A safety estimand for late phase clinical trials where the analysis period varies over the subjects.

IF 2.2 3区 医学 Q3 MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL Clinical Trials Pub Date : 2024-08-01 Epub Date: 2024-02-29 DOI:10.1177/17407745241230933
Katarina Hedman, Vera Lisovskaja, Per Nyström
{"title":"A safety estimand for late phase clinical trials where the analysis period varies over the subjects.","authors":"Katarina Hedman, Vera Lisovskaja, Per Nyström","doi":"10.1177/17407745241230933","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background/aims: </strong>Evaluating safety is as important as evaluating efficacy in a clinical trial, yet the tradition for safety analysis is rudimentary. This article explores more complex methodologies for safety evaluation, with the aim of improving the interpretability, as well as generalizability, of the results.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>For studies where the analysis periods vary over the subjects, using the International Council for Harmonisation estimand framework, we construct a formal estimand that could be used in the setting of safety surveillance that answers the clinical question of 'What is the magnitude of the increase in risk of experiencing an adverse event if the treatment is taken, as prescribed, for a specific period of time?'. Estimation methodologies for this estimand are also discussed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The proposed estimand is similar to that found in the efficacy analyses of time to event data (e.g. in outcome studies), with the key difference of utilization of hypothetical intercurrent event strategy for the intercurrent event of treatment discontinuation. This is motivated by what we perceive to be a key difference for the safety objective compared to efficacy objectives, namely a desire for sensitivity (i.e. greater possibility of detecting a negative impact of the drug, if such exists) as opposed to the need to prove a positive effect of the drug in a conservative manner.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>It is valuable, and possible, to use the International Council for Harmonisation estimand framework not only for efficacy but also for safety evaluation, with the estimand driven by an interpretable, and relevant, clinical question.</p>","PeriodicalId":10685,"journal":{"name":"Clinical Trials","volume":" ","pages":"483-490"},"PeriodicalIF":2.2000,"publicationDate":"2024-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Clinical Trials","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/17407745241230933","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/2/29 0:00:00","PubModel":"Epub","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"MEDICINE, RESEARCH & EXPERIMENTAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background/aims: Evaluating safety is as important as evaluating efficacy in a clinical trial, yet the tradition for safety analysis is rudimentary. This article explores more complex methodologies for safety evaluation, with the aim of improving the interpretability, as well as generalizability, of the results.

Methods: For studies where the analysis periods vary over the subjects, using the International Council for Harmonisation estimand framework, we construct a formal estimand that could be used in the setting of safety surveillance that answers the clinical question of 'What is the magnitude of the increase in risk of experiencing an adverse event if the treatment is taken, as prescribed, for a specific period of time?'. Estimation methodologies for this estimand are also discussed.

Results: The proposed estimand is similar to that found in the efficacy analyses of time to event data (e.g. in outcome studies), with the key difference of utilization of hypothetical intercurrent event strategy for the intercurrent event of treatment discontinuation. This is motivated by what we perceive to be a key difference for the safety objective compared to efficacy objectives, namely a desire for sensitivity (i.e. greater possibility of detecting a negative impact of the drug, if such exists) as opposed to the need to prove a positive effect of the drug in a conservative manner.

Conclusion: It is valuable, and possible, to use the International Council for Harmonisation estimand framework not only for efficacy but also for safety evaluation, with the estimand driven by an interpretable, and relevant, clinical question.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
用于晚期临床试验的安全性估算,分析周期随受试者而变化。
背景/目的:在临床试验中,安全性评价与疗效评价同等重要,然而安全性分析的传统却很粗糙。本文探讨了更为复杂的安全性评价方法,旨在提高结果的可解释性和可推广性:方法:对于分析期随受试者而变化的研究,我们利用国际协调委员会的估计值框架,构建了一个正式的估计值,该估计值可用于安全性监测,以回答 "如果在特定时间内按处方服用治疗药物,发生不良事件的风险增加幅度是多少 "这一临床问题。此外,还讨论了该估算指标的估算方法:所提出的估计值与事件发生时间数据的疗效分析(如结果研究)中的估计值相似,主要区别在于对中止治疗的并发症采用了假设并发症策略。这是因为我们认为安全目标与疗效目标相比有一个关键的不同点,即希望提高灵敏度(即更有可能发现药物的负面影响,如果存在这种影响的话),而不是需要以保守的方式证明药物的正面影响:结论:使用国际协调委员会的估计值框架不仅对疗效评价有价值,而且对安全性评价也是可行的。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Clinical Trials
Clinical Trials 医学-医学:研究与实验
CiteScore
4.10
自引率
3.70%
发文量
82
审稿时长
6-12 weeks
期刊介绍: Clinical Trials is dedicated to advancing knowledge on the design and conduct of clinical trials related research methodologies. Covering the design, conduct, analysis, synthesis and evaluation of key methodologies, the journal remains on the cusp of the latest topics, including ethics, regulation and policy impact.
期刊最新文献
Challenges in conducting efficacy trials for new COVID-19 vaccines in developed countries. Society for Clinical Trials Data Monitoring Committee initiative website: Closing the gap. A comparison of computational algorithms for the Bayesian analysis of clinical trials. Comparison of Bayesian and frequentist monitoring boundaries motivated by the Multiplatform Randomized Clinical Trial. Efficient designs for three-sequence stepped wedge trials with continuous recruitment.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1