Hazard ratio inference in stratified clinical trials with time‐to‐event endpoints and limited sample size

The stratified Cox model is commonly used for stratified clinical trials with time‐to‐event endpoints. The estimated log hazard ratio is approximately a weighted average of corresponding stratum‐specific Cox model estimates using inverse‐variance weights; the latter are optimal only under the (often implausible) assumption of a constant hazard ratio across strata. Focusing on trials with limited sample sizes (50‐200 subjects per treatment), we propose an alternative approach in which stratum‐specific estimates are obtained using a refined generalized logrank (RGLR) approach and then combined using either sample size or minimum risk weights for overall inference. Our proposal extends the work of Mehrotra et al, to incorporate the RGLR statistic, which outperforms the Cox model in the setting of proportional hazards and small samples. This work also entails development of a remarkably accurate plug‐in formula for the variance of RGLR‐based estimated log hazard ratios. We demonstrate using simulations that our proposed two‐step RGLR analysis delivers notably better results through smaller estimation bias and mean squared error and larger power than the stratified Cox model analysis when there is a treatment‐by‐stratum interaction, with similar performance when there is no interaction. Additionally, our method controls the type I error rate while the stratified Cox model does not in small samples. We illustrate our method using data from a clinical trial comparing two treatments for colon cancer.     

Statistical aspects in comparative benefit-risk assessment: challenges and opportunities for pharmaceutical statisticians

Benefit-risk assessment is a fundamental element of drug development with the aim to strengthen decision making for the benefit of public health. Appropriate benefit-risk assessment can provide useful information for proactive intervention in health care settings, which could save lives, reduce litigation, improve patient safety and health care outcomes, and furthermore, lower overall health care costs. Recent development in this area presents challenges and opportunities to statisticians in the pharmaceutical industry. We review the development and examine statistical issues in comparative benefit-risk assessment. We argue that a structured benefit-risk assessment should be a multi-disciplinary effort involving experts in clinical science, safety assessment, decision science, health economics, epidemiology and statistics. Well planned and conducted analyses with clear consideration on benefit and risk are critical for appropriate benefit-risk assessment. Pharmaceutical statisticians should extend their knowledge to relevant areas such as pharmaco-epidemiology, decision analysis, modeling, and simulation to play an increasingly important role in comparative benefit-risk assessment.     

The challenges of evaluating dose response in flexible‐dose trials using marginal structural models

Assessing dose response from flexible‐dose clinical trials is problematic. The true dose effect may be obscured and even reversed in observed data because dose is related to both previous and subsequent outcomes. To remove selection bias, we propose marginal structural models, inverse probability of treatment‐weighting (IPTW) methodology. Potential clinical outcomes are compared across dose groups using a marginal structural model (MSM) based on a weighted pooled repeated measures analysis (generalized estimating equations with robust estimates of standard errors), with dose effect represented by current dose and recent dose history, and weights estimated from the data (via logistic regression) and determined as products of (i) inverse probability of receiving dose assignments that were actually received and (ii) inverse probability of remaining on treatment by this time. In simulations, this method led to almost unbiased estimates of true dose effect under various scenarios. Results were compared with those obtained by unweighted analyses and by weighted analyses under various model specifications. The simulation showed that the IPTW MSM methodology is highly sensitive to model misspecification even when weights are known. Practitioners applying MSM should be cautious about the challenges of implementing MSM with real clinical data. Clinical trial data are used to illustrate the methodology. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Bayesian approach for meta - analysis of controlled clinical trials

A new method to perform meta - analysis of controlled clinical trials with binary response variable is developed using a Bayesian approach. It consists of three parts: (1) For each trial, the risk difference (the proportion of successes in the treated group minus the proportion of successes in the control group) is estimated; (2) The homogeneity of the risk difference among the different trials is tested; and (3) The hypothesis - the effect of the treatment for the homogeneous pool of trials is greater than or equal to a given fixed constant - is tested. The performance of the Bayesian procedure to test the homogeneity of the risk difference among trials is compared with the chi - square test proposed by DerSimonian and Laird (Controlled Clinical Trials 7, 177-188, 1986) by means of pseudo - random simulation. The conclusion was that the Bayes test is more reliable, either in its exact or asymptotic versions, since it makes fewer decision errors than the chi-square test. As an illustration, the Bayesian method is applied to data of chemotherapeutic prophylaxis of superficial bladder cancer.     

Decision‐making in drug development using a composite definition of success

Evidence‐based quantitative methodologies have been proposed to inform decision‐making in drug development, such as metrics to make go/no‐go decisions or predictions of success, identified with statistical significance of future clinical trials. While these methodologies appropriately address some critical questions on the potential of a drug, they either consider the past evidence without predicting the outcome of the future trials or focus only on efficacy, failing to account for the multifaceted aspects of a successful drug development. As quantitative benefit‐risk assessments could enhance decision‐making, we propose a more comprehensive approach using a composite definition of success based not only on the statistical significance of the treatment effect on the primary endpoint but also on its clinical relevance and on a favorable benefit‐risk balance in the next pivotal studies. For one drug, we can thus study several development strategies before starting the pivotal trials by comparing their predictive probability of success. The predictions are based on the available evidence from the previous trials, to which new hypotheses on the future development could be added. The resulting predictive probability of composite success provides a useful summary to support the discussions of the decision‐makers. We present a fictive, but realistic, example in major depressive disorder inspired by a real decision‐making case.     

The correlation structure of longitudinal measurements of vision in patients with macular degeneration

Background: In age‐related macular degeneration (ARMD) trials, the FDA‐approved endpoint is the loss (or gain) of at least three lines of vision as compared to baseline. The use of such a response endpoint entails a potentially severe loss of information. A more efficient strategy could be obtained by using longitudinal measures of the change in visual acuity. In this paper we investigate, by using data from two randomized clinical trials, the mean and variance–covariance structures of the longitudinal measurements of the change in visual acuity. Methods: Individual patient data were collected in 234 patients in a randomized trial comparing interferon‐ α with placebo and in 1181 patients in a randomized trial comparing three active doses of pegaptanib with sham. A linear model for longitudinal data was used to analyze the repeated measurements of the change in visual acuity. Results: For both trials, the data were adequately summarized by a model that assumed a quadratic trend for the mean change in visual acuity over time, a power variance function, and an antedependence correlation structure. The power variance function was remarkably similar for the two datasets and involved the square root of the measurement time. Conclusions: The similarity of the estimated variance functions and correlation structures for both datasets indicates that these aspects may be a genuine feature of the measurements of changes in visual acuity in patients with ARMD. The feature can be used in the planning and analysis of trials that use visual acuity as the clinical endpoint of interest. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

A recommended analysis for 2 × 2 crossover trials with baseline measurements

In many two‐period, two‐treatment (2 × 2) crossover trials, for each subject, a continuous response of interest is measured before and after administration of the assigned treatment within each period. The resulting data are typically used to test a null hypothesis involving the true difference in treatment response means. We show that the power achieved by different statistical approaches is greatly influenced by (i) the ‘structure’ of the variance–covariance matrix of the vector of within‐subject responses and (ii) how the baseline (i.e., pre‐treatment) responses are accounted for in the analysis. For (ii), we compare different approaches including ignoring one or both period baselines, using a common change from baseline analysis (which we advise against), using functions of one or both baselines as period‐specific or period‐invariant covariates, and doing joint modeling of the post‐baseline and baseline responses with corresponding mean constraints for the latter. Based on theoretical arguments and simulation‐based type I error rate and power properties, we recommend an analysis of covariance approach that uses the within‐subject difference in treatment responses as the dependent variable and the corresponding difference in baseline responses as a covariate. Data from three clinical trials are used to illustrate the main points. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Practical approaches for design and analysis of clinical trials of infertility treatments: crossover designs and the Mantel–Haenszel method are recommended

Crossover designs have some advantages over standard clinical trial designs and they are often used in trials evaluating the efficacy of treatments for infertility. However, clinical trials of infertility treatments violate a fundamental condition of crossover designs, because women who become pregnant in the first treatment period are not treated in the second period. In previous research, to deal with this problem, some new designs, such as re‐randomization designs, and analysis methods including the logistic mixture model and the beta‐binomial mixture model were proposed. Although the performance of these designs and methods has previously been evaluated in large‐scale clinical trials with sample sizes of more than 1000 per group, the actual sample sizes of infertility treatment trials are usually around 100 per group. The most appropriate design and analysis for these moderate‐scale clinical trials are currently unclear. In this study, we conducted simulation studies to determine the appropriate design and analysis method of moderate‐scale clinical trials for irreversible endpoints by evaluating the statistical power and bias in the treatment effect estimates. The Mantel–Haenszel method had similar power and bias to the logistic mixture model. The crossover designs had the highest power and the smallest bias. We recommend using a combination of the crossover design and the Mantel–Haenszel method for two‐period, two‐treatment clinical trials with irreversible endpoints. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

A modified random-effect procedure for combining risk difference in sets of 2×2 tables from clinical trials

Summary Meta-analyses of sets of clinical trials often combine risk differences from several 2×2 tables according to a random-effects model. The DerSimonian-Laird random-effects procedure, widely used for estimating the populaton mean risk difference, weights the risk difference from each primary study inversely proportional to an estimate of its variance (the sum of the between-study variance and the conditional within-study variance). Because those weights are not independent of the risk differences, however, the procedure sometimes exhibits bias and unnatural behavior. The present paper proposes a modified weighting scheme that uses the unconditional within-study variance to avoid this source of bias. The modified procedure has variance closer to that available from weighting by ideal weights when such weights are known. We studied the modified procedure in extensive simulation experiments using situations whose parameters resemble those of actual studies in medical research. For comparison we also included two unbiased procedures, the unweighted mean and a sample-size-weighted mean; their relative variability depends on the extent of heterogeneity among the primary studies. An example illustrates the application of the procedures to actual data and the differences among the results. This research was supported by Grant HS 05936 from the Agency for Health Care Policy and Research to Harvard University.     

Unifying CRM and EWOC designs for phase I cancer clinical trials

The main goal of phase I cancer clinical trials is to determine the highest dose of a new therapy associated with an acceptable level of toxicity for the use in a subsequent phase II trial. The continual reassessment method (CRM) [O’Quigley, J., Pepe, M., Fisher, L., 1990. Continual reassessment method: a practical design for phase I clinical trials in cancer. Biometrics 46, 33–48] and escalation with overdose control (EWOC) [Babb, J., Rogatko, A., Zacks, S., 1998. Cancer phase I clinical trials: efficient dose escalation with overdose control. Statist. Med. 17 (10), 1103–1120] are two model-based designs used for phase I cancer clinical trials. A few modifications of the (original) CRM and EWOC have been made by many authors. In this paper, we show how CRM and EWOC can be unified and present a hybrid design. We study the characteristics of the approach of the hybrid design. The comparisons of the three designs (CRM, EWOC, and the hybrid design) are presented by convergence rates and overdose proportions. The simulation results show that the hybrid design generally has faster convergence rates than EWOC and smaller overdose proportions than CRM, especially when the true maximum tolerated dose (MTD) is above the mid-level of the dose range considered. The performance of these three designs is also evaluated in terms of sensitivity to outliers.     

Joint probability of statistical success of multiple phase III trials

In drug development, after completion of phase II proof‐of‐concept trials, the sponsor needs to make a go/no‐go decision to start expensive phase III trials. The probability of statistical success (PoSS) of the phase III trials based on data from earlier studies is an important factor in that decision‐making process. Instead of statistical power, the predictive power of a phase III trial, which takes into account the uncertainty in the estimation of treatment effect from earlier studies, has been proposed to evaluate the PoSS of a single trial. However, regulatory authorities generally require statistical significance in two (or more) trials for marketing licensure. We show that the predictive statistics of two future trials are statistically correlated through use of the common observed data from earlier studies. Thus, the joint predictive power should not be evaluated as a simplistic product of the predictive powers of the individual trials. We develop the relevant formulae for the appropriate evaluation of the joint predictive power and provide numerical examples. Our methodology is further extended to the more complex phase III development scenario comprising more than two (K > 2) trials, that is, the evaluation of the PoSS of at least k₀ () trials from a program of K total trials. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Modeling potential time to event data with competing risks

Patients receiving radical prostatectomy are at risk of metastasis or prostate cancer related death, and often need repeated clinical evaluations to determine whether additional adjuvant or salvage therapies are needed. Since the prostate cancer is a slowly progressing disease, and these additional therapies come with significant side effects, it is important for clinical decision making purposes to estimate a patient’s risk of cancer metastasis, in the presence of a competing risk by death, under the hypothetical condition that the patient does not receive any additional therapy. In observational studies, patients may receive additional therapy by choice; the time to metastasis without any therapy is often a potential outcome and not always observed. We study the competing risks model of Fine and Gray (J Am Stat Assoc, 94:496–509, 1999) with adjustment for treatment choice by inverse probability censoring weighting (IPCW). The model can be fit using standard software for partial likelihood with double IPCW weights. The proposed methodology is used in a prostate cancer study to predict the post-prostatectomy cumulative incidence probability of cancer metastasis without additional adjuvant or salvage therapies.     

A partial score test for difference among heterogeneous populations

In event time data analysis, comparisons between distributions are made by the logrank test. When the data appear to contain crossing hazards phenomena, nonparametric weighted logrank statistics are usually suggested to accommodate different-weighted functions to increase the power. However, the gain in power by imposing different weights has its limits since differences before and after the crossing point may balance each other out. In contrast to the weighted logrank tests, we propose a score-type statistic based on the semiparametric-, heteroscedastic-hazards regression model of Hsieh [2001. On heteroscedastic hazards regression models: theory and application. J. Roy. Statist. Soc. Ser. B 63, 63–79.], by which the nonproportionality is explicitly modeled. Our score test is based on estimating functions derived from partial likelihood under the heteroscedastic model considered herein. Simulation results show the benefit of modeling the heteroscedasticity and power of the proposed test to two classes of weighted logrank tests (including Fleming–Harrington's test and Moreau's locally most powerful test), a Renyi-type test, and the Breslow's test for acceleration. We also demonstrate the application of this test by analyzing actual data in clinical trials.     

Adaptive truncated weighting for improving marginal structural model estimation of treatment effects informally censored by subsequent therapy

Randomized clinical trials are designed to estimate the direct effect of a treatment by randomly assigning patients to receive either treatment or control. However, in some trials, patients who discontinued their initial randomized treatment are allowed to switch to another treatment. Therefore, the direct treatment effect of interest may be confounded by subsequent treatment. Moreover, the decision on whether to initiate a second‐line treatment is typically made based on time‐dependent factors that may be affected by prior treatment history. Due to these time‐dependent confounders, traditional time‐dependent Cox models may produce biased estimators of the direct treatment effect. Marginal structural models (MSMs) have been applied to estimate causal treatment effects even in the presence of time‐dependent confounders. However, the occurrence of extremely large weights can inflate the variance of the MSM estimators. In this article, we proposed a new method for estimating weights in MSMs by adaptively truncating the longitudinal inverse probabilities. This method provides balance in the bias variance trade‐off when large weights are inevitable, without the ad hoc removal of selected observations. We conducted simulation studies to explore the performance of different methods by comparing bias, standard deviation, confidence interval coverage rates, and mean square error under various scenarios. We also applied these methods to a randomized, open‐label, phase III study of patients with nonsquamous non‐small cell lung cancer. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Escalation strategies for combination therapy Phase I trials

Phase I clinical trials aim to identify a maximum tolerated dose (MTD), the highest possible dose that does not cause an unacceptable amount of toxicity in the patients. In trials of combination therapies, however, many different dose combinations may have a similar probability of causing a dose‐limiting toxicity, and hence, a number of MTDs may exist. Furthermore, escalation strategies in combination trials are more complex, with possible escalation/de‐escalation of either or both drugs. This paper investigates the properties of two existing proposed Bayesian adaptive models for combination therapy dose‐escalation when a number of different escalation strategies are applied. We assess operating characteristics through a series of simulation studies and show that strategies that only allow ‘non‐diagonal’ moves in the escalation process (that is, both drugs cannot increase simultaneously) are inefficient and identify fewer MTDs for Phase II comparisons. Such strategies tend to escalate a single agent first while keeping the other agent fixed, which can be a severe restriction when exploring dose surfaces using a limited sample size. Meanwhile, escalation designs based on Bayesian D‐optimality allow more varied experimentation around the dose space and, consequently, are better at identifying more MTDs. We argue that for Phase I combination trials it is sensible to take forward a number of identified MTDs for Phase II experimentation so that their efficacy can be directly compared. Researchers, therefore, need to carefully consider the escalation strategy and model that best allows the identification of these MTDs. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Using marginal structural models to analyze the impact of subsequent therapy on the treatment effect in survival data: Simulations and clinical trial examples

We explore the impact of time-varying subsequent therapy on the statistical power and treatment effects in survival analysis. The marginal structural model (MSM) with stabilized inverse probability treatment weights (sIPTW) was used to account for the effects due to the subsequent therapy. Simulations were performed to compare the MSM-sIPTW method with the conventional method without accounting for the time-varying covariate such as subsequent therapy that is dependent on the initial response of the treatment effect. The results of the simulations indicated that the statistical power, thereby the Type I error, of the trials to detect the frontline treatment effect could be inflated if no appropriate adjustment was made for the impact due to the add-on effects of the subsequent therapy. Correspondingly, the hazard ratio between the treatment groups may be overestimated by the conventional analysis methods. In contrast, MSM-sIPTW can maintain the Type I error rate and gave unbiased estimates of the hazard ratio for the treatment. Two real examples were used to discuss the potential clinical implications. The study demonstrated the importance of accounting for time-varying subsequent therapy for obtaining unbiased interpretation of data.     

Effect of design specifications in dose‐finding trials for combination therapies in oncology

Model‐based dose‐finding methods for a combination therapy involving two agents in phase I oncology trials typically include four design aspects namely, size of the patient cohort, three‐parameter dose‐toxicity model, choice of start‐up rule, and whether or not to include a restriction on dose‐level skipping. The effect of each design aspect on the operating characteristics of the dose‐finding method has not been adequately studied. However, some studies compared the performance of rival dose‐finding methods using design aspects outlined by the original studies. In this study, we featured the well‐known four design aspects and evaluated the impact of each independent effect on the operating characteristics of the dose‐finding method including these aspects. We performed simulation studies to examine the effect of these design aspects on the determination of the true maximum tolerated dose combinations as well as exposure to unacceptable toxic dose combinations. The results demonstrated that the selection rates of maximum tolerated dose combinations and UTDCs vary depending on the patient cohort size and restrictions on dose‐level skipping However, the three‐parameter dose‐toxicity models and start‐up rules did not affect these parameters. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

A two-stage sequential design and analysis for comparing binomial rates with possibly random dropouts

Many clinical trials involve two-stage sequential designs with one interim analysis (Elashoff and Reedy, 1984, Biometrics 41, 791-795.) In this paper we present a situation where events are counted only at two fixed calendar time points and some patients may dropout during the time intervals. In the two-stage case, naive application of Tsiatis’s (1984, JASA 77, 855-861) logrank and Wilcoxon tests, which are for continuous survival time, is shown to lead to conservative type-I error rates and lower power. The two-stage sequential boundaries can also be calculated directly, rather than by simulation as was done by DeMets and Gail (1985, Biometrics 41, 1039-1044) with the assumption of some survival models, and are shown to be more flexible than the Pocock (1977, Biometrika 64, 191-199) and O’Brien-Fleming (1983, Biometrics 35, 549-556) boundaries since the former do not require an assumption on the correlation of the test statistics for the two stages. Repeated confidence intervals are also discussed. The design and approach are motivated by clinical trials studying treatment effects on vertebral fracture rates in elderly osteoporotic women. An example (Tilyard, et al. New England Journal of Medicine, 1992) is given to illustrate the method.     

Theoretical study of the continual reassessment method

The continual reassessment method (CRM) was first introduced by O’Quigley et al. [1990. Continual reassessment method: a practical design for Phase I clinical trials in cancer. Biometrics 46, 33–48]. Many articles followed adding to the original ideas, among which are articles by Babb et al. [1998. Cancer Phase I clinical trials: efficient dose escalation with overdose control. Statist. Med. 17, 1103–1120], Braun [2002. The bivariate-continual reassessment method. Extending the CRM to phase I trials of two competing outcomes. Controlled Clin. Trials 23, 240–256], Chevret [1993. The continual reassessment method in cancer phase I clinical trials: a simulation study. Statist. Med. 12, 1093–1108], Faries [1994. Practical modifications of the continual reassessment method for phase I cancer clinical trials. J. Biopharm. Statist. 4, 147–164], Goodman et al. [1995. Some practical improvements in the continual reassessment method for phase I studies. Statist. Med. 14, 1149–1161], Ishizuka and Ohashi [2001. The continual reassessment method and its applications: a Bayesian methodology for phase I cancer clinical trials. Statist. Med. 20, 2661–2681], Legedeza and Ibrahim [2002. Longitudinal design for phase I trials using the continual reassessment method. Controlled Clin. Trials 21, 578–588], Mahmood [2001. Application of preclinical data to initiate the modified continual reassessment method for maximum tolerated dose-finding trial. J. Clin. Pharmacol. 41, 19–24], Moller [1995. An extension of the continual reassessment method using a preliminary up and down design in a dose finding study in cancer patients in order to investigate a greater number of dose levels. Statist. Med. 14, 911–922], O’Quigley [1992. Estimating the probability of toxicity at the recommended dose following a Phase I clinical trial in cancer. Biometrics 48, 853–862], O’Quigley and Shen [1996. Continual reassessment method: a likelihood approach. Biometrics 52, 163–174], O’Quigley et al. (1999), O’Quigley et al. [2002. Non-parametric optimal design in dose finding studies. Biostatistics 3, 51–56], O’Quigley and Paoletti [2003. Continual reassessment method for ordered groups. Biometrics 59, 429–439], Piantodosi et al., 1998. [1998 Practical implementation of a modified continual reassessment method for dose-finding trials. Cancer Chemother. Pharmacol. 41, 429–436] and Whitehead and Williamson [1998. Bayesian decision procedures based on logistic regression models for dose-finding studies. J. Biopharm. Statist. 8, 445–467]. The method is broadly described by Storer [1989. Design and analysis of Phase I clinical trials. Biometrics 45, 925–937]. Whether likelihood or Bayesian based, inference poses particular theoretical difficulties in view of working models being under-parameterized. Nonetheless CRM models have proven themselves to be of practical use and, in this work, the aim is to turn the spotlight on the main theoretical ideas underpinning the approach, obtaining results which can provide guidance in practice. Stemming from this theoretical framework are a number of results and some further development, in particular the way to structure a randomized allocation of subjects as well as a more robust approach to the problem of dealing with patient heterogeneity.