a market opportunity for future compounds.
- a method is provided for determining the best candidate in a class of compounds or entities.
- the "Opportunity Sector Analysis” allows comparing this particular compound with other compounds regarding many different characteristics and therefore enables to identify the best compound among others with regards to a particular market opportunity. The comparison is enabled through the position in the coordinate system:
- a method for improving chances to select the best candidate in a class of compounds or entities.
- the "Opportunity Sector Analysis” improves the probability to identify the best candidate in a class of compounds or entities with regards to a particular market need (for example a particular benefit/ risk ratio in combination with a certain mode of administration, e.g. intravenous vs. oral administration).
- a method for testing pharmaceutical compounds or compositions.
- Safety and efficacy represent "umbrella terms" under which different features of safety and efficacy may be summarized. Therefore, the method may be used to identify the combination of certain strengths and weaknesses of a compound or combinations with regards to a particular market need.
- a method is provided of selecting a pharmaceutical treatment.
- the method may help to identify the most suitable procedure to treat or cure a patient with the best risk / benefit relationship.
- a method is provided of selecting a pharmaceutical treatment for a patient suffering from a disease, disorder or condition.
- the method may be used to identify the best treatment or cure for a particular individual.
- the individual patient may be identified using different methods (e.g. genetic markers and other markers indicative for beneficial or harmful features of a compound) for personalized (i.e. individualized) medicine.
- a method is provided of performing a clinical trial. The method may be used to simulate, prepare or support clinical trials and therefore to test a compound.
- the method is suited to identify the benefit / risk ratio of pharmaceutical compounds which impacts on the clinical trial design (e.g. regarding number of patients in a particular phase of a clinical trial, duration of treatment) based on the data collected for compounds with comparable, superior, inferior characteristics.
- a method is provided of a more or less balanced risk / benefit ratio of a clinical trial or a therapy to succeed. This is achieved by looking at "sweet spot circles" with larger or smaller radius which may help e.g. to determine the consequences of reducing the efficacy with respect to the safety of a compound (for example by dose adaptation). Therefore, this method is suited to optimize the benefit/ risk ratio of a compound.
- the method may help to optimise the safety features of a compound for treating patients or animals or in in vitro tests.
- Safety and efficacy represent "umbrella terms" under which different features of safety and efficacy may be summarized. Therefore, the method may be used to identify the combination of certain strengths and weaknesses of a compound or combinations
- a method is provided of reducing risks of a clinical trial.
- the method may help to identify those hazards of a particular compound which are linked to the specific beneficial features of a compound (immunosuppression achieved by pharmaceutical compounds is wanted after transplantation; at the same time immunosuppression may lead to unwanted infections).
- the method therefore may help to reduce the risk of side effects of a compound in patients or animals or in in vitro tests.
- a method is provided of increasing safety of a clinical trial or a therapy.
- the method may help to identify special safety issues of a particular compound which may be linked to beneficial features of a compound and therefore may help to reduce the risk of a compound in patients or animals or in in vitro tests.
- a method is provided of identifying the grade of benefit / risk ratio of a compound. The method helps to characterize both novel and known aspects of target(s) (and their related pathways) and mode of action of a particular compound.
- a method is provided of treatment of a patient or a disease. The method helps to identify the optimal treatment for a particular patient or a disease.
- a method is provided of producing a pharmaceutical composition.
- the method may be used to identify the best compound for a pharmaceutical composition and therefore form as an essential part of the process when producing a pharmaceutical composition.
- the pharmaceutical composition may also comprise a combination of two or several compounds obtained with the "Opportunity Sector Analysis" of the present invention.
- a method is provided of identifying new treatment concepts and treatment algorithms (the squeal of different treatments) for a particular disease.
- the method may be used to identify new or other relevant disease mechanisms to be targeted by new or existing compounds or entities, leading to new treatment concepts of patients or diseases of animals.
- All of these methods above may comprise one or more of the steps a) to g) of the method of the first aspect of the present invention (Opportunity Sector Analysis").
- the invention displays comprehensive information in a way that it can be more easily processed and is therefore assessable for decision making.
- the invention may be used as procedure to simulate the behaviour of a compound or an entity. d) Use of system for determining the best candidate for achieving an intended goal in a class of compounds or entities.
- a method for comparing different compounds, which may be suitable for the treatment of diseases, for comparing different targets, for comparing different mode of action, different biomedical information, such as pharmacokinetic parameters, molecular properties, etc..
- not compounds but different patients groups may be compared with each other to identify optimal patients for an intended study purpose.
- a method is provided for identifying optimal characteristics of study animals.
- a method for comparing endpoints or biomarkers regarding their sensitivity and specificity (instead of compounds) with each other.
- a method for forecasting future trends in the pharmaceutical market depending on different features of the disease, study type or compound under evaluation.
- a method for identifying a particular class of compounds covering certain biological features of compounds (e.g. targets, pathways, or mode of action) with regards to success or failure in particular market sectors.
- a method for identifying a particular class of studies with regards to success or failure in particular market sectors.
- a method for identifying a particular class of compound covering certain technical features (e.g. molecular weight, solubility) with regards to success or failure in particular market sectors.
- Compound I has to be assessed for the treatment of multiple sclerosis.
- endpoint i i.e. endpoints of clinical trials
- Study results may represent different values (e.g.), of a measured endpoint (e.g. (7) of the patient population which participated in the particular study arm.
- endpoints are used (i.e. mean values of respective endpoints measured in a collective of patients in the study).
- a reference value (RV) is introduced which describes the best possible result for each endpoint (typically the value of a healthy person).
- CVD Compound specific Value Difference
- the obtained CVD has to be divided by the Maximum Value Difference (MVD) which is the highest absolute difference of either Compound I or Compound Il to the RV.
- MMD Maximum Value Difference
- RVD Relative Value Difference
- VA-EP Value Adjusted Evidence Point
- VA-EP Since only superiority will be acknowledged, a negative VA-EP is not calculated; please also refer to international application PCT/EP2008/006480).
- straight lines parallel to the X- and Y-axis may be drawn through every point in the Cartesian coordinate system, defined e.g. by a compound with a efficacy or safety level in a particular disease or a related diseases or certain scientific or regulatory requirements.
- two additional straight lines parallel to the Y- and X-axis are drawn representing the median of the X- or Y-values of the approved compounds (figure 2c)).
- the position of these additional lines may be defined in different ways: Depending on the nature of the data means, medians or other calculations may be used. Also other subsets of compounds may be assessed.
- the resulting lines "median of Y" and “median of X” provide a point of reference in order to assess the necessary and relevant efficacy and safety level of a pharmaceutical compound in a given market.
- a market may be defined according to indications (e.g. multiple sclerosis, rheumatoid arthritis), combinations of those or other areas of application.
- the intersection of the two lines representing the median safety and efficacy is called the "sweet spot”. This is a reference point providing the optimal risk/benefit ratio for the assessed compounds of a given market.
- the sweet spot is the centre for geometric figures, preferably ellipses or circles which are called “sweet spot circles” (figure 2c)).
- the sweet spot can be every point in the Cartesian coordinate system, defined e.g. by a compound with an efficacy or safety level in a particular disease or a related diseases or certain scientific or regulatory requirements.
- sweet spot circle sectors describe an area that includes a reasonable and realistically achievable risk/benefit ratio of a compound.
- the upper/left limit of the "sweet spot circle sector” is defined by an approved compound with the highest efficacy and the lower/right limit is defined by an approved compound with the highest safety (figure 2d)).
- the left/upper and the right/lower limit of the "sweet spot circle sector” are defined by the compounds within the underlying "sweet spot circle” with the "best safety” or "best efficacy”.
- the upper/left limit and lower/right limit of the "sweet spot circle sector” may be defined by every point in the Cartesian coordinate system, defined e.g. by any compound or virtual point laying within the "sweet spot circle”.
- the point determining the radius of the sweet spot circle may be each point within the Cartesian coordinate system. However, typically the point is defined by a compound with a particular safety/efficacy ratio.
- the upper and the lower border of the "sweet spot circle sector” are then defined by the compounds within the "sweet spot circle” with the best efficacy or safety, respectively.
- the radius of the "sweet spot circle” is defined by the largest distance from the sweet spot to the point in the coordinate system of either highest x value (safety) or highest y value (efficacy).
- the "sweet spot circle sector” is obtained by determining the sector of the “sweet spot circle”, which is limited by two straight lines drawn through the "sweet spot” and the point of the compound with the highest x value (safety) and the point of the compound with the highest y value (efficacy) covered by the respective "sweet spot circle”, and by limiting the obtained sector to the area within the "promising rectangle".
- the left/upper and the right/lower limit of the "sweet spot circle sector” are defined by the compounds within the underlying "sweet spot circle” with the "best safety” or "best efficacy”.
- sweet spot circle sectors may be understood as an approximation toward an area covering an exact image of a reasonable and realistic risk/benefit profile.
- this area geometrically (e.g. ellipses) are employable as well.
- the opportunity sector defines an area being the closest towards the point of the ideal and not including other compounds at the same time.
- the "ideal" risk/benefit ratio is located in the upper/right corner (highest possible efficacy and safety evidence level, i.e. maximal efficacy/safety ratio: 1.0/1.0).
- the point of ideal may be located in other areas of the Cartesian coordinate system (e.g. lower / left corner).
- the radius is chosen as defined by the sweet spot circle sector.
- the opportunity sector represents an area of high market potential for future compounds and still being within a realistic reach as defined by the radius.
- the limits of the "opportunity sector” are defined by compounds which are already marketed. However, in general each of the limits may be defined by other compounds (e.g. expected to reach the market soon) or any virtual point within the Cartesian system (e.g. derived from market research).
- the limit of the "opportunity sector” may be the result of the combination of different geometric figures (e.g. an ellipse and two straight lines two or more circles).
- indications may be analyzed and may be compared with other indications based e.g. on the respective sweet spot.
- Figure 2f shows a "realistic corridor” which is the area between two curves drawn parallel to the regression curve calculated from the X- and Y-values of selected compounds (e.g. those which have been approved). The compounds which mark the limits of the realistic corridor in addition to the "promising quadrate” are indicated, too. Please note: For this example not all compounds are shown which have been used for the calculation of the regression curve
- the approach of the present invention can be used to optimize the development plan. Even the preparation of a pharmacovigilance plan and analysis of safety data can be supported. Furthermore, the obtained data can be used for marketing purposes and for licensing activities, investment decisions (investors, analysts), technological developments (early detection of new methodologies applied, supporting technology suppliers/supply chain companies to plan capacities and own developments in this area).
- Compound A has to be developed in the indication I.
- Compound A has already shown promising safety and efficacy data in a phase Il dose finding study in indication I at three dosages (10mg, 50mg, and 100mg). With the help of the presented patent application the best dosage for the current market situation has to be identified.
- Competitor 2 is the compound with the lowest Safety Evidence Level. Competitor 2 therefore marks the left limit of the promising rectangle (figure 3c)).
- Competitor 8 is the compound with the lowest Efficacy Evidence Level. Competitor 8 therefore marks the lower limit of the promising rectangle.
- the resulting rectangle defines the "promising rectangle”.
- the "sweet spot” represents the “optimal” benefit / safety ratio in the market for the treatment of Indication I.
- the radius of the "sweet spot circle sector” is based on the position of Competitor 1 which has the largest distance to the sweet spot and also serves for the upper/left limit of the sector.
- the upper/left limit of the sector is defined by Competitor 1
- the lower/right limit of the "sweet spot circle” of the “sweet spot circle” is marked by Competitor 10.
- the "sweet spot circle sector” is additionally limited by the limits of the "promising rectangle” since in this particular case the compound should not be worse than the lowest Safety or Efficacy Evidence Level.
- Competitor 5 marks the lower limit of the "Sweet spot circle sector” (no other compound has better safety) and Compound 6 the upper limit of the "Sweet spot circle sector” (no other compound has better efficacy).
- This sector represents a region within the "Sweet spot circle” where no other Competitor is located. This is the so-called "opportunity sector”. New compounds which fill in this sector are of particular market interests (figure 3e)).
- the tree different dosages of Compound A are located in the principally possible locations within the coordinate system (figure 3f)):
- Example 4 Proof of Concept - "Opportunity Sector Analysis" for a compound targeting an autoimmune disease
- the "sweet spot circle sector” is drawn.
- the diameter of the biggest sweet spot circle is defined by the launched compound which lies on the sweet circle with the largest diameter (compound with the highest efficacy or with the highest safety).
- the limits of the sweet spot circle sector are defined by the launched compounds with highest efficacy or safety (s. figure 4c).
- the opportunity sector is drawn as part of the "sweet spot circle sector". As described above the opportunity sector defines an area being the closest towards the ideal point and not including other compounds at the same time. Only launched compounds have been considered for the analysis.
- the "realistic corridor” reflects the interrelationship of Safety and Efficacy of a given disease.
- the “realistic corridor” is the area between two curves drawn parallel to the regression curve calculated from the Safety and Efficacy Evidence Levels of the compounds already launched (here in the automimmune disease under evaluation). Sigma 0,6mg marks the left limit and Phi 0,2 marks the right limit of the X- and Y-values of the compounds.
- the "realistic corridor” is marked by the limits of the "promising quadrate”.
- a Compound X for the treatment of flu has to be provided.
- each study arm only one compound was used. Thus the result of one study arm can be directly attributed to one particular compound (or a particular compound at a given dose). To obtain an analysis per one particular compound (at the same dose) multiple study arms will be combined in the analysis. Therefore, a comparison of different compounds is possible.
- the data of clinical trials are considered to be the raw data for the further analyses.
- Study results may represent different values (e.g. mean, median, absolute numbers), of a measured endpoint (e.g. temperature, leukocyte count,%) of the patient population which participated in the particular study arm.
- endpoints are used (i.e. mean values of respective endpoints measured in a collective of patients in the study).
- each study its study arms may be compared with each other.
- only one compound is considered to be used in one study arm (i.e. the name of the study arm equals the name of the compound used) but also combination treatments in one study arm are possible to assess.
- comparing of the endpoints of the study arms is performed by using a medically relevant evaluation of the endpoints.
- the results leading to a better or worse rank of the study arm are predefined.
- endpoints which indicate normality, e.g. body temperature between 36.3° and 37.4 0 C is considered to be normal. If a study arm is tested for the treatment of flu, a study arm with a lower endpoint of body temperature shall be ranked better than a study arm with higher endpoint of body temperature (this type of ranking is shown below in this example). However, if a study arm would be tested for the treatment of hypothermia a higher body temperature might indicate better efficacy and therefore be ranked better than a lower body temperature.
- an optimized value can be defined as a Temperature T which may be better than other Temperatures higher or lower in comparison thereto.
- RR ..Relative Rank
- the superior RR values are summed up over all endpoints to so-called ..Evidence Points" (EP).
- EP ..Evidence Points
- the EL and the El sum values obtained for each study allow for the comparison of the different compounds over all available data, i.e. in the present case the data derived from the three different studies.
- the RR of one compound i.e. the first compound in the comparison
- the RR will be multiplied with the formerly calculated evidence level EL of the second compound to obtain a so-called ..Comparator Adjusted Relative Rank"(CA-RR) of the first compound.
- the quantitatively calculated EL SUm to assess the relation (i.e. superiority or inferiority with regard to its effects) of compounds will be supplemented by a factor taking the evidence level of the compounds into account with which a compound under evaluation is compared with.
- CA-EL ..Comparator Adjusted Evidence Levels
- CA-EL SU m Summarized Comparator Adjusted EL
- the summarized Evidence Level (EL sum ) across all studies delivers the following ranking: Compound Y, Compound X 10mg, Compound X 5mg, Standard Therapy A, Placebo.
- the ranking is slightly different, if the summarized Comparator Adjusted Evidence Level (CA-EU um ) is performed: Compound Y, Compound X 10mg, Compound X 5mg, Placebo, Standard therapy.
Landscapes
- Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
- Engineering & Computer Science (AREA)
- Medical Informatics (AREA)
- Life Sciences & Earth Sciences (AREA)
- Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
- Theoretical Computer Science (AREA)
- Software Systems (AREA)
- Bioinformatics & Cheminformatics (AREA)
- Spectroscopy & Molecular Physics (AREA)
- General Health & Medical Sciences (AREA)
- Evolutionary Biology (AREA)
- Biotechnology (AREA)
- Bioinformatics & Computational Biology (AREA)
- Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
- Artificial Intelligence (AREA)
- Bioethics (AREA)
- Biophysics (AREA)
- Computer Vision & Pattern Recognition (AREA)
- Data Mining & Analysis (AREA)
- Databases & Information Systems (AREA)
- Epidemiology (AREA)
- Evolutionary Computation (AREA)
- Public Health (AREA)
- Accounting & Taxation (AREA)
- Development Economics (AREA)
- Strategic Management (AREA)
- Economics (AREA)
- Finance (AREA)
- Marketing (AREA)
- General Physics & Mathematics (AREA)
- General Business, Economics & Management (AREA)
- Information Retrieval, Db Structures And Fs Structures Therefor (AREA)
- Plural Heterocyclic Compounds (AREA)
Description
Claims
Priority Applications (4)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
EP08875054A EP2332083A1 (en) | 2008-08-06 | 2008-12-01 | Opportunity sector analysis tool |
CA2733131A CA2733131A1 (en) | 2008-08-06 | 2008-12-01 | Opportunity sector analysis tool |
US13/057,859 US20110196620A1 (en) | 2008-08-06 | 2008-12-01 | Opportunity sector analysis tool |
AU2008360209A AU2008360209A1 (en) | 2008-08-06 | 2008-12-01 | Opportunity sector analysis tool |
Applications Claiming Priority (2)
Application Number | Priority Date | Filing Date | Title |
---|---|---|---|
PCT/EP2008/006480 WO2009019009A2 (en) | 2007-08-06 | 2008-08-06 | Method for the evaluation and selection of pharmaceutical compounds |
EPPCT/EP2008/006480 | 2008-08-06 |
Publications (1)
Publication Number | Publication Date |
---|---|
WO2010015273A2 true WO2010015273A2 (en) | 2010-02-11 |
Family
ID=40340566
Family Applications (1)
Application Number | Title | Priority Date | Filing Date |
---|---|---|---|
PCT/EP2008/010183 WO2010015273A2 (en) | 2008-08-06 | 2008-12-01 | Opportunity sector analysis tool |
Country Status (3)
Country | Link |
---|---|
AU (1) | AU2008360209A1 (en) |
CA (1) | CA2733131A1 (en) |
WO (1) | WO2010015273A2 (en) |
Cited By (1)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US11806265B2 (en) | 2008-11-19 | 2023-11-07 | Spirox, Inc. | Apparatus and methods for correcting nasal valve collapse |
-
2008
- 2008-12-01 WO PCT/EP2008/010183 patent/WO2010015273A2/en active Application Filing
- 2008-12-01 AU AU2008360209A patent/AU2008360209A1/en not_active Abandoned
- 2008-12-01 CA CA2733131A patent/CA2733131A1/en not_active Abandoned
Cited By (1)
Publication number | Priority date | Publication date | Assignee | Title |
---|---|---|---|---|
US11806265B2 (en) | 2008-11-19 | 2023-11-07 | Spirox, Inc. | Apparatus and methods for correcting nasal valve collapse |
Also Published As
Publication number | Publication date |
---|---|
CA2733131A1 (en) | 2010-02-11 |
AU2008360209A1 (en) | 2010-02-11 |
Similar Documents
Publication | Publication Date | Title |
---|---|---|
Thomas | Methods for investigating gene-environment interactions in candidate pathway and genome-wide association studies | |
Dahabreh et al. | Do observational studies using propensity score methods agree with randomized trials? A systematic comparison of studies on acute coronary syndromes | |
CN105431853B (en) | The society research database and method of phenotypic integration | |
Cohen et al. | Clinical and economic challenges facing pharmacogenomics | |
US7427480B2 (en) | Life sciences business systems and methods | |
Passaro et al. | Genomic characterization of concurrent alterations in Non-Small Cell Lung Cancer (NSCLC) harboring actionable mutations | |
Wang et al. | Global screening of potential Candida albicans biofilm-related transcription factors via network comparison | |
CN109074428A (en) | The computer implemented drug safety for group is assessed | |
Lai et al. | Evaluating risk for alcohol use disorder: Polygenic risk scores and family history | |
Mickiewicz et al. | Higher Responsiveness to Rosuvastatin in Polygenic versus Monogenic Hypercholesterolemia: A Propensity Score Analysis | |
Salinas et al. | A prediction model for preoperative risk assessment in endometrial cancer utilizing clinical and molecular variables | |
Zakharova et al. | Reclassification of TCGA diffuse glioma profiles linked to transcriptomic, epigenetic, genomic and clinical data, according to the 2021 WHO CNS tumor classification | |
Pfeffer et al. | Genetic variants of glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase and their associated enzyme activity: a systematic review and meta-analysis | |
Fang et al. | Web-based tools for mining the NCI databases for anticancer drug discovery | |
Baptiste et al. | Making sense of genetic information: The promising evolution of clinical stratification and precision oncology using machine learning | |
Bakshi et al. | A polygenic risk score predicts incident prostate cancer risk in older men but does not select for clinically significant disease | |
Lv et al. | Computational models, databases and tools for antibiotic combinations | |
Baughan et al. | K3326X and other C-terminal BRCA2 variants implicated in hereditary cancer syndromes: a review | |
US20110196620A1 (en) | Opportunity sector analysis tool | |
Al-Dewik et al. | Making biomarkers relevant to healthcare innovation and precision medicine | |
Luo et al. | Comprehensive allele genotyping in critical pharmacogenes reduces residual clinical risk in diverse populations | |
Karatza et al. | Machine learning‐guided covariate selection for time‐to‐event models developed from a small sample of real‐world patients receiving bevacizumab treatment | |
WO2010015273A2 (en) | Opportunity sector analysis tool | |
Firfirey et al. | Polymorphisms in COMT and OPRM1 Collectively Contribute to Chronic Shoulder Pain and Disability in South African Breast Cancer Survivors’ | |
Zheng et al. | 3DNALandscapes: a database for exploring the conformational features of DNA |
Legal Events
Date | Code | Title | Description |
---|---|---|---|
121 | Ep: the epo has been informed by wipo that ep was designated in this application |
Ref document number: 08875054 Country of ref document: EP Kind code of ref document: A2 |
|
ENP | Entry into the national phase |
Ref document number: 2733131 Country of ref document: CA |
|
NENP | Non-entry into the national phase |
Ref country code: DE |
|
WWE | Wipo information: entry into national phase |
Ref document number: 2008875054 Country of ref document: EP |
|
WWE | Wipo information: entry into national phase |
Ref document number: 2008360209 Country of ref document: AU |
|
ENP | Entry into the national phase |
Ref document number: 2008360209 Country of ref document: AU Date of ref document: 20081201 Kind code of ref document: A |
|
WWE | Wipo information: entry into national phase |
Ref document number: 13057859 Country of ref document: US |