Pharmaceutical Statistics最新文献

Clinical trials (CTs) often suffer from small sample sizes due to limited budgets and patient enrollment challenges. Using historical data for the CT data analysis may boost statistical power and reduce the required sample size. Existing methods on borrowing information from historical data with right-censored outcomes did not consider matching between historical data and CT data to reduce the heterogeneity. In addition, they studied the survival outcome only, not competing risk outcomes. Therefore, we propose a clustering-based commensurate prior model with random effects for both survival and competing risk outcomes that effectively borrows information based on the degree of comparability between historical and CT data. Simulation results show that the proposed method controls type I errors better and has a lower bias than some competing methods. We apply our method to a phase III CT which compares the effectiveness of bone marrow donated from family members with only partially matched bone marrow versus two partially matched cord blood units to treat leukemia and lymphoma.

A recent study design for clinical trials with small sample sizes is the small n, sequential, multiple assignment, randomized trial (snSMART). An snSMART design has been previously proposed to compare the efficacy of two dose levels versus placebo. In such a trial, participants are initially randomized to receive either low dose, high dose or placebo in stage 1. In stage 2, participants are re-randomized to either dose level depending on their initial treatment and a dichotomous response. A Bayesian analytic approach borrowing information from both stages was proposed and shown to improve the efficiency of estimation. In this paper, we propose two sample size determination (SSD) methods for the proposed snSMART comparing two dose levels with placebo. Both methods adopt the average coverage criterion (ACC) approach. In the first approach, the sample size is calculated in one step, taking advantage of the explicit posterior variance of the treatment effect. In the other two step approach, we update the sample size needed for a single-stage parallel design with a proposed adjustment factor (AF). Through simulations, we demonstrate that the required sample sizes calculated using the two SSD approaches both provide the desired power. We also provide an applet to allow for convenient and fast sample size calculation in this snSMART setting.

With contemporary anesthetic drugs, the efficacy of general anesthesia is assured. Health-economic and clinical objectives are related to reductions in the variability in dosing, variability in recovery, etc. Consequently, meta-analyses for anesthesiology research would benefit from quantification of ratios of standard deviations of log-normally distributed variables (e.g., surgical duration). Generalized confidence intervals can be used, once sample means and standard deviations in the raw, time, scale, for each study and group have been used to estimate the mean and standard deviation of the logarithms of the times (i.e., "log-scale"). We examine the matching of the first two moments versus also using higher-order terms, following Higgins et al. 2008 and Friedrich et al. 2012. Monte Carlo simulations revealed that using the first two moments 95% confidence intervals had coverage 92%-95%, with small bias. Use of higher-order moments worsened confidence interval coverage for the log ratios, especially for coefficients of variation in the time scale of 50% and for larger $\left(n=50\right)$ sample sizes per group, resulting in 88% coverage. We recommend that for calculating confidence intervals for ratios of standard deviations based on generalized pivotal quantities and log-normal distributions, when relying on transformation of sample statistics from time to log scale, use the first two moments, not the higher order terms.

In early phase drug development of combination therapy, the primary objective is to preliminarily assess whether there is additive activity from a novel agent when combined with an established monotherapy. Due to potential feasibility issues for conducting a large randomized study, uncontrolled single-arm trials have been the mainstream approach in cancer clinical trials. However, such trials often present significant challenges in deciding whether to proceed to the next phase of development due to the lack of randomization in traditional two-arm trials. A hybrid design, leveraging data from a completed historical clinical study of the monotherapy, offers a valuable option to enhance study efficiency and improve informed decision-making. Compared to traditional single-arm designs, the hybrid design may significantly enhance power by borrowing external information, enabling a more robust assessment of activity. The primary challenge of hybrid design lies in handling information borrowing. We introduce a Bayesian dynamic power prior (DPP) framework with three components of controlling amount of dynamic borrowing. The framework offers flexible study design options with explicit interpretation of borrowing, allowing customization according to specific needs. Furthermore, the posterior distribution in the proposed framework has a closed form, offering significant advantages in computational efficiency. The proposed framework's utility is demonstrated through simulations and a case study.

This article proposes a Workflow for Assessing Treatment effeCt Heterogeneity (WATCH) in clinical drug development targeted at clinical trial sponsors. WATCH is designed to address the challenges of investigating treatment effect heterogeneity (TEH) in randomized clinical trials, where sample size and multiplicity limit the reliability of findings. The proposed workflow includes four steps: analysis planning, initial data analysis and analysis dataset creation, TEH exploration, and multidisciplinary assessment. The workflow offers a general overview of how treatment effects vary by baseline covariates in the observed data and guides the interpretation of the observed findings based on external evidence and the best scientific understanding. The workflow is exploratory and not inferential/confirmatory in nature but should be preplanned before database lock and analysis start. It is focused on providing a general overview rather than a single specific finding or subgroup with a differential effect.

Conventional Phase I trial designs assign a single dose to each patient, necessitating a minimum number of patients per dose to reliably identify the maximum tolerated dose (MTD). However, in many clinical trials, such as those involving pediatric patients or patients with rare cancers, recruiting an adequate number of patients can pose challenges, limiting the applicability of standard trial designs. To address this challenge, we propose a new Phase I dose-finding design, denoted as IP-CRM, that integrates intra-patient dose escalation with the continual reassessment method (CRM). In the IP-CRM design, intra-patient dose escalation is allowed, guided by both individual patients' toxicity outcomes and accumulated data across patients, and the starting dose for each cohort of patients is adaptively updated. We further extend the IP-CRM design to address carryover effects and/or intra-patient correlations. Due to the potential for each patient to contribute multiple data points at varying doses owing to intra-patient dose escalation, the IP-CRM design offers the advantage of determining the MTD with a considerably reduced sample size compared to standard Phase I dose-finding designs. Simulation studies show that our IP-CRM design can efficiently reduce sample size while concurrently enhancing the probability of identifying the MTD when compared with standard CRM designs and the 3 + 3 design.

Dose-finding studies in oncology often include an up-and-down dose transition rule that assigns a dose to each cohort of patients based on accumulating data on dose-limiting toxicity (DLT) events. In making a dose transition decision, a key scientific question is whether the true DLT rate of the current dose exceeds the target DLT rate, and the statistical question is how to evaluate the statistical evidence in the available DLT data with respect to that scientific question. This article introduces generalized likelihood ratios (GLRs) that can be used to measure statistical evidence and support dose transition decisions. Applying this approach to a single-dose likelihood leads to a GLR-based interval design with three parameters: the target DLT rate and two GLR cut-points representing the levels of evidence required for dose escalation and de-escalation. This design gives a likelihood interpretation to each existing interval design and provides a unified framework for comparing different interval designs in terms of how much evidence is required for escalation and de-escalation. A GLR-based comparison of commonly used interval designs reveals important differences and motivates alternative designs that reduce over-treatment while maintaining MTD estimation accuracy. The GLR-based approach can also be applied to a joint likelihood based on a nonparametric (e.g., isotonic regression) model or a parametric model. Simulation results indicate that the isotonic GLR performs similarly to the single-dose GLR but the GLR based on a parsimonious model can improve MTD estimation when the underlying model is correct.

In event-driven trials, the target power under a certain treatment effect is maintained as long as the required number of events is obtained. The misspecification of the survival function in the planning phase does not result in a loss of power. However, the trial might take longer than planned if the event rate is lower than assumed. Blinded sample size reestimation (BSSR) uses non-comparative interim data to adjust the sample size if some planning assumptions are wrong. In the setting of an event-driven trial, the sample size may be adjusted to maintain the chances to obtain the required number of events within the planned time frame. For the purpose of BSSR, the survival function is estimated based on the interim data and often needs to be extrapolated. The current practice is to fit standard parametric models, which may however not always be suitable. Here we propose a flexible spline-based BSSR method. Specifically, we propose to carry out the extrapolation based on the Royston-Parmar spline model. To compare the proposed procedure with parametric approaches, we carried out a simulation study. Although parametric approaches might seriously over- or underestimate the expected number of events, the proposed flexible approach avoided such undesirable behavior. This is also observed in an application to a secondary progressive multiple sclerosis trial. Overall, if planning assumptions are wrong this more robust flexible BSSR method could help event-driven designs to more accurately adjust recruitment numbers and to finish on time.

The risk difference (RD) between the secondary infection, given the primary infection, and the primary infection can be a useful measure of the change in the infection rates of the primary infection and the secondary infection. It plays an important role in pharmacology and epidemiology. The method of variance estimate recovery (MOVER) is used to construct confidence intervals (CIs) for the RD. Seven types of CIs for binomial proportion are introduced to obtain MOVER-based CIs for the RD. The simulation studies show that the Agresti-Coull CI, score method incorporating continuity correction CI, Clopper Pearson CI, and Bayesian credibility CI are conservative. The Jeffreys CI, Wilson score CI, and Arcsin CI draw a satisfactory performance; they are suitable for various practical application scenarios as they can provide accurate and reliable results. To illustrate that the recommended CIs are competitive or even better than other methods, three real datasets were used.

The assumption of "no unmeasured confounders" is a critical but unverifiable assumption required for causal inference yet quantitative sensitivity analyses to assess robustness of real-world evidence remains under-utilized. The lack of use is likely in part due to complexity of implementation and often specific and restrictive data requirements for application of each method. With the advent of methods that are broadly applicable in that they do not require identification of a specific unmeasured confounder-along with publicly available code for implementation-roadblocks toward broader use of sensitivity analyses are decreasing. To spur greater application, here we offer a good practice guidance to address the potential for unmeasured confounding at both the design and analysis stages, including framing questions and an analytic toolbox for researchers. The questions at the design stage guide the researcher through steps evaluating the potential robustness of the design while encouraging gathering of additional data to reduce uncertainty due to potential confounding. At the analysis stage, the questions guide quantifying the robustness of the observed result and providing researchers with a clearer indication of the strength of their conclusions. We demonstrate the application of this guidance using simulated data based on an observational fibromyalgia study, applying multiple methods from our analytic toolbox for illustration purposes.