Inference and Decision Making for 21st-Century Drug Development and Approval

ABSTRACT

The cost and time of pharmaceutical drug development continue to grow at rates that many say are unsustainable. These trends have enormous impact on what treatments get to patients, when they get them and how they are used. The statistical framework for supporting decisions in regulated clinical development of new medicines has followed a traditional path of frequentist methodology. Trials using hypothesis tests of “no treatment effect” are done routinely, and the p-value < 0.05 is often the determinant of what constitutes a “successful” trial. Many drugs fail in clinical development, adding to the cost of new medicines, and some evidence points blame at the deficiencies of the frequentist paradigm. An unknown number effective medicines may have been abandoned because trials were declared “unsuccessful” due to a p-value exceeding 0.05. Recently, the Bayesian paradigm has shown utility in the clinical drug development process for its probability-based inference. We argue for a Bayesian approach that employs data from other trials as a “prior” for Phase 3 trials so that synthesized evidence across trials can be utilized to compute probability statements that are valuable for understanding the magnitude of treatment effect. Such a Bayesian paradigm provides a promising framework for improving statistical inference and regulatory decision making.     

Type I error rates from likelihood‐based repeated measures analyses of incomplete longitudinal data

The last observation carried forward (LOCF) approach is commonly utilized to handle missing values in the primary analysis of clinical trials. However, recent evidence suggests that likelihood‐based analyses developed under the missing at random (MAR) framework are sensible alternatives. The objective of this study was to assess the Type I error rates from a likelihood‐based MAR approach – mixed‐model repeated measures (MMRM) – compared with LOCF when estimating treatment contrasts for mean change from baseline to endpoint (Δ). Data emulating neuropsychiatric clinical trials were simulated in a 4 × 4 factorial arrangement of scenarios, using four patterns of mean changes over time and four strategies for deleting data to generate subject dropout via an MAR mechanism. In data with no dropout, estimates of Δ and SE_Δ from MMRM and LOCF were identical. In data with dropout, the Type I error rates (averaged across all scenarios) for MMRM and LOCF were 5.49% and 16.76%, respectively. In 11 of the 16 scenarios, the Type I error rate from MMRM was at least 1.00% closer to the expected rate of 5.00% than the corresponding rate from LOCF. In no scenario did LOCF yield a Type I error rate that was at least 1.00% closer to the expected rate than the corresponding rate from MMRM. The average estimate of SE_Δ from MMRM was greater in data with dropout than in complete data, whereas the average estimate of SE_Δ from LOCF was smaller in data with dropout than in complete data, suggesting that standard errors from MMRM better reflected the uncertainty in the data. The results from this investigation support those from previous studies, which found that MMRM provided reasonable control of Type I error even in the presence of MNAR missingness. No universally best approach to analysis of longitudinal data exists. However, likelihood‐based MAR approaches have been shown to perform well in a variety of situations and are a sensible alternative to the LOCF approach. MNAR methods can be used within a sensitivity analysis framework to test the potential presence and impact of MNAR data, thereby assessing robustness of results from an MAR method. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

The Persistent Problem of Colorism: Skin Tone, Status, and Inequality

Colorism is a persistent problem for people of color in the USA. Colorism, or skin color stratification, is a process that privileges light-skinned people of color over dark in areas such as income, education, housing, and the marriage market. This essay describes the experiences of African Americans, Latinos, and Asian Americans with regard to skin color. Research demonstrates that light-skinned people have clear advantages in these areas, even when controlling for other background variables. However, dark-skinned people of color are typically regarded as more ethnically authentic or legitimate than light-skinned people. Colorism is directly related to the larger system of racism in the USA and around the world. The color complex is also exported around the globe, in part through US media images, and helps to sustain the multibillion-dollar skin bleaching and cosmetic surgery industries.     

Choice of the primary analysis in longitudinal clinical trials

Missing data, and the bias they can cause, are an almost ever‐present concern in clinical trials. The last observation carried forward (LOCF) approach has been frequently utilized to handle missing data in clinical trials, and is often specified in conjunction with analysis of variance (LOCF ANOVA) for the primary analysis. Considerable advances in statistical methodology, and in our ability to implement these methods, have been made in recent years. Likelihood‐based, mixed‐effects model approaches implemented under the missing at random (MAR) framework are now easy to implement, and are commonly used to analyse clinical trial data. Furthermore, such approaches are more robust to the biases from missing data, and provide better control of Type I and Type II errors than LOCF ANOVA. Empirical research and analytic proof have demonstrated that the behaviour of LOCF is uncertain, and in many situations it has not been conservative. Using LOCF as a composite measure of safety, tolerability and efficacy can lead to erroneous conclusions regarding the effectiveness of a drug. This approach also violates the fundamental basis of statistics as it involves testing an outcome that is not a physical parameter of the population, but rather a quantity that can be influenced by investigator behaviour, trial design, etc. Practice should shift away from using LOCF ANOVA as the primary analysis and focus on likelihood‐based, mixed‐effects model approaches developed under the MAR framework, with missing not at random methods used to assess robustness of the primary analysis. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Assessing accuracy of a continuous screening test in the presence of verification bias

Summary.  In studies to assess the accuracy of a screening test, often definitive disease assessment is too invasive or expensive to be ascertained on all the study subjects. Although it may be more ethical or cost effective to ascertain the true disease status with a higher rate in study subjects where the screening test or additional information is suggestive of disease, estimates of accuracy can be biased in a study with such a design. This bias is known as verification bias. Verification bias correction methods that accommodate screening tests with binary or ordinal responses have been developed; however, no verification bias correction methods exist for tests with continuous results. We propose and compare imputation and reweighting bias-corrected estimators of true and false positive rates, receiver operating characteristic curves and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve for continuous tests. Distribution theory and simulation studies are used to compare the proposed estimators with respect to bias, relative efficiency and robustness to model misspecification. The bias correction estimators proposed are applied to data from a study of screening tests for neonatal hearing loss.