IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/nbr/nberwo/21499.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Is the FDA Too Conservative or Too Aggressive?: A Bayesian Decision Analysis of Clinical Trial Design

Author

Listed:
  • Vahid Montazerhodjat
  • Andrew W. Lo

Abstract

Implicit in the drug-approval process is a trade-off between Type I and Type II error. We explore the application of Bayesian decision analysis (BDA) to minimize the expected cost of drug approval, where relative costs are calibrated using U.S. Burden of Disease Study 2010 data. The results for conventional fixed-sample randomized clinical-trial designs suggest that for terminal illnesses with no existing therapies such as pancreatic cancer, the standard threshold of 2.5% is substantially more conservative than the BDA-optimal threshold of 27.9%. However, for relatively less deadly conditions such as prostate cancer, 2.5% is more risk-tolerant or aggressive than the BDA-optimal threshold of 1.2%. We compute BDA-optimal sizes for 25 of the most lethal diseases and show how a BDA-informed approval process can incorporate all stakeholders’ views in a systematic, transparent, internally consistent, and repeatable manner.

Suggested Citation

  • Vahid Montazerhodjat & Andrew W. Lo, 2015. "Is the FDA Too Conservative or Too Aggressive?: A Bayesian Decision Analysis of Clinical Trial Design," NBER Working Papers 21499, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    • Handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:21499
    Note: EH
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: http://www.nber.org/papers/w21499.pdf
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    Other versions of this item:

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Yi Cheng, 2003. "Choosing sample size for a clinical trial using decision analysis," Biometrika, Biometrika Trust, vol. 90(4), pages 923-936, December.
    2. David J. Spiegelhalter & Laurence S. Freedman & Mahesh K. B. Parmar, 1994. "Bayesian Approaches to Randomized Trials," Journal of the Royal Statistical Society Series A, Royal Statistical Society, vol. 157(3), pages 357-387, May.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Donald A. Berry & Scott Berry & Peter Hale & Leah Isakov & Andrew W. Lo & Kien Wei Siah & Chi Heem Wong, 2020. "A Cost/Benefit Analysis of Clinical Trial Designs for COVID-19 Vaccine Candidates," NBER Working Papers 27882, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    2. Raymond J. March, 2021. "The FDA and the COVID‐19: A political economy perspective," Southern Economic Journal, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 87(4), pages 1210-1228, April.
    3. Casey B. Mulligan, 2021. "Peltzman Revisited: Quantifying 21st Century Opportunity Costs of FDA Regulation," NBER Working Papers 29574, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Shomesh Chaudhuri & Andrew W. Lo & Danying Xiao & Qingyang Xu, 2020. "Bayesian Adaptive Clinical Trials for Anti‐Infective Therapeutics during Epidemic Outbreaks," NBER Working Papers 27175, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    5. David J. Hebert & Michael D. Curry, 2022. "Optimal lockdowns," Public Choice, Springer, vol. 193(3), pages 263-274, December.
    6. Erin R. Lipman & John Deke & Mariel M. Finucane, 2022. "Bayesian Interpretation Of Cluster‐Robust Subgroup Impact Estimates: The Best Of Both Worlds," Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 41(4), pages 1204-1224, September.
    7. Guido W. Imbens, 2020. "Potential Outcome and Directed Acyclic Graph Approaches to Causality: Relevance for Empirical Practice in Economics," Journal of Economic Literature, American Economic Association, vol. 58(4), pages 1129-1179, December.
    8. Clancy, Matthew S. & Sneeringer, Stacy E., 2018. "How Much Does it Cost to Induce R&D in Animal Health?," 2018 Annual Meeting, August 5-7, Washington, D.C. 273865, Agricultural and Applied Economics Association.
    9. Steven Glazerman & Ira Nichols-Barrer & Jon Valant & Alyson Burnett, "undated". "Presenting School Choice Information to Parents: An Evidence-Based Guide, Appendix," Mathematica Policy Research Reports d418c5d8768d4ed8ade319330, Mathematica Policy Research.
    10. Thijssen, Jacco J.J. & Bregantini, Daniele, 2017. "Costly sequential experimentation and project valuation with an application to health technology assessment," Journal of Economic Dynamics and Control, Elsevier, vol. 77(C), pages 202-229.
    11. Stacy Sneeringer & Matt Clancy, 2020. "Incentivizing New Veterinary Pharmaceutical Products to Combat Antibiotic Resistance," Applied Economic Perspectives and Policy, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 42(4), pages 653-673, December.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Charles F. Manski, 2021. "Econometrics for Decision Making: Building Foundations Sketched by Haavelmo and Wald," Econometrica, Econometric Society, vol. 89(6), pages 2827-2853, November.
    2. Charles F. Manski & Aleksey Tetenov, 2015. "Clinical trial design enabling ε-optimal treatment rules," CeMMAP working papers 60/15, Institute for Fiscal Studies.
    3. Charles F. Manski, 2019. "Meta-Analysis for Medical Decisions," NBER Working Papers 25504, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    4. Francesco De Pretis & Barbara Osimani, 2019. "New Insights in Computational Methods for Pharmacovigilance: E-Synthesis , a Bayesian Framework for Causal Assessment," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(12), pages 1-19, June.
    5. Charles F. Manski, 2018. "Reasonable patient care under uncertainty," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 27(10), pages 1397-1421, October.
    6. Paul Gustafson & Nhu D. Le & Refik Saskin, 2001. "Case–Control Analysis with Partial Knowledge of Exposure Misclassification Probabilities," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 57(2), pages 598-609, June.
    7. Charles F. Manski, 2005. "Fractional Treatment Rules for Social Diversification of Indivisible Private Risks," NBER Working Papers 11675, National Bureau of Economic Research, Inc.
    8. Jingjing Ye & Gregory Reaman, 2022. "Improving Early Futility Determination by Learning from External Data in Pediatric Cancer Clinical Trials," Statistics in Biosciences, Springer;International Chinese Statistical Association, vol. 14(2), pages 337-351, July.
    9. Kruschke, John K. & Liddell, Torrin, 2016. "The Bayesian New Statistics: Hypothesis testing, estimation, meta-analysis, and power analysis from a Bayesian perspective," OSF Preprints ksfyr, Center for Open Science.
    10. Bradley P. Carlin & James S. Hodges, 1999. "Hierarchical Proportional Hazards Regression Models for Highly Stratified Data," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 55(4), pages 1162-1170, December.
    11. Karl Claxton & John Posnett, 1996. "An economic approach to clinical trial design and research priority‐setting," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 5(6), pages 513-524, November.
    12. Charles F. Manski & Aleksey Tetenov, 2015. "Clinical trial design enabling epsilon-optimal treatment rules," Carlo Alberto Notebooks 430, Collegio Carlo Alberto.
    13. Norman Simón Rodríguez Cano, 2018. "Tendencias actuales en la evaluación de políticas públicas," Ensayos de Economía 17296, Universidad Nacional de Colombia Sede Medellín.
    14. Elea McDonnell Feit & Ron Berman, 2019. "Test & Roll: Profit-Maximizing A/B Tests," Marketing Science, INFORMS, vol. 38(6), pages 1038-1058, November.
    15. Francisco-José Polo & Miguel Negrín & Xavier Badía & Montse Roset, 2005. "Bayesian regression models for cost-effectiveness analysis," The European Journal of Health Economics, Springer;Deutsche Gesellschaft für Gesundheitsökonomie (DGGÖ), vol. 6(1), pages 45-52, March.
    16. Danila Azzolina & Giulia Lorenzoni & Silvia Bressan & Liviana Da Dalt & Ileana Baldi & Dario Gregori, 2021. "Handling Poor Accrual in Pediatric Trials: A Simulation Study Using a Bayesian Approach," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 18(4), pages 1-16, February.
    17. Martin E. Backhouse, 1998. "An investment appraisal approach to clinical trial design," Health Economics, John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., vol. 7(7), pages 605-619, November.
    18. James C. Felli & Gordon B. Hazen, 1998. "Sensitivity Analysis and the Expected Value of Perfect Information," Medical Decision Making, , vol. 18(1), pages 95-109, January.
    19. Peter F. Thall & Richard M. Simon & Yu Shen, 2000. "Approximate Bayesian Evaluation of Multiple Treatment Effects," Biometrics, The International Biometric Society, vol. 56(1), pages 213-219, March.
    20. David M. Rindskopf & William R. Shadish & M. H. Clark, 2018. "Using Bayesian Correspondence Criteria to Compare Results From a Randomized Experiment and a Quasi-Experiment Allowing Self-Selection," Evaluation Review, , vol. 42(2), pages 248-280, April.

    More about this item

    JEL classification:

    • C11 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Bayesian Analysis: General
    • C12 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods and Methodology: General - - - Hypothesis Testing: General
    • C44 - Mathematical and Quantitative Methods - - Econometric and Statistical Methods: Special Topics - - - Operations Research; Statistical Decision Theory
    • I10 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - General
    • I12 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health Behavior
    • I13 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Health Insurance, Public and Private
    • I18 - Health, Education, and Welfare - - Health - - - Government Policy; Regulation; Public Health

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:nbr:nberwo:21499. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: the person in charge (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://edirc.repec.org/data/nberrus.html .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.