An empirical Bayes approach to evaluation of results for a specific region in multiregional clinical trials

To accelerate the drug development process and shorten approval time, the design of multiregional clinical trials (MRCTs) incorporates subjects from many countries/regions around the world under the same protocol. After showing the overall efficacy of a drug in all global regions, one can also simultaneously evaluate the possibility of applying the overall trial results to all regions and subsequently support drug registration in each of them. In this paper, we focus on a specific region and establish a statistical criterion to assess the consistency between the specific region and overall results in an MRCT. More specifically, we treat each region in an MRCT as an independent clinical trial, and each perhaps has different treatment effect. We then construct the empirical prior information for the treatment effect for the specific region on the basis of all of the observed data from other regions. We will conclude similarity between the specific region and all regions if the posterior probability of deriving a positive treatment effect in the specific region is large, say 80%. Numerical examples illustrate applications of the proposed approach in different scenarios. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Sample size allocation in multiregional equivalence studies

With the increasing globalization of drug development, the multiregional clinical trial (MRCT) has gained extensive use. The data from MRCTs could be accepted by regulatory authorities across regions and countries as the primary sources of evidence to support global marketing drug approval simultaneously. The MRCT can speed up patient enrollment and drug approval, and it makes the effective therapies available to patients all over the world simultaneously. However, there are many challenges both operationally and scientifically in conducting a drug development globally. One of many important questions to answer for the design of a multiregional study is how to partition sample size into each individual region. In this paper, two systematic approaches are proposed for the sample size allocation in a multiregional equivalence trial. A numerical evaluation and a biosimilar trial are used to illustrate the characteristics of the proposed approaches.     

Regional efficacy evaluation in multi-regional clinical trials using a discounting factor weighted Z test

Multi-regional clinical trial (MRCT) is an efficient design to accelerate drug approval globally. Once the global efficacy of test drug is demonstrated, each local regulatory agency is required to prove effectiveness of test drug in their own population. Meanwhile, the ICH E5/E17 guideline recommends using data from other regions to help evaluate regional drug efficacy. However, one of the most challenges is how to manage to bridge data among multiple regions in an MRCT since various intrinsic and extrinsic factors exist among the participating regions. Furthermore, it is critical for a local agency to determine the proportion of information borrowing from other regions given the ethnic differences between target region and non-target regions. To address these issues, we propose a discounting factor weighted Z statistic to adaptively borrow information from non-target regions. In this weighted Z statistic, the weight is derived from a discounting factor in which the discounting factor denotes the proportion of information borrowing from non-target regions. We consider three ways to construct discounting factors based on the degree of congruency between target and non-target regions either using control group data, or treatment group data, or all data. We use the calibrated power prior to construct discounting factor based on scaled Kolmogorov–Smirnov statistic. Comprehensive simulation studies show that our method has desirable operating characteristics. Two examples are used to illustrate the applications of our proposed approach.     

Methods for exploring treatment effect heterogeneity in subgroup analysis: an application to global clinical trials

Multi‐country randomised clinical trials (MRCTs) are common in the medical literature, and their interpretation has been the subject of extensive recent discussion. In many MRCTs, an evaluation of treatment effect homogeneity across countries or regions is conducted. Subgroup analysis principles require a significant test of interaction in order to claim heterogeneity of treatment effect across subgroups, such as countries in an MRCT. As clinical trials are typically underpowered for tests of interaction, overly optimistic expectations of treatment effect homogeneity can lead researchers, regulators and other stakeholders to over‐interpret apparent differences between subgroups even when heterogeneity tests are insignificant. In this paper, we consider some exploratory analysis tools to address this issue. We present three measures derived using the theory of order statistics, which can be used to understand the magnitude and the nature of the variation in treatment effects that can arise merely as an artefact of chance. These measures are not intended to replace a formal test of interaction but instead provide non‐inferential visual aids, which allow comparison of the observed and expected differences between regions or other subgroups and are a useful supplement to a formal test of interaction. We discuss how our methodology differs from recently published methods addressing the same issue. A case study of our approach is presented using data from the Study of Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO), which was a large cardiovascular MRCT that has been the subject of controversy in the literature. An R package is available that implements the proposed methods. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Comparisons of allocating sample size rationally into individual regions under heterogeneous effect size in a multiregional trial by a fixed effect model and a random effect model

ABSTRACT

Recently, sponsors and regulatory authorities pay much attention on the multiregional trial because it can shorten the drug lag or the time lag for approval, simultaneous drug development, submission, and approval in the world. However, many studies have shown that genetic determinants may mediate variability among persons in response to a drug. Thus, some therapeutics benefit part of treated patients. It means that the assumption of homogeneous effect size is not suitable for multiregional trials. In this paper, we conduct the sample size determination of a multiregional clinical trial calculated by fixed effect and random effect under the assumption of heterogeneous effect size. The performances of fixed effect and random effect on allocating sample size on a specific region are compared by statistical criteria for consistency between the region of interest and overall results.     

A Design For Survival Studies: A Multi-regional Trial With Unrecognized Heterogeneity

A bridging study defined by ICH E5 is usually conducted in the new region after the test product has been approved for commercial marketing in the original region due to its proven efficacy and safety. However, extensive duplication of clinical evaluation in the new region not only requires valuable development resources but also delay availability of the test product to the needed patients in the new regions. To shorten the drug lag or the time lag for approval, simultaneous drug development, submission, and approval in the world may be desirable. Recently, multi-regional trials have attracted much attention from sponsors as well as regulatory authorities. Current methods for sample determination are based on the assumption that true treatment effect is uniform across regions. However, unrecognized heterogeneity among patients as ethnic or genetic factor will effect patients’ survival. Using the simple log-rank test for analysis of treatment effect on survival in studies under heterogeneity may be severely underpowered. In this article, we address the issue that the treatment effects are different among regions to design a multi-regional trial. The optimal log-rank test is employed to deal with the heterogeneous effect size among regions. The test statistic for the overall treatment effect is used to determine the total sample size for a multi-regional trial and the consistent trend and the proposed criteria are used to rationalize partition sample size to each region.     

Sample Size Determination and Rational Partition for A Multi- Regional Trial for Survival (Time-To-Event) Data with Unrecognized Heterogeneity that Interacts with Treatment

To shorten the drug lag or the time lag for approval, simultaneous drug development, submission, and approval in the world may be desirable. Recently, multi-regional trials have attracted much attention from sponsors as well as regulatory authorities. Current methods for sample determination are based on the assumption that true treatment effect is uniform across regions. However, unrecognized heterogeneity among patients as ethnic or genetic factor will effect patients’ survival. In this article, we address the issue that the treatment effects with unrecognized heterogeneity that interacts with treatment are among regions to design a multi-regional trial. The log-rank test is employed to deal with the heterogeneous effect size among regions. The test statistic for the overall treatment effect is used to determine the total sample size for a multi-regional trial and the consistent trend is used to rationalize partition for sample size to each region.     

Bayes shrinkage estimator for consistency assessment of treatment effects in multi-regional clinical trials

The primary objective of a multi-regional clinical trial is to investigate the overall efficacy of the drug across regions and evaluate the possibility of applying the overall trial result to some specific region. A challenge arises when there is not enough regional sample size. We focus on the problem of evaluating applicability of a drug to a specific region of interest under the criterion of preserving a certain proportion of the overall treatment effect in the region. We propose a variant of James-Stein shrinkage estimator in the empirical Bayes context for the region-specific treatment effect. The estimator has the features of accommodating the between-region variation and finiteness correction of bias. We also propose a truncated version of the proposed shrinkage estimator to further protect risk in the presence of extreme value of regional treatment effect. Based on the proposed estimator, we provide the consistency assessment criterion and sample size calculation for the region of interest. Simulations are conducted to demonstrate the performance of the proposed estimators in comparison with some existing methods. A hypothetical example is presented to illustrate the application of the proposed method.     

An Approach to Determine Sample Size and to Allocate Sample Size for a Specific Region in a Multiregional Trial for Survival (Time-to-Event) Data under Accelerated Failure Time Model

For the time-to-event outcome, current methods for sample determination are based on the proportional hazard model. However, if the proportionality assumption fails to capture the relationship between the hazard time and covariates, the proportional hazard model is not suitable to analyze survival data. The accelerated failure time (AFT) model is an alternative method to deal with survival data. In this paper, we address the issue that the relationship between the hazard time and the treatment effect is satisfied with the AFT model to design a multiregional trial. The log-rank test is employed to deal with the heterogeneous effect size among regions. The test statistic for the overall treatment effect is used to determine the total sample size for a multiregional trial, and the proposed criteria are used to rationalize partition sample size to each region.     

Applications of Bayesian analysis to proof‐of‐concept trial planning and decision making

Decision making is a critical component of a new drug development process. Based on results from an early clinical trial such as a proof of concept trial, the sponsor can decide whether to continue, stop, or defer the development of the drug. To simplify and harmonize the decision‐making process, decision criteria have been proposed in the literature. One of them is to exam the location of a confidence bar relative to the target value and lower reference value of the treatment effect. In this research, we modify an existing approach by moving some of the “stop” decision to “consider” decision so that the chance of directly terminating the development of a potentially valuable drug can be reduced. As Bayesian analysis has certain flexibilities and can borrow historical information through an inferential prior, we apply the Bayesian analysis to the trial planning and decision making. Via a design prior, we can also calculate the probabilities of various decision outcomes in relationship with the sample size and the other parameters to help the study design. An example and a series of computations are used to illustrate the applications, assess the operating characteristics, and compare the performances of different approaches.     

Assessment of clinical relevance by considering point estimates and associated confidence intervals

For the proof of efficacy of a new drug in a placebo‐controlled clinical trial it is not sufficient merely to demonstrate a statistically significant treatment difference. In recent years, regulatory authorities have strongly recommended assessing additionally whether the observed effect size is also of clinical relevance. This opinion is reflected in various guidelines which are of the utmost importance for the successful approval of a new drug. Clinical relevance can be investigated by responder analyses or by considering the point estimates on the original scale together with the associated confidence intervals. In this paper, we focus on the latter approach and discuss the suitability of different criteria which are commonly applied in medical research. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

A signature enrichment design with Bayesian adaptive randomization

Clinical trials in the era of precision cancer medicine aim to identify and validate biomarker signatures which can guide the assignment of individually optimal treatments to patients. In this article, we propose a group sequential randomized phase II design, which updates the biomarker signature as the trial goes on, utilizes enrichment strategies for patient selection, and uses Bayesian response-adaptive randomization for treatment assignment. To evaluate the performance of the new design, in addition to the commonly considered criteria of Type I error and power, we propose four new criteria measuring the benefits and losses for individuals both inside and outside of the clinical trial. Compared with designs with equal randomization, the proposed design gives trial participants a better chance to receive their personalized optimal treatments and thus results in a higher response rate on the trial. This design increases the chance to discover a successful new drug by an adaptive enrichment strategy, i.e. identification and selective enrollment of a subset of patients who are sensitive to the experimental therapies. Simulation studies demonstrate these advantages of the proposed design. It is illustrated by an example based on an actual clinical trial in non-small-cell lung cancer.     

An alternative phase II/III design for continuous endpoints

The success rate of drug development has been declined dramatically in recent years and the current paradigm of drug development is no longer functioning. It requires a major undertaking on breakthrough strategies and methodology for designs to minimize sample sizes and to shorten duration of the development. We propose an alternative phase II/III design based on continuous efficacy endpoints, which consists of two stages: a selection stage and a confirmation stage. For the selection stage, a randomized parallel design with several doses with a placebo group is employed for selection of doses. After the best dose is chosen, the patients of the selected dose group and placebo group continue to enter the confirmation stage. New patients will also be recruited and randomized to receive the selected dose or placebo group. The final analysis is performed with the cumulative data of patients from both stages. With the pre‐specified probabilities of rejecting the drug at each stage, sample sizes and critical values for both stages can be determined. As it is a single trial with controlling overall type I and II error rates, the proposed phase II/III adaptive design may not only reduce the sample size but also improve the success rate. An example illustrates the applications of the proposed phase II/III adaptive design. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Approaches to Allocate Sample Size Rationally Into Individual Regions for a Multi-regional Trial Under Heterogeneous Effect Size

A bridging study defined by ICH E5 is usually conducted in the new region after the test product has been approved for commercial marketing in the original region due to its proven efficacy and safety. However, extensive duplication of clinical evaluation in the new region not only requires valuable development resources but also delay availability of the test product to the needed patients in the new regions. To shorten the drug lag or the time lag for approval, simultaneous drug development, submission, and approval in the world may be desirable. Recently, multi-regional trials have attracted much attention from sponsors as well as regulatory authorities. On September 28, 2007 Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare of Japan . ( 2007 ). Basic Principles on Global Clinical Trials . [Google Scholar], the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) in Japan published the “Basic Principles on Global Clinical Trials” guidance related to the planning and implementation of global clinical studies. The 11th Q & A for the ICH E5 guideline also comments the concept of a multi-regional trial. Both guidelines have established a framework on how to demonstrate the efficacy of a drug in all participating regions while also evaluating the possibility of applying the overall trial results to each region by conducting a multi-regional trial. Kawai et al. (2008 Kawai , N. , Stein , C. , Komiyama , O. , Li , Y. ( 2008 ). An approach to rationalize partitioning sample size into individual regions in a multiregional trial . Drug Inform. J. 42 ( 2 ): 139 – 147 .[Crossref], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) developed an approach to rationalize partitioning the total sample size among the regions so that a high probability of observing a consistent trend under the assumptions of the positive treatment effect and uniform across regions in a confirmatory multi-regional trial. Ko et al. (2010 Ko , F. S. , Tsou , H. H. , Liu , J. P. , Hsiao , C. F. ( 2010 ). An approach to rationalize partitioning sample size into individual regions in a multiregional trial . J. Biopharm. Statist. 20 ( 4 ): 870 – 885 .[Taylor & Francis Online], [Web of Science ®] , [Google Scholar]) focused on a specific region and establish statistical criteria for consistency between the region of interest and overall results. The sample size calculation for a specific region was also provided. These methods were based on the assumption that true effect size is uniform across regions. In this article, we address the issue that the treatment effects are different among regions to design a multi-regional trial. The random effect model is employed to deal with the heterogeneous effect size among regions. The test statistic for the overall treatment effect is also established and the consistent trend and the proposed criteria are used to rationalize partition sample size to each region.     

Compound adaptive GPU design for clinical trials

In clinical trials, several competing treatments are often carried out in the same trial period. The goal is to assess the performances of these different treatments according to some optimality criterion and minimize risks to the patients in the entire process of the study. For this, each coming patient is allocated sequentially to one of the treatments according to a mechanism defined by the optimality criterion. In practice, sometimes different optimality criteria, or the same criterion with different regimes, need to be considered to assess the treatments in the same study, so that each mechanism is also evaluated through the trail study. In this case, the question is how to allocate the treatments to the incoming patients so that the criteria/mechanisms of interest are assessed during the trail process, and the overall performance of the trial is optimized under the combined criteria or regimes. In this paper, we consider this problem by investigating a compound adaptive generalized Pólya urn design. Basic asymptotic properties of this design are also studied.     

A Statistical Issue About a Phase III Multi-regional Trial for the Survival Data under Accelerated Failure Time Model with Unrecognized Heterogeneity

For the time-to-event outcome, current methods for sample size determination are based on the proportional hazard model. However, if the proportionality assumption fails to capture the relationship between the hazard time and covariates, the proportional hazard model is not suitable to analyze survival data. The accelerated failure time model is an alternative method to deal with survival data. In this article, we address the issue that the relationship between the hazard time and the treatment effect is satisfied with the accelerated failure time model to design a multi-regional trial for a phase III clinical trial. The log-rank test is employed to deal with the heterogeneous effect size among regions. The test statistic for the overall treatment effect is used to determine the total sample size for a multi-regional trial and the consistent trend is used to rationalize partition sample size to each region.     

Simulation-based consistent inference for biased working model of non-sparse high-dimensional linear regression

Variable selection in regression analysis is of importance because it can simplify model and enhance predictability. After variable selection, however, the resulting working model may be biased when it does not contain all of significant variables. As a result, the commonly used parameter estimation is either inconsistent or needs estimating high-dimensional nuisance parameter with very strong assumptions for consistency, and the corresponding confidence region is invalid when the bias is relatively large. We in this paper introduce a simulation-based procedure to reformulate a new model so as to reduce the bias of the working model, with no need to estimate high-dimensional nuisance parameter. The resulting estimators of the parameters in the working model are asymptotic normally distributed whether the bias is small or large. Furthermore, together with the empirical likelihood, we build simulation-based confidence regions for the parameters in the working model. The newly proposed estimators and confidence regions outperform existing ones in the sense of consistency.     

Incorporating scientific,ethical and economic considerations into the design of clinical trials in the pharmaceutical industry: a sequential approach

A flexible sequential approach to the design of clinical trials is discussed herein. This approach is based on a “confidence sequence” viewpoint instead of the rigid stopping and terminal decision rules in conventional sequential testing theory. By using an appropriate confidence sequence, one can always ensure a prescribed degree of scientific rigor (confidence) in establishing the drug to be effective. Moreover, one also has the option of terminating the trial early when there is already enough statistical evidence for concluding that the drug is effective, or when the drug shows uniorseen harmful effects, or when the data predict that there is little chance of arriving at a definitive conclusion in favor of the drug by the scheduled end of the trial. We discuss how these and other ethical and economic considerations can be readily incorporated into the stopping criteria of the trial.     

Decision‐making in a phase II clinical trial: a new approach combining Bayesian and frequentist concepts

The aim of a phase II clinical trial is to decide whether or not to develop an experimental therapy further through phase III clinical evaluation. In this paper, we present a Bayesian approach to the phase II trial, although we assume that subsequent phase III clinical trials will have standard frequentist analyses. The decision whether to conduct the phase III trial is based on the posterior predictive probability of a significant result being obtained. This fusion of Bayesian and frequentist techniques accepts the current paradigm for expressing objective evidence of therapeutic value, while optimizing the form of the phase II investigation that leads to it. By using prior information, we can assess whether a phase II study is needed at all, and how much or what sort of evidence is required. The proposed approach is illustrated by the design of a phase II clinical trial of a multi‐drug resistance modulator used in combination with standard chemotherapy in the treatment of metastatic breast cancer. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd     

Pilot–pivotal trials for average bioequivalence

Before carrying out a full scale bioequivalence trial, it is desirable to conduct a pilot trial to decide if a generic drug product shows promise of bioequivalence. The purpose of a pilot trial is to screen test formulations, and hence small sample sizes can be used. Based on the outcome of the pilot trial, one can decide whether or not a full scale pivotal trial should be carried out to assess bioequivalence. This article deals with the design of a pivotal trial, based on the evidence from the pilot trial. A two-stage adaptive procedure is developed in order to determine the sample size and the decision rule for the pivotal trial, for testing average bioequivalence using the two one-sided test (TOST). Numerical implementation of the procedure is discussed in detail, and the required tables are provided. Numerical results indicate that the required sample sizes could be smaller than that recommended by the FDA for a single trial, especially when the pilot study provides strong evidence in favor of bioequivalence.