Bayesian design and analysis of composite endpoints in clinical trials with multiple dependent binary outcomes

The author considers studies with multiple dependent primary endpoints. Testing hypotheses with multiple primary endpoints may require unmanageably large populations. Composite endpoints consisting of several binary events may be used to reduce a trial to a manageable size. The primary difficulties with composite endpoints are that different endpoints may have different clinical importance and that higher‐frequency variables may overwhelm effects of smaller, but equally important, primary outcomes. To compensate for these inconsistencies, we weight each type of event, and the total number of weighted events is counted. To reflect the mutual dependency of primary endpoints and to make the weighting method effective in small clinical trials, we use the Bayesian approach. We assume a multinomial distribution of multiple endpoints with Dirichlet priors and apply the Bayesian test of noninferiority to the calculation of weighting parameters. We use composite endpoints to test hypotheses of superiority in single‐arm and two‐arm clinical trials. The composite endpoints have a beta distribution. We illustrate this technique with an example. The results provide a statistical procedure for creating composite endpoints. Published 2013. This article is a U.S. Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.     

Treatment effect quantification for time‐to‐event endpoints–Estimands,analysis strategies,and beyond

A draft addendum to ICH E9 has been released for public consultation in August 2017. The addendum focuses on two topics particularly relevant for randomized confirmatory clinical trials: estimands and sensitivity analyses. The need to amend ICH E9 grew out of the realization of a lack of alignment between the objectives of a clinical trial stated in the protocol and the accompanying quantification of the “treatment effect” reported in a regulatory submission. We embed time‐to‐event endpoints in the estimand framework and discuss how the four estimand attributes described in the addendum apply to time‐to‐event endpoints. We point out that if the proportional hazards assumption is not met, the estimand targeted by the most prevalent methods used to analyze time‐to‐event endpoints, logrank test, and Cox regression depends on the censoring distribution. We discuss for a large randomized clinical trial how the analyses for the primary and secondary endpoints as well as the sensitivity analyses actually performed in the trial can be seen in the context of the addendum. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first attempt to do so for a trial with a time‐to‐event endpoint. Questions that remain open with the addendum for time‐to‐event endpoints and beyond are formulated, and recommendations for planning of future trials are given. We hope that this will provide a contribution to developing a common framework based on the final version of the addendum that can be applied to design, protocols, statistical analysis plans, and clinical study reports in the future.     

Randomization as a basis for inference in noninferiority trials

Noninferiority testing in clinical trials is commonly understood in a Neyman-Pearson framework, and has been discussed in a Bayesian framework as well. In this paper, we discuss noninferiority testing in a Fisherian framework, in which the only assumption necessary for inference is the assumption of randomization of treatments to study subjects. Randomization plays an important role in not only the design but also the analysis of clinical trials, no matter the underlying inferential field. The ability to utilize permutation tests depends on assumptions around exchangeability, and we discuss the possible uses of permutation tests in active control noninferiority analyses. The other practical implications of this paper are admittedly minor but lead to better understanding of the historical and philosophical development of active control noninferiority testing. The conclusion may also frame discussion of other complicated issues in noninferiority testing, such as the role of an intention to treat analysis.     

A dynamic power prior for borrowing historical data in noninferiority trials with binary endpoint

Traditionally, noninferiority hypotheses have been tested using a frequentist method with a fixed margin. Given that information for the control group is often available from previous studies, it is interesting to consider a Bayesian approach in which information is “borrowed” for the control group to improve efficiency. However, construction of an appropriate informative prior can be challenging. In this paper, we consider a hybrid Bayesian approach for testing noninferiority hypotheses in studies with a binary endpoint. To account for heterogeneity between the historical information and the current trial for the control group, a dynamic P value–based power prior parameter is proposed to adjust the amount of information borrowed from the historical data. This approach extends the simple test‐then‐pool method to allow a continuous discounting power parameter. An adjusted α level is also proposed to better control the type I error. Simulations are conducted to investigate the performance of the proposed method and to make comparisons with other methods including test‐then‐pool and hierarchical modeling. The methods are illustrated with data from vaccine clinical trials.     

Tests for noninferiority trials with binomial endpoints: A guide to modern and quasi‐exact methods for biomedical researchers

Applied statisticians and pharmaceutical researchers are frequently involved in the design and analysis of clinical trials where at least one of the outcomes is binary. Treatments are judged by the probability of a positive binary response. A typical example is the noninferiority trial, where it is tested whether a new experimental treatment is practically not inferior to an active comparator with a prespecified margin δ. Except for the special case of δ = 0, no exact conditional test is available although approximate conditional methods (also called second‐order methods) can be applied. However, in some situations, the approximation can be poor and the logical argument for approximate conditioning is not compelling. The alternative is to consider an unconditional approach. Standard methods like the pooled z‐test are already unconditional although approximate. In this article, we review and illustrate unconditional methods with a heavy emphasis on modern methods that can deliver exact, or near exact, results. For noninferiority trials based on either rate difference or rate ratio, our recommendation is to use the so‐called E‐procedure, based on either the score or likelihood ratio statistic. This test is effectively exact, computationally efficient, and respects monotonicity constraints in practice. We support our assertions with a numerical study, and we illustrate the concepts developed in theory with a clinical example in pulmonary oncology; R code to conduct all these analyses is available from the authors.     

Adaptive and repeated cumulative meta‐analyses of safety data during a new drug development process

During a new drug development process, it is desirable to timely detect potential safety signals. For this purpose, repeated meta‐analyses may be performed sequentially on accumulating safety data. Moreover, if the amount of safety data from the originally planned program is not enough to ensure adequate power to test a specific hypothesis (e.g., the noninferiority hypothesis of an event of interest), the total sample size may be increased by adding new studies to the program. Without appropriate adjustment, it is well known that the type I error rate will be inflated because of repeated analyses and sample size adjustment. In this paper, we discuss potential issues associated with adaptive and repeated cumulative meta‐analyses of safety data conducted during a drug development process. We consider both frequentist and Bayesian approaches. A new drug development example is used to demonstrate the application of the methods. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Some statistical considerations in the clinical development of cancer immunotherapies

Immuno‐oncology has emerged as an exciting new approach to cancer treatment. Common immunotherapy approaches include cancer vaccine, effector cell therapy, and T‐cell–stimulating antibody. Checkpoint inhibitors such as cytotoxic T lymphocyte–associated antigen 4 and programmed death‐1/L1 antagonists have shown promising results in multiple indications in solid tumors and hematology. However, the mechanisms of action of these novel drugs pose unique statistical challenges in the accurate evaluation of clinical safety and efficacy, including late‐onset toxicity, dose optimization, evaluation of combination agents, pseudoprogression, and delayed and lasting clinical activity. Traditional statistical methods may not be the most accurate or efficient. It is highly desirable to develop the most suitable statistical methodologies and tools to efficiently investigate cancer immunotherapies. In this paper, we summarize these issues and discuss alternative methods to meet the challenges in the clinical development of these novel agents. For safety evaluation and dose‐finding trials, we recommend the use of a time‐to‐event model‐based design to handle late toxicities, a simple 3‐step procedure for dose optimization, and flexible rule‐based or model‐based designs for combination agents. For efficacy evaluation, we discuss alternative endpoints/designs/tests including the time‐specific probability endpoint, the restricted mean survival time, the generalized pairwise comparison method, the immune‐related response criteria, and the weighted log‐rank or weighted Kaplan‐Meier test. The benefits and limitations of these methods are discussed, and some recommendations are provided for applied researchers to implement these methods in clinical practice.     

Design and analysis of a 3‐arm noninferiority trial with a prespecified margin for the hazard ratio

A 3‐arm trial design that includes an experimental treatment, an active reference treatment, and a placebo is useful for assessing the noninferiority of an experimental treatment. The inclusion of a placebo arm enables the assessment of assay sensitivity and internal validation, in addition to the testing of the noninferiority of the experimental treatment compared with the reference treatment. In 3‐arm noninferiority trials, various statistical test procedures have been considered to evaluate the following 3 hypotheses: (i) superiority of the experimental treatment over the placebo, (ii) superiority of the reference treatment over the placebo, and (iii) noninferiority of the experimental treatment compared with the reference treatment. However, hypothesis (ii) can be insufficient and may not accurately assess the assay sensitivity for the noninferiority of the experimental treatment compared with the reference treatment. Thus, demonstrating that the superiority of the reference treatment over the placebo is greater than the noninferiority margin (the nonsuperiority of the reference treatment compared with the placebo) can be necessary. Here, we propose log‐rank statistical procedures for evaluating data obtained from 3‐arm noninferiority trials to assess assay sensitivity with a prespecified margin Δ. In addition, we derive the approximate sample size and optimal allocation required to minimize the total sample size and that of the placebo treatment sample size, hierarchically.     

Sample size calculations for noninferiority trials for time-to-event data using the concept of proportional time

Noninferiority trials intend to show that a new treatment is ‘not worse'' than a standard-of-care active control and can be used as an alternative when it is likely to cause fewer side effects compared to the active control. In the case of time-to-event endpoints, existing methods of sample size calculation are done either assuming proportional hazards between the two study arms, or assuming exponentially distributed lifetimes. In scenarios where these assumptions are not true, there are few reliable methods for calculating the sample sizes for a time-to-event noninferiority trial. Additionally, the choice of the non-inferiority margin is obtained either from a meta-analysis of prior studies, or strongly justifiable ‘expert opinion'', or from a ‘well conducted'' definitive large-sample study. Thus, when historical data do not support the traditional assumptions, it would not be appropriate to use these methods to design a noninferiority trial. For such scenarios, an alternate method of sample size calculation based on the assumption of Proportional Time is proposed. This method utilizes the generalized gamma ratio distribution to perform the sample size calculations. A practical example is discussed, followed by insights on choice of the non-inferiority margin, and the indirect testing of superiority of treatment compared to placebo.KEYWORDS: Generalized gamma, noninferiority, non-proportional hazards, proportional time, relative time, sample size     

Sensitivity to censored‐at‐random assumption in the analysis of time‐to‐event endpoints

Over the past years, significant progress has been made in developing statistically rigorous methods to implement clinically interpretable sensitivity analyses for assumptions about the missingness mechanism in clinical trials for continuous and (to a lesser extent) for binary or categorical endpoints. Studies with time‐to‐event outcomes have received much less attention. However, such studies can be similarly challenged with respect to the robustness and integrity of primary analysis conclusions when a substantial number of subjects withdraw from treatment prematurely prior to experiencing an event of interest. We discuss how the methods that are widely used for primary analyses of time‐to‐event outcomes could be extended in a clinically meaningful and interpretable way to stress‐test the assumption of ignorable censoring. We focus on a ‘tipping point’ approach, the objective of which is to postulate sensitivity parameters with a clear clinical interpretation and to identify a setting of these parameters unfavorable enough towards the experimental treatment to nullify a conclusion that was favorable to that treatment. Robustness of primary analysis results can then be assessed based on clinical plausibility of the scenario represented by the tipping point. We study several approaches for conducting such analyses based on multiple imputation using parametric, semi‐parametric, and non‐parametric imputation models and evaluate their operating characteristics via simulation. We argue that these methods are valuable tools for sensitivity analyses of time‐to‐event data and conclude that the method based on piecewise exponential imputation model of survival has some advantages over other methods studied here. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Applications of asymptotic confidence intervals with continuity corrections for asymmetric comparisons in noninferiority trials

A large‐sample problem of illustrating noninferiority of an experimental treatment over a referent treatment for binary outcomes is considered. The methods of illustrating noninferiority involve constructing the lower two‐sided confidence bound for the difference between binomial proportions corresponding to the experimental and referent treatments and comparing it with the negative value of the noninferiority margin. The three considered methods, Anbar, Falk–Koch, and Reduced Falk–Koch, handle the comparison in an asymmetric way, that is, only the referent proportion out of the two, experimental and referent, is directly involved in the expression for the variance of the difference between two sample proportions. Five continuity corrections (including zero) are considered with respect to each approach. The key properties of the corresponding methods are evaluated via simulations. First, the uncorrected two‐sided confidence intervals can, potentially, have smaller coverage probability than the nominal level even for moderately large sample sizes, for example, 150 per group. Next, the 15 testing methods are discussed in terms of their Type I error rate and power. In the settings with a relatively small referent proportion (about 0.4 or smaller), the Anbar approach with Yates’ continuity correction is recommended for balanced designs and the Falk–Koch method with Yates’ correction is recommended for unbalanced designs. For relatively moderate (about 0.6) and large (about 0.8 or greater) referent proportion, the uncorrected Reduced Falk–Koch method is recommended, although in this case, all methods tend to be over‐conservative. These results are expected to be used in the design stage of a noninferiority study when asymmetric comparisons are envisioned. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

An investigation into the two‐stage meta‐analytic copula modelling approach for evaluating time‐to‐event surrogate endpoints which comprise of one or more events of interest

Clinical trials of experimental treatments must be designed with primary endpoints that directly measure clinical benefit for patients. In many disease areas, the recognised gold standard primary endpoint can take many years to mature, leading to challenges in the conduct and quality of clinical studies. There is increasing interest in using shorter‐term surrogate endpoints as substitutes for costly long‐term clinical trial endpoints; such surrogates need to be selected according to biological plausibility, as well as the ability to reliably predict the unobserved treatment effect on the long‐term endpoint. A number of statistical methods to evaluate this prediction have been proposed; this paper uses a simulation study to explore one such method in the context of time‐to‐event surrogates for a time‐to‐event true endpoint. This two‐stage meta‐analytic copula method has been extensively studied for time‐to‐event surrogate endpoints with one event of interest, but thus far has not been explored for the assessment of surrogates which have multiple events of interest, such as those incorporating information directly from the true clinical endpoint. We assess the sensitivity of the method to various factors including strength of association between endpoints, the quantity of data available, and the effect of censoring. In particular, we consider scenarios where there exist very little data on which to assess surrogacy. Results show that the two‐stage meta‐analytic copula method performs well under certain circumstances and could be considered useful in practice, but demonstrates limitations that may prevent universal use.     

Sequential parallel comparison design with two coprimary endpoints

A placebo‐controlled randomized clinical trial is required to demonstrate that an experimental treatment is superior to its corresponding placebo on multiple coprimary endpoints. This is particularly true in the field of neurology. In fact, clinical trials for neurological disorders need to show the superiority of an experimental treatment over a placebo in two coprimary endpoints. Unfortunately, these trials often fail to detect a true treatment effect for the experimental treatment versus the placebo owing to an unexpectedly high placebo response rate. Sequential parallel comparison design (SPCD) can be used to address this problem. However, the SPCD has not yet been discussed in relation to clinical trials with coprimary endpoints. In this article, our aim was to develop a hypothesis‐testing method and a method for calculating the corresponding sample size for the SPCD with two coprimary endpoints. In a simulation, we show that the proposed hypothesis‐testing method achieves the nominal type I error rate and power and that the proposed sample size calculation method has adequate power accuracy. In addition, the usefulness of our methods is confirmed by returning to an SPCD trial with a single primary endpoint of Alzheimer disease‐related agitation.     

P-value adjustment for multiple binary endpoints

The p-value-based adjustment of individual endpoints and the global test for an overall inference are the two general approaches for the analysis of multiple endpoints. Statistical procedures developed for testing multivariate outcomes often assume that the multivariate endpoints are either independent or normally distributed. This paper presents a general approach for the analysis of multivariate binary data under the framework of generalized linear models. The generalized estimating equations (GEE) approach is applied to estimate the correlation matrix of the test statistics using the identity and exchangeable working correlation matrices with the model-based as well as robust estimators. The objectives of the approaches are the adjustment of p-values of individual endpoints to identify the affected endpoints as well as the global test of an overall effect. A Monte Carlo simulation was conducted to evaluate the overall family wise error (FWE) rates of the single-step down p-value adjustment approach from two adjustment methods to three global test statistics. The p-value adjustment approach seems to control the FWE better than the global approach Applications of the proposed methods are illustrated by analyzing a carcinogenicity experiment designed to study the dose response trend for 10 tumor sites, and a developmental toxicity experiment with three malformation types: external, visceral, and skeletal.     

Predicting analysis time in events‐driven clinical trials using accumulating time‐to‐event surrogate information

For clinical trials with time‐to‐event endpoints, predicting the accrual of the events of interest with precision is critical in determining the timing of interim and final analyses. For example, overall survival (OS) is often chosen as the primary efficacy endpoint in oncology studies, with planned interim and final analyses at a pre‐specified number of deaths. Often, correlated surrogate information, such as time‐to‐progression (TTP) and progression‐free survival, are also collected as secondary efficacy endpoints. It would be appealing to borrow strength from the surrogate information to improve the precision of the analysis time prediction. Currently available methods in the literature for predicting analysis timings do not consider utilizing the surrogate information. In this article, using OS and TTP as an example, a general parametric model for OS and TTP is proposed, with the assumption that disease progression could change the course of the overall survival. Progression‐free survival, related both to OS and TTP, will be handled separately, as it can be derived from OS and TTP. The authors seek to develop a prediction procedure using a Bayesian method and provide detailed implementation strategies under certain assumptions. Simulations are performed to evaluate the performance of the proposed method. An application to a real study is also provided. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Improving interim decisions in randomized trials by exploiting information on short‐term endpoints and prognostic baseline covariates

Conditional power calculations are frequently used to guide the decision whether or not to stop a trial for futility or to modify planned sample size. These ignore the information in short‐term endpoints and baseline covariates, and thereby do not make fully efficient use of the information in the data. We therefore propose an interim decision procedure based on the conditional power approach which exploits the information contained in baseline covariates and short‐term endpoints. We will realize this by considering the estimation of the treatment effect at the interim analysis as a missing data problem. This problem is addressed by employing specific prediction models for the long‐term endpoint which enable the incorporation of baseline covariates and multiple short‐term endpoints. We show that the proposed procedure leads to an efficiency gain and a reduced sample size, without compromising the Type I error rate of the procedure, even when the adopted prediction models are misspecified. In particular, implementing our proposal in the conditional power approach enables earlier decisions relative to standard approaches, whilst controlling the probability of an incorrect decision. This time gain results in a lower expected number of recruited patients in case of stopping for futility, such that fewer patients receive the futile regimen. We explain how these methods can be used in adaptive designs with unblinded sample size re‐assessment based on the inverse normal P‐value combination method to control Type I error. We support the proposal by Monte Carlo simulations based on data from a real clinical trial.     

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.     

Optimal planning of phase II/III programs for clinical trials with multiple endpoints

Owing to increased costs and competition pressure, drug development becomes more and more challenging. Therefore, there is a strong need for improving efficiency of clinical research by developing and applying methods for quantitative decision making. In this context, the integrated planning for phase II/III programs plays an important role as numerous quantities can be varied that are crucial for cost, benefit, and program success. Recently, a utility‐based framework has been proposed for an optimal planning of phase II/III programs that puts the choice of decision boundaries and phase II sample sizes on a quantitative basis. However, this method is restricted to studies with a single time‐to‐event endpoint. We generalize this procedure to the setting of clinical trials with multiple endpoints and (asymptotically) normally distributed test statistics. Optimal phase II sample sizes and go/no‐go decision rules are provided for both the “all‐or‐none” and “at‐least‐one” win criteria. Application of the proposed method is illustrated by drug development programs in the fields of Alzheimer disease and oncology.     

A temporal correlation function for the association between patient‐reported outcome and clinical endpoints

For clinical trials with multiple endpoints, the primary interest is usually to evaluate the relationship of these endpoints and treatment interventions. Studying the correlation of two clinical trial endpoints can also be of interests. For example, the association between patient‐reported outcome and clinically assessed endpoint could answer important research questions and also generate interesting hypothesis for future research. However, it is not straightforward to quantify such association. In this article, we proposed a multiple event approach to profile such association with a temporal correlation function, visualized by a correlation function plot over time with a confidence band. We developed this approach by extending the existing methodology in recurrent event literature. This approach was shown to be generally unbiased and could be a useful tool for data visualization and inference. We demonstrated the use of this method with data from a real clinical trial. Although this approach was developed to evaluate the association between patient‐reported outcome and adverse events, it can also be used to evaluate the association of any two endpoints that can be translated to time‐to‐event endpoints. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.