In the Interim...

In this episode of "In the Interim…", Dr. Scott Berry and Dr. Kert Viele deliver a quick reaction to the FDA’s draft guidance on Bayesian statistics for clinical trials of drugs and biologics. Their assessment addresses the structure, content, and impact of the document, emphasizing evidence-based requirements and guidance scope. The episode breaks down regulatory language, technical expectations, and workflow implications for clinical trial sponsors and statisticians.Key HighlightsClear distinction between trials justified by type 1 error control and trials justified by agreement on Bayesian priors and decision rule.Explanation of how informative priors can be created based on external or historical data.Technical explanation of dynamic discounting/borrowing, especially in Bayesian hierarchical models for rare populations, pediatric-adult extrapolation, related disease subgroups, and platform and basket trials (e.g., ROAR).In-depth look at the necessity of sensitivity and robustness checks for different priors, and the FDA’s design prior and analysis prior terminology.FDA’s requirements for accepting external data sources: data provenance, patient-level comparability, recency, and appropriate covariate adjustments.Comparison with ICH E20 on adaptive designs, providing context for ongoing regulatory harmonization and possible influence on international regulatory directions.Direct warning against attempts to misuse Bayesian methodology as a substitute for scientific rigor; legitimate uses must meet FDA standards and not simply serve to lower evidentiary bars.Resource:  FDA News Release:  https://www.fda.gov/news-events/press-announcements/fda-issues-guidance-modernizing-statistical-methods-clinical-trialsFor more, visit us at https://www.berryconsultants.com/

In this episode of "In the Interim…", Dr. Scott Berry is joined by Dr. Tanya Simuni, Arthur C. Nielsen Jr. Professor of Neurology and Director of the Parkinson’s Disease and Movement Disorders Center at Northwestern University, and Dr. Barbara Wendelberger, Senior Statistical Scientist at Berry Consultants. The conversation focuses on the Path to Prevention (P2P) platform trial—an international, multi-arm prevention study in Parkinson’s disease targeting participants defined by biological markers, specifically alpha-synuclein pathology, prior to clinical diagnosis. The discussion covers the PPMI cohort, trial operational and statistical structure, the rationale behind biomarker-driven inclusion, and the use of Bayesian platform trial design.Key Highlights:Parkinson’s disease pathobiology and risk: genotype-phenotype variability, multi-system involvement, and the central roles of age, environment, and genetics.Michael J. Fox Foundation’s PPMI cohort: 4,000+ participants, prospective longitudinal biomarker and clinical data, high participant retention, enabling study of early Parkinson’s.P2P platform structure: multi-arm design, two-stage randomization with shared placebo group, integration of non-randomized PPMI cohort in Bayesian analysis for improved inference.Inclusion criteria: prodromal population biologically defined by CSF alpha-synuclein seed amplification and dopaminergic imaging (DAT-SPECT), highlighting regulatory nuances.Dual primary endpoints: biomarker (DAT-SPECT) and clinical (MDS-UPDRS Part III), 24-36 months follow-up.Commitment to public data sharing in line with the Michael J. Fox Foundation’s open science philosophy.For more, visit us at https://www.berryconsultants.com/

In this episode of “In the Interim…,” host Dr. Scott Berry examines the challenge of communicating complex statistical concepts to non-statistical audiences. Drawing from firsthand experiences in agriculture, professional golf, and clinical development, as well as examples involving historical and scientific figures, Scott reflects on why technical rigor alone often fails to influence. The discussion focuses on the consequences of mismatched language, the importance of empathy, and the utility of simulation when bridging the gap between analysis and stakeholder understanding.Key HighlightsIllustrated barriers to statistical communication using stories from farming, golf, and early career encounters.Examples involving John Glenn, Ada Lovelace, and Charles Babbage show how communication, not just science, determines impact.Insights from Alan Alda on empathy as a foundational tool for scientists presenting technical ideas.Clinical trial simulations revealed knowledge gaps—such as misunderstanding of power—when communicating with decision-makers.Emphasizes the necessity of translating analytic outputs into operational, financial, or clinical language for meaningful impact.For more, visit us at https://www.berryconsultants.com/

In this episode of "In the Interim…", host Dr. Scott Berry and frequent co-host Dr. Kert Viele, Senior Statistical Scientist at Berry Consultants, analyze the potential shift in FDA regulatory policy from requiring two independent trials to accepting a single trial as sufficient for “substantial evidence” in drug approvals. Reflecting on the statutory and regulatory definitions originating with the 1962 Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and 21 CFR 314.126, they dissect current and emerging interpretations, referencing recent statements by Dr. Martin Makary and coverage described in a STAT article. The conversation focuses on the scientific and statistical foundations of the two-trial threshold, challenges with dichotomous results, and how pooled evidence might increase efficiency and rigor. They discuss statistical implications including alpha thresholds, sample size effects, program power, and the consequences for clinical labeling. The episode also introduces Bayesian approaches as a method for integrating totality of evidence. Attention is given to both population breadth and the possible risks of a narrowed evidentiary base under a single-trial standard.Key HighlightsRegulatory and historical context of “substantial evidence” since 1962 and current FDA directives.Industry practice: simultaneous Phase III trials, statistical power, and evidentiary replication.Criticism of binary, trial-level significance thresholds; merits of pooling or meta-analysis.Potential efficiency gains and tradeoffs with a more stringent alpha requirement for single trials.Strategic and operational effects on trial design, sample size, and label indications.Bayesian statistical approaches for full evidence integration, discussed as an analytical viewpoint.

In this episode of "In the Interim…", Dr. Jenny Devenport, Global Head of Methods, Collaboration, and Outreach at Roche, joins Dr. Scott Berry for a detailed discussion on career evolution, statistical culture, and communication in the pharmaceutical industry. Dr. Devenport describes her transition from psychology in New Mexico to statistical leadership in Basel, emphasizing the formative role of early academic mentors and her experience working across the US and Europe. She outlines her current functions in methods development, internal collaboration, and industry outreach, highlighting active engagement with academic and regulatory communities. The episode scrutinizes differences in workplace culture, such as the emphasis on debate and long-term collaboration in Europe, and differences in educational backgrounds among statisticians. The conversation covers practical barriers and slow adoption of Bayesian methods and the importance of communication in the acceptance of futility analyses in pharma, the importance of scale in problem-solving, and the emergence of AI as a tool for statisticians. Dr. Devenport provides pragmatic strategies for statisticians to improve their influence through tailored, audience-specific communication.Key HighlightsDr. Devenport’s academic and geographic move from the US to EuropeResponsibilities in methods development, collaboration, and outreach at RocheContrasts in US and European pharmaceutical statistics culturesMeasured perspective on AI’s effect on statisticians’ responsibilitiesPractical guidance for statisticians on communication and influence

In this episode of "In the Interim…", Dr. Scott Berry delivers a metaphoric critique of single-question trial infrastructure through the sports arena analogy, illustrating the cost, patient burden, and data inefficiency of conventional clinical trials. He provides a methodical comparison of traditional trial models and the platform trial approach, clarifying distinctions between platform, basket, and master protocol structures. Through examples from HEALEY ALS, I-SPY 2, PALM (Ebola), REMAP-CAP, RECOVERY, EPAD, GBM AGILE, and Precision Promise, Scott outlines the measurable efficiencies of platform trials: shared control arms, flexible arm addition and removal, reduced placebo exposure, accelerated timelines, and improved statistical inferences. The episode further examines platform trial performance during the COVID-19 pandemic, highlighting  trial adaptability, and the rapid generation of actionable evidence. Scott also addresses failure scenarios, focusing on EPAD Alzheimer’s as a cautionary case in platform sustainability, cost allocation, and initial funding barriers. Listeners will gain a perspective on the operational and statistical design choices governing today’s most innovative clinical studies.Key HighlightsArena analogy applied to delineate clinical research inefficiency.Operational, statistical, and patient-focused efficiencies in platform versus single-question trials.Precision in terminology: platform, basket, and master protocol definitions.Effects of platform trials on speed and scientific rigor.Factors underlying both platform trial successes and failures.For more, visit us at https://www.berryconsultants.com/

Explore the intriguing world of interim analyses in clinical trials, where efficiency meets funding challenges. Dr. Scott Berry highlights the advantages of seamless trial designs over conventional approaches. He tackles the ambiguity of success metrics, urging clarity to foster innovation. The discussion navigates FDA concerns about operational bias, advocating for strict data blinding. Discover how Bayesian predictive probability can serve as a robust criteria for funders, bridging gaps in communication between scientists and investors.

In this episode of "In the Interim...", Dr. Scott Berry interviews Dr. Kaspar Rufibach, Co-Head of Advanced Biostatistical Sciences at Merck. The conversation tracks Rufibach’s evolution from academic training in actuarial and mathematical statistics through cancer research collaborations, postdoctoral work, and academic consulting, leading to applied roles in Roche and Merck. Discussion centers on methodological rigor, pragmatic approaches to assurance and predictive probability, and real-world experience in drug development. Rufibach examines the organizational integration of quantitative disciplines at Merck—incorporating pharmacology, real-world data, statistics, programming, and data science—while remaining candid on the role and boundaries of AI in current pharmaceutical practice.Key HighlightsStatistical education in Switzerland, bridging theory and early applied cancer trial experienceMove from academic consulting to a trial statistician role at Roche, emphasizing structured problem-solving in drug developmentApproach to predictive probability and assurance, balancing Bayesian and frequentist tools with strict emphasis on practicalityFormation of professional special interest groups with EFSPI and PSI, stepping in to address unmet community needs rather than seeking formal leadershipPerspective on Merck’s unified quantitative department, designed to remove silos and leverage interdisciplinary expertiseCautious view of AI as a complement to specific tasks, but not yet a replacement for nuanced clinical trial design or regulatory-facing strategiesCurrent focus on expanding causal inference methods and multi-state modeling for improved trial efficiency and evidence synthesisFor more, visit us at https://www.berryconsultants.com/

Don Berry, a pioneering Bayesian statistician with over 50 years of experience, joins his family members Nick and Lindsay Berry to discuss the fascinating evolution of Bayesian methods in clinical trials. They explore the ethical challenges of trial design, comparing patient treatment and learning. Lindsay shares insights from implementing adaptive trials during the COVID-19 pandemic, while Nick highlights the computational advancements of MCMC that made Bayesian modeling practical. Together, they delve into the future of Bayesian statistics, touching on its implications for AI and individualized medicine.

In episode 37 of "In the Interim…", Dr. Jeff Saver, Director of the UCLA Comprehensive Stroke and Vascular Neurology Program, details his shift from behavioral neurology to clinical stroke research after early engagement with multicenter trials like TOAST. The discussion covers the biology of acute ischemic stroke, quantifying neuronal loss, and the scientific underpinnings of “time is brain.” Dr. Saver outlines the evolution of endovascular therapy, from early device challenges to current reperfusion success rates exceeding 85%. Key methodological issues in stroke trial analyses are presented, including debate over endpoint selection—dichotomous versus ordinal approaches and the limitations therein. Special focus is placed on the utility-weighted modified Rankin Scale, which assigns empirically derived, patient-centered health values to each disability state, providing a comprehensive measure that captures both benefit and harm. The episode explores regulatory hesitancy, differing analytic preferences within the field, and the design prospects for neuroprotectant interventions. Heterogeneity in patient outcomes and implications for public health and trial methodology are addressed. The episode provides an empirical account of clinical trial endpoint selection, interpretation, and future directions in cerebrovascular research.Key HighlightsEarly career influences and pivotal trial participation.Pathophysiology and quantification of acute stroke injury.Endovascular device development and clinical impact.Comparative analysis of endpoint methods: dichotomous, ordinal, and utility-weighted approaches.Technical derivation and application of utility-weighted mRS.Ongoing regulatory and methodological debate.Heterogeneity in ischemic vulnerability and future trial directions.For more, visit us at https://www.berryconsultants.com/