Back to Case Studies
All Three MethodsFull Program Integration

Integrated CUPED + GSD + Bayesian

NSCLC immunotherapy combination: Phase II → Phase III development

$14.1M

Total Savings

16 mo

Earlier BLA

$2.1B

NPV Gain

11,750×

ROI

Scenario

A pharmaceutical company was developing a novel immunotherapy combination for first-line treatment of non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC). The development program included a signal-finding Phase II trial followed by a pivotal Phase III.

The question: Could all three efficient design methodologies be applied across the development program for compounding benefits?

Integrated Methodology

Phase II: CUPED

Baseline tumor burden and PD-L1 expression used as covariates for the primary endpoint analysis (objective response rate).

Result: 40% sample size reduction (80 → 53 patients)

Phase II → III Transition: Bayesian

Bayesian predictive probability computed from Phase II results to quantify Phase III success likelihood.

Result: 85% probability of achieving Phase III primary endpoint (PFS HR ≤ 0.75)

Phase III: Group Sequential

4-look O'Brien-Fleming design with non-binding futility boundaries for the progression-free survival (PFS) endpoint.

Result: Expected sample size reduction of 15% (500 → 425 expected)

Program Comparison

Program ElementTraditionalZetyra-OptimizedSavings
Phase II80 patients, 12 mo, $4.0M53 patients, 8 mo, $2.4M$1.6M (40%)
Phase III500 patients, 54 mo, $100M425 expected, 42 mo, $87.5M$12.5M (13%)
Total Program66 months, $104M50 months, $89.9M$14.1M (14%)
BLA SubmissionMonth 72Month 5616 months earlier

Revenue Impact

For a successful NSCLC immunotherapy with $2 billion peak annual sales, the 16-month acceleration in market entry generates:

  • $2.67 billion additional revenue over product lifecycle
  • $2.1 billion NPV (at 10% discount rate)
  • Extended patent-protected sales period

11,750×

ROI per program

$14.1M savings / $1.2K subscription

Why Integration Matters

Using all three methodologies creates compounding benefits:

1.

CUPED in Phase II

Smaller, faster Phase II means earlier Phase III start. The 4-month acceleration at Phase II compounds throughout the program.

2.

Bayesian Go/No-Go

Quantitative Phase III probability enables confident investment decisions. Avoid wasting $50-100M on Phase III programs destined to fail.

3.

GSD in Phase III

Early stopping for efficacy or futility reduces expected duration and cost. For a successful drug, this accelerates market entry even further.

Timeline Comparison

Traditional Development

Phase II (12 mo)
Phase III (54 mo)

Month 72: BLA Submission

Zetyra-Optimized

Phase II (8 mo)
Phase III (42 mo)
16 mo saved

Month 56: BLA Submission

Ready to optimize your development program?

Access all three calculators with a single Zetyra subscription.