Influenza vaccine efficacy trials: a simulation approach to understand failures from the past

The success of a seasonal influenza vaccine efficacy trial depends not only upon the design but also upon the annual epidemic characteristics. In this context, simulation methods are an essential tool in evaluating the performances of study designs under various circumstances. However, traditional methods for simulating time‐to‐event data are not suitable for the simulation of influenza vaccine efficacy trials because of the seasonality and heterogeneity of influenza epidemics. Instead, we propose a mathematical model parameterized with historical surveillance data, heterogeneous frailty among the subjects, survey‐based heterogeneous number of daily contact, and a mixed vaccine protection mechanism. We illustrate our methodology by generating multiple‐trial data similar to a large phase III trial that failed to show additional relative vaccine efficacy of an experimental adjuvanted vaccine compared with the reference vaccine. We show that small departures from the designing assumptions, such as a smaller range of strain protection for the experimental vaccine or the chosen endpoint, could lead to smaller probabilities of success in showing significant relative vaccine efficacy. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

A flexible multi-stage design for phase II oncology trials

Phase II trials evaluate whether a new drug or a new therapy is worth further pursuing or certain treatments are feasible or not. A typical phase II is a single arm (open label) trial with a binary clinical endpoint (response to therapy). Although many oncology Phase II clinical trials are designed with a two-stage procedure, multi-stage design for phase II cancer clinical trials are now feasible due to increased capability of data capture. Such design adjusts for multiple analyses and variations in analysis time, and provides greater flexibility such as minimizing the number of patients treated on an ineffective therapy and identifying the minimum number of patients needed to evaluate whether the trial would warrant further development. In most of the NIH sponsored studies, the early stopping rule is determined so that the number of patients treated on an ineffective therapy is minimized. In pharmaceutical trials, it is also of importance to know as early as possible if the trial is highly promising and what is the likelihood the early conclusion can sustain. Although various methods are available to address these issues, practitioners often use disparate methods for addressing different issues and do not realize a single unified method exists. This article shows how to utilize a unified approach via a fully sequential procedure, the sequential conditional probability ratio test, to address the multiple needs of a phase II trial. We show the fully sequential program can be used to derive an optimized efficient multi-stage design for either a low activity or a high activity, to identify the minimum number of patients required to assess whether a new drug warrants further study and to adjust for unplanned interim analyses. In addition, we calculate a probability of discordance that the statistical test will conclude otherwise should the trial continue to the planned end that is usually at the sample size of a fixed sample design. This probability can be used to aid in decision making in a drug development program. All computations are based on exact binomial distribution.     

Burden‐of‐illness vaccine efficacy

In recent years, many vaccines have been developed for the prevention of a variety of diseases. Although the primary objective of vaccination is to prevent disease, vaccination can also reduce the severity of disease in those individuals who develop breakthrough disease. Observations of apparent mitigation of breakthrough disease in vaccine recipients have been reported for a number of vaccine‐preventable diseases such as Herpes Zoster, Influenza, Rotavirus, and Pertussis. The burden‐of‐illness (BOI) score was developed to incorporate the incidence of disease as well as the severity and duration of disease. A severity‐of‐illness score S > 0 is assigned to individuals who develop disease and a score of 0 is assigned to uninfected individuals. In this article, we derive the vaccine efficacy statistic (which is the standard statistic for presenting efficacy outcomes in vaccine clinical trials) based on BOI scores, and we extend the method to adjust for baseline covariates. Also, we illustrate it with data from a clinical trial in which the efficacy of a Herpes Zoster vaccine was evaluated.     

Estimands and inference in cluster‐randomized vaccine trials

Cluster‐randomized trials are often conducted to assess vaccine effects. Defining estimands of interest before conducting a trial is integral to the alignment between a study's objectives and the data to be collected and analyzed. This paper considers estimands and estimators for overall, indirect, and total vaccine effects in trials, where clusters of individuals are randomized to vaccine or control. The scenario is considered where individuals self‐select whether to participate in the trial, and the outcome of interest is measured on all individuals in each cluster. Unlike the overall, indirect, and total effects, the direct effect of vaccination is shown in general not to be estimable without further assumptions, such as no unmeasured confounding. An illustrative example motivated by a cluster‐randomized typhoid vaccine trial is provided.     

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.     

Identifying treatment effects using trimmed means when data are missing not at random

Patients often discontinue from a clinical trial because their health condition is not improving or they cannot tolerate the assigned treatment. Consequently, the observed clinical outcomes in the trial are likely better on average than if every patient had completed the trial. If these differences between trial completers and non-completers cannot be explained by the observed data, then the study outcomes are missing not at random (MNAR). One way to overcome this problem—the trimmed means approach for missing data due to study discontinuation—sets missing values as the worst observed outcome and then trims away a fraction of the distribution from each treatment arm before calculating differences in treatment efficacy (Permutt T, Li F. Trimmed means for symptom trials with dropouts. Pharm Stat. 2017;16(1):20–28). In this paper, we derive sufficient and necessary conditions for when this approach can identify the average population treatment effect. Simulation studies show the trimmed means approach's ability to effectively estimate treatment efficacy when data are MNAR and missingness due to study discontinuation is strongly associated with an unfavorable outcome, but trimmed means fail when data are missing at random. If the reasons for study discontinuation in a clinical trial are known, analysts can improve estimates with a combination of multiple imputation and the trimmed means approach when the assumptions of each hold. We compare the methodology to existing approaches using data from a clinical trial for chronic pain. An R package trim implements the method. When the assumptions are justifiable, using trimmed means can help identify treatment effects notwithstanding MNAR data.     

Application of Bayesian hierarchical models for phase I/II clinical trials in oncology

Treatment during cancer clinical trials sometimes involves the combination of multiple drugs. In addition, in recent years there has been a trend toward phase I/II trials in which a phase I and a phase II trial are combined into a single trial to accelerate drug development. Methods for the seamless combination of phases I and II parts are currently under investigation. In the phase II part, adaptive randomization on the basis of patient efficacy outcomes allocates more patients to the dose combinations considered to have higher efficacy. Patient toxicity outcomes are used for determining admissibility to each dose combination and are not used for selection of the dose combination itself. In cases where the objective is not to find the optimum dose combination solely for efficacy but regarding both toxicity and efficacy, the need exists to allocate patients to dose combinations with consideration of the balance of existing trade‐offs between toxicity and efficacy. We propose a Bayesian hierarchical model and an adaptive randomization with consideration for the relationship with toxicity and efficacy. Using the toxicity and efficacy outcomes of patients, the Bayesian hierarchical model is used to estimate the toxicity probability and efficacy probability in each of the dose combinations. Here, we use Bayesian moving‐reference adaptive randomization on the basis of desirability computed from the obtained estimator. Computer simulations suggest that the proposed method will likely recommend a higher percentage of target dose combinations than a previously proposed method.     

Active‐controlled,non‐inferiority trials in oncology: arbitrary limits,infeasible sample sizes and uninformative data analysis. Is there another way?

In oncology, it may not always be possible to evaluate the efficacy of new medicines in placebo-controlled trials. Furthermore, while some newer, biologically targeted anti-cancer treatments may be expected to deliver therapeutic benefit in terms of better tolerability or improved symptom control, they may not always be expected to provide increased efficacy relative to existing therapies. This naturally leads to the use of active-control, non-inferiority trials to evaluate such treatments. In recent evaluations of anti-cancer treatments, the non-inferiority margin has often been defined in terms of demonstrating that at least 50% of the active control effect has been retained by the new drug using methods such as those described by Rothmann et al., Statistics in Medicine 2003; 22:239-264 and Wang and Hung Controlled Clinical Trials 2003; 24:147-155. However, this approach can lead to prohibitively large clinical trials and results in a tendency to dichotomize trial outcome as either 'success' or 'failure' and thus oversimplifies interpretation. With relatively modest modification, these methods can be used to define a stepwise approach to design and analysis. In the first design step, the trial is sized to show indirectly that the new drug would have beaten placebo; in the second analysis step, the probability that the new drug is superior to placebo is assessed and, if sufficiently high in the third and final step, the relative efficacy of the new drug to control is assessed on a continuum of effect retention via an 'effect retention likelihood plot'. This stepwise approach is likely to provide a more complete assessment of relative efficacy so that the value of new treatments can be better judged.     

TITE‐BOIN‐ET: Time‐to‐event Bayesian optimal interval design to accelerate dose‐finding based on both efficacy and toxicity outcomes

One of the primary purposes of an oncology dose‐finding trial is to identify an optimal dose (OD) that is both tolerable and has an indication of therapeutic benefit for subjects in subsequent clinical trials. In addition, it is quite important to accelerate early stage trials to shorten the entire period of drug development. However, it is often challenging to make adaptive decisions of dose escalation and de‐escalation in a timely manner because of the fast accrual rate, the difference of outcome evaluation periods for efficacy and toxicity and the late‐onset outcomes. To solve these issues, we propose the time‐to‐event Bayesian optimal interval design to accelerate dose‐finding based on cumulative and pending data of both efficacy and toxicity. The new design, named “TITE‐BOIN‐ET” design, is nonparametric and a model‐assisted design. Thus, it is robust, much simpler, and easier to implement in actual oncology dose‐finding trials compared with the model‐based approaches. These characteristics are quite useful from a practical point of view. A simulation study shows that the TITE‐BOIN‐ET design has advantages compared with the model‐based approaches in both the percentage of correct OD selection and the average number of patients allocated to the ODs across a variety of realistic settings. In addition, the TITE‐BOIN‐ET design significantly shortens the trial duration compared with the designs without sequential enrollment and therefore has the potential to accelerate early stage dose‐finding trials.     

Bayesian borrowing from historical control data in a vaccine efficacy trial

In the context of vaccine efficacy trial where the incidence rate is very low and a very large sample size is usually expected, incorporating historical data into a new trial is extremely attractive to reduce sample size and increase estimation precision. Nevertheless, for some infectious diseases, seasonal change in incidence rates poses a huge challenge in borrowing historical data and a critical question is how to properly take advantage of historical data borrowing with acceptable tolerance to between-trials heterogeneity commonly from seasonal disease transmission. In this article, we extend a probability-based power prior which determines the amount of information to be borrowed based on the agreement between the historical and current data, to make it applicable for either a single or multiple historical trials available, with constraint on the amount of historical information to be borrowed. Simulations are conducted to compare the performance of the proposed method with other methods including modified power prior (MPP), meta-analytic-predictive (MAP) prior and the commensurate prior methods. Furthermore, we illustrate the application of the proposed method for trial design in a practical setting.     

Bayesian hierarchical models for adaptive basket trial designs

Basket trials evaluate a single drug targeting a single genetic variant in multiple cancer cohorts. Empirical findings suggest that treatment efficacy across baskets may be heterogeneous. Most modern basket trial designs use Bayesian methods. These methods require the prior specification of at least one parameter that permits information sharing across baskets. In this study, we provide recommendations for selecting a prior for scale parameters for adaptive basket trials by using Bayesian hierarchical modeling. Heterogeneity among baskets attracts much attention in basket trial research, and substantial heterogeneity challenges the basic assumption of exchangeability of Bayesian hierarchical approach. Thus, we also allowed each stratum-specific parameter to be exchangeable or nonexchangeable with similar strata by using data observed in an interim analysis. Through a simulation study, we evaluated the overall performance of our design based on statistical power and type I error rates. Our research contributes to the understanding of the properties of Bayesian basket trial designs.     

Re-randomization tests as sensitivity analyses to confirm immunological noninferiority of an investigational vaccine: Case study

Here we present as case study how re-randomization tests were performed in two randomized, controlled clinical trials as sensitivity analyses, as recommended by the United States Food and Drug Administration in the context of adaptive randomization. This was done to confirm primary conclusions on immunological noninferiority of an investigational new fully liquid presentation of a quadrivalent cross-reacting material conjugate meningococcal vaccine (MenACWY-CRM), over its licensed lyophilized/liquid presentation. In two phase 2b studies (Study #1: NCT03652610; Study #2: NCT03433482), noninferiority of the fully liquid presentation of MenACWY-CRM to the licensed presentation was assessed and demonstrated for immune responses against meningococcal serogroup A (MenA), the only vaccine component modified from lyophilized to liquid in the new presentation. The original vaccine assignment algorithm, with a minimization procedure accounting for center or center within age strata, was used to re-randomize participants belonging to the fully liquid and licensed vaccine groups while keeping antibody responses, covariates and entry order as observed. Test statistics under re-randomization were generated according to the ANCOVA model used in the primary analysis. To confirm immunological noninferiority following re-randomization, the corresponding p-values had to be <0.025. For both studies and all primary objective evaluations, the re-randomization p-values were well below 0.025 (0.0004 for Study #1; 0.0001 for the two co-primary endpoints in Study #2). Re-randomization tests performed to comply with a regulatory request confirmed the primary conclusions of immunological noninferiority for the MenA of the fully liquid compared to the licensed vaccine presentation.     

Adapting the sample size planning of a phase III trial based on phase II data

Traditionally, in clinical development plan, phase II trials are relatively small and can be expected to result in a large degree of uncertainty in the estimates based on which Phase III trials are planned. Phase II trials are also to explore appropriate primary efficacy endpoint(s) or patient populations. When the biology of the disease and pathogenesis of disease progression are well understood, the phase II and phase III studies may be performed in the same patient population with the same primary endpoint, e.g. efficacy measured by HbA1c in non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus trials with treatment duration of at least three months. In the disease areas that molecular pathways are not well established or the clinical outcome endpoint may not be observed in a short-term study, e.g. mortality in cancer or AIDS trials, the treatment effect may be postulated through use of intermediate surrogate endpoint in phase II trials. However, in many cases, we generally explore the appropriate clinical endpoint in the phase II trials. An important question is how much of the effect observed in the surrogate endpoint in the phase II study can be translated into the clinical effect in the phase III trial. Another question is how much of the uncertainty remains in phase III trials. In this work, we study the utility of adaptation by design (not by statistical test) in the sense of adapting the phase II information for planning the phase III trials. That is, we investigate the impact of using various phase II effect size estimates on the sample size planning for phase III trials. In general, if the point estimate of the phase II trial is used for planning, it is advisable to size the phase III trial by choosing a smaller alpha level or a higher power level. The adaptation via using the lower limit of the one standard deviation confidence interval from the phase II trial appears to be a reasonable choice since it balances well between the empirical power of the launched trials and the proportion of trials not launched if a threshold lower than the true effect size of phase III trial can be chosen for determining whether the phase III trial is to be launched.     

A meta-analytic framework to adjust for bias in external control studies

While randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard for estimating treatment effects in medical research, there is increasing use of and interest in using real-world data for drug development. One such use case is the construction of external control arms for evaluation of efficacy in single-arm trials, particularly in cases where randomization is either infeasible or unethical. However, it is well known that treated patients in non-randomized studies may not be comparable to control patients—on either measured or unmeasured variables—and that the underlying population differences between the two groups may result in biased treatment effect estimates as well as increased variability in estimation. To address these challenges for analyses of time-to-event outcomes, we developed a meta-analytic framework that uses historical reference studies to adjust a log hazard ratio estimate in a new external control study for its additional bias and variability. The set of historical studies is formed by constructing external control arms for historical RCTs, and a meta-analysis compares the trial controls to the external control arms. Importantly, a prospective external control study can be performed independently of the meta-analysis using standard causal inference techniques for observational data. We illustrate our approach with a simulation study and an empirical example based on reference studies for advanced non-small cell lung cancer. In our empirical analysis, external control patients had lower survival than trial controls (hazard ratio: 0.907), but our methodology is able to correct for this bias. An implementation of our approach is available in the R package ecmeta .     

Estimates of subgroup treatment effects in overall nonsignificant trials: To what extent should we believe in them?

In drug development, it sometimes occurs that a new drug does not demonstrate effectiveness for the full study population but appears to be beneficial in a relevant subgroup. In case the subgroup of interest was not part of a confirmatory testing strategy, the inflation of the overall type I error is substantial and therefore such a subgroup analysis finding can only be seen as exploratory at best. To support such exploratory findings, an appropriate replication of the subgroup finding should be undertaken in a new trial. We should, however, be reasonably confident in the observed treatment effect size to be able to use this estimate in a replication trial in the subpopulation of interest. We were therefore interested in evaluating the bias of the estimate of the subgroup treatment effect, after selection based on significance for the subgroup in an overall “failed” trial. Different scenarios, involving continuous as well as dichotomous outcomes, were investigated via simulation studies. It is shown that the bias associated with subgroup findings in overall nonsignificant clinical trials is on average large and varies substantially across plausible scenarios. This renders the subgroup treatment estimate from the original trial of limited value to design the replication trial. An empirical Bayesian shrinkage method is suggested to minimize this overestimation. The proposed estimator appears to offer either a good or a conservative correction to the observed subgroup treatment effect hence provides a more reliable subgroup treatment effect estimate for adequate planning of future studies.     

Establishing consistency across all regions in a multi-regional clinical trial

In recent years, global collaboration has become a conventional strategy for new drug development. To accelerate the development process and shorten approval time, the design of multi-regional 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 a global trial, one can also simultaneously evaluate the possibility of applying the overall trial results to all regions and subsequently support drug registration in each region. However, most of the recent approaches developed for the design and evaluation of MRCTs focus on establishing criteria to examine whether the overall results from the MRCT can be applied to a specific region. In this paper, we use the consistency criterion of Method 1 from the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) guidance to assess whether the overall results from the MRCT can be applied to all regions. Sample size determination for the MRCT is also provided to take all the consistency criteria from each individual region into account. Numerical examples are given to illustrate applications of the proposed approach.     

Statistical issues in phase III human immunodeficiency virus vaccine trial design

Several scientific questions are of interest in phase III trials of prophylactic human immunodeficiency virus (HIV) vaccines. In this paper we focus on some issues related to evaluating the direct protective effects of a vaccine in reducing susceptibility, VE_S, and its effect on reducing infectiousness, VE_I. An estimation of VE_I generally requires information on contacts between the infective and susceptible individuals. By augmenting the primary participants of an HIV vaccine trial by their steady sexual partners, information can be collected that allows an estimation of VE_I as well as VE_S. Exposure to infection information, however, may be expensive and difficult to collect. A vaccine trial design can include a small validation set with good exposure to infection data to correct bias in a larger, simpler main study with only coarse exposure data. The large main study increases the efficiency of the small validation set. More research into the combination of different levels of information in vaccine trial design will yield more efficient and less biased estimates of the efficacy measures of interest.     

Conditional estimation using prior information in 2‐stage group sequential designs assuming asymptotic normality when the trial terminated early

Two‐stage designs are widely used to determine whether a clinical trial should be terminated early. In such trials, a maximum likelihood estimate is often adopted to describe the difference in efficacy between the experimental and reference treatments; however, this method is known to display conditional bias. To reduce such bias, a conditional mean‐adjusted estimator (CMAE) has been proposed, although the remaining bias may be nonnegligible when a trial is stopped for efficacy at the interim analysis. We propose a new estimator for adjusting the conditional bias of the treatment effect by extending the idea of the CMAE. This estimator is calculated by weighting the maximum likelihood estimate obtained at the interim analysis and the effect size prespecified when calculating the sample size. We evaluate the performance of the proposed estimator through analytical and simulation studies in various settings in which a trial is stopped for efficacy or futility at the interim analysis. We find that the conditional bias of the proposed estimator is smaller than that of the CMAE when the information time at the interim analysis is small. In addition, the mean‐squared error of the proposed estimator is also smaller than that of the CMAE. In conclusion, we recommend the use of the proposed estimator for trials that are terminated early for efficacy or futility.