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.     

Observational studies,clinical trials,and the women’s health initiative

The complementary roles fulfilled by observational studies and randomized controlled trials in the population science research agenda is illustrated using results from the Women’s Health Initiative (WHI). Comparative and joint analyses of clinical trial and observational study data can enhance observational study design and analysis choices, and can augment randomized trial implications. These concepts are described in the context of findings from the WHI randomized trials of postmenopausal hormone therapy and of a low-fat dietary pattern, especially in relation to coronary heart disease, stroke, and breast cancer. The role of biomarkers of exposure and outcome, including high-dimensional genomic and proteomic biomarkers, in the elucidation of disease associations, will also be discussed in these same contexts.     

“Super-covariates”: Using predicted control group outcome as a covariate in randomized clinical trials

The power of randomized controlled clinical trials to demonstrate the efficacy of a drug compared with a control group depends not just on how efficacious the drug is, but also on the variation in patients' outcomes. Adjusting for prognostic covariates during trial analysis can reduce this variation. For this reason, the primary statistical analysis of a clinical trial is often based on regression models that besides terms for treatment and some further terms (e.g., stratification factors used in the randomization scheme of the trial) also includes a baseline (pre-treatment) assessment of the primary outcome. We suggest to include a “super-covariate”—that is, a patient-specific prediction of the control group outcome—as a further covariate (but not as an offset). We train a prognostic model or ensembles of such models on the individual patient (or aggregate) data of other studies in similar patients, but not the new trial under analysis. This has the potential to use historical data to increase the power of clinical trials and avoids the concern of type I error inflation with Bayesian approaches, but in contrast to them has a greater benefit for larger sample sizes. It is important for prognostic models behind “super-covariates” to generalize well across different patient populations in order to similarly reduce unexplained variability whether the trial(s) to develop the model are identical to the new trial or not. In an example in neovascular age-related macular degeneration we saw efficiency gains from the use of a “super-covariate”.     

Power and sample size for GEE analysis of incomplete paired outcomes in 2 × 2 crossover trials

The 2 × 2 crossover trial uses subjects as their own control to reduce the intersubject variability in the treatment comparison, and typically requires fewer subjects than a parallel design. The generalized estimating equations (GEE) methodology has been commonly used to analyze incomplete discrete outcomes from crossover trials. We propose a unified approach to the power and sample size determination for the Wald Z-test and t-test from GEE analysis of paired binary, ordinal and count outcomes in crossover trials. The proposed method allows misspecification of the variance and correlation of the outcomes, missing outcomes, and adjustment for the period effect. We demonstrate that misspecification of the working variance and correlation functions leads to no or minimal efficiency loss in GEE analysis of paired outcomes. In general, GEE requires the assumption of missing completely at random. For bivariate binary outcomes, we show by simulation that the GEE estimate is asymptotically unbiased or only minimally biased, and the proposed sample size method is suitable under missing at random (MAR) if the working correlation is correctly specified. The performance of the proposed method is illustrated with several numerical examples. Adaption of the method to other paired outcomes is discussed.     

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.     

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.