Pharmaceutical Statistics最新文献

The topic of this article is pre-posterior distributions of success or failure. These distributions, determined before a study is run and based on all our assumptions, are what we should believe about the treatment effect if we are told only that the study has been successful, or unsuccessful. I show how the pre-posterior distributions of success and failure can be used during the planning phase of a study to investigate whether the study is able to discriminate between effective and ineffective treatments. I show how these distributions are linked to the probability of success (PoS), or failure, and how they can be determined from simulations if standard asymptotic normality assumptions are inappropriate. I show the link to the concept of the conditional $PoS$ introduced by Temple and Robertson in the context of the planning of multiple studies. Finally, I show that they can also be constructed regardless of whether the analysis of the study is frequentist or fully Bayesian.

The number of clinical trials that include a binary biomarker in design and analysis has risen due to the advent of personalised medicine. This presents challenges for medical decision makers because a drug may confer a stronger effect in the biomarker positive group, and so be approved either in this subgroup alone or in the all-comer population. We develop and evaluate Bayesian methods that can be used to assess this. All our methods are based on the same statistical model for the observed data but we propose different prior specifications to express differing degrees of knowledge about the extent to which the treatment may be more effective in one subgroup than the other. We illustrate our methods using some real examples. We also show how our methodology is useful when designing trials where the size of the biomarker negative subgroup is to be determined. We conclude that our Bayesian framework is a natural tool for making decisions, for example, whether to recommend using the treatment in the biomarker negative subgroup where the treatment is less likely to be efficacious, or determining the number of biomarker positive and negative patients to include when designing a trial.

The results of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) are frequently assessed with the fragility index (FI). Although the information provided by FI may supplement the p value, this indicator presents intrinsic weaknesses and shortcomings. In this article, we establish an analysis of fragility within a broader framework so that it can reliably complement the information provided by the p value. This perspective is named the analysis of strength. We first propose a new strength index (SI), which can be adopted in normal distribution settings. This measure can be obtained for both significance and nonsignificance and is straightforward to calculate, thus presenting compelling advantages over FI, starting from the presence of a threshold. The case of time-to-event outcomes is also addressed. Then, beyond the p value, we develop the analysis of strength using likelihood ratios from Royall's statistical evidence viewpoint. A new R package is provided for performing strength calculations, and a simulation study is conducted to explore the behavior of SI and the likelihood-based indicator empirically across different settings. The newly proposed analysis of strength is applied in the assessment of the results of three recent trials involving the treatment of COVID-19.

Precision medicine is the future of drug development, and subgroup identification plays a critical role in achieving the goal. In this paper, we propose a powerful end-to-end solution squant (available on CRAN) that explores a sequence of quantitative objectives. The method converts the original study to an artificial 1:1 randomized trial, and features a flexible objective function, a stable signature with good interpretability, and an embedded false discovery rate (FDR) control. We demonstrate its performance through simulation and provide a real data example.

When multiple historical controls are available, it is necessary to consider the conflicts between current and historical controls and the relationships among historical controls. One of the assumptions concerning the relationships between the parameters of interest of current and historical controls is known as the "Potential biases." Within the "Potential biases" assumption, the differences between the parameters of interest of the current control and of each historical control are defined as "potential bias parameters." We define a class of models called "potential biases model" that encompass several existing methods, including the commensurate prior. The potential bias model incorporates homogeneous historical controls by shrinking the potential bias parameters to zero. In scenarios where multiple historical controls are available, a method that uses a horseshoe prior was proposed. However, various other shrinkage priors are also available. In this study, we propose methods that apply spike-and-slab, Dirichlet-Laplace, and spike-and-slab lasso priors to the potential bias model. We conduct a simulation study and analyze clinical trial examples to compare the performances of the proposed and existing methods. The horseshoe prior and the three other priors make the strongest use of historical controls in the absence of heterogeneous historical controls and reduce the influence of heterogeneous historical controls in the presence of a few historical controls. Among these four priors, the spike-and-slab prior performed the best for heterogeneous historical controls.

The primary purpose of an oncology dose-finding trial for novel anticancer agents has been shifting from determining the maximum tolerated dose to identifying an optimal dose (OD) that is tolerable and therapeutically beneficial for subjects in subsequent clinical trials. In 2022, the FDA Oncology Center of Excellence initiated Project Optimus to reform the paradigm of dose optimization and dose selection in oncology drug development and issued a draft guidance. The guidance suggests that dose-finding trials include randomized dose-response cohorts of multiple doses and incorporate information on pharmacokinetics (PK) in addition to safety and efficacy data to select the OD. Furthermore, PK information could be a quick alternative to efficacy data to predict the minimum efficacious dose and decide the dose assignment. This article proposes a model-based trial design for dose optimization with a randomization scheme based on PK outcomes in oncology. A simulation study shows that the proposed design has advantages compared to the other designs in the percentage of correct OD selection and the average number of patients assigned to OD in various realistic settings.

With the development of targeted therapy, immunotherapy, and antibody-drug conjugates (ADCs), there is growing concern over the "more is better" paradigm developed decades ago for chemotherapy, prompting the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) to initiate Project Optimus to reform dose optimization and selection in oncology drug development. For early-phase oncology trials, given the high variability from sparse data and the rigidity of parametric model specifications, we use Bayesian dynamic models to borrow information across doses with only vague order constraints. Our proposed adaptive design simultaneously incorporates toxicity and efficacy outcomes to select the optimal dose (OD) in Phase I/II clinical trials, utilizing Bayesian model averaging to address the uncertainty of dose-response relationships and enhance the robustness of the design. Additionally, we extend the proposed design to handle delayed toxicity and efficacy outcomes. We conduct extensive simulation studies to evaluate the operating characteristics of the proposed method under various practical scenarios. The results demonstrate that the proposed designs have desirable operating characteristics. A trial example is presented to demonstrate the practical implementation of the proposed designs.

The estimands framework outlined in ICH E9 (R1) describes the components needed to precisely define the effects to be estimated in clinical trials, which includes how post-baseline 'intercurrent' events (IEs) are to be handled. In late-stage clinical trials, it is common to handle IEs like 'treatment discontinuation' using the treatment policy strategy and target the treatment effect on outcomes regardless of treatment discontinuation. For continuous repeated measures, this type of effect is often estimated using all observed data before and after discontinuation using either a mixed model for repeated measures (MMRM) or multiple imputation (MI) to handle any missing data. In basic form, both these estimation methods ignore treatment discontinuation in the analysis and therefore may be biased if there are differences in patient outcomes after treatment discontinuation compared with patients still assigned to treatment, and missing data being more common for patients who have discontinued treatment. We therefore propose and evaluate a set of MI models that can accommodate differences between outcomes before and after treatment discontinuation. The models are evaluated in the context of planning a Phase 3 trial for a respiratory disease. We show that analyses ignoring treatment discontinuation can introduce substantial bias and can sometimes underestimate variability. We also show that some of the MI models proposed can successfully correct the bias, but inevitably lead to increases in variance. We conclude that some of the proposed MI models are preferable to the traditional analysis ignoring treatment discontinuation, but the precise choice of MI model will likely depend on the trial design, disease of interest and amount of observed and missing data following treatment discontinuation.

Difference in proportions is frequently used to measure treatment effect for binary outcomes in randomized clinical trials. The estimation of difference in proportions can be assisted by adjusting for prognostic baseline covariates to enhance precision and bolster statistical power. Standardization or g-computation is a widely used method for covariate adjustment in estimating unconditional difference in proportions, because of its robustness to model misspecification. Various inference methods have been proposed to quantify the uncertainty and confidence intervals based on large-sample theories. However, their performances under small sample sizes and model misspecification have not been comprehensively evaluated. We propose an alternative approach to estimate the unconditional variance of the standardization estimator based on the robust sandwich estimator to further enhance the finite sample performance. Extensive simulations are provided to demonstrate the performances of the proposed method, spanning a wide range of sample sizes, randomization ratios, and model specification. We apply the proposed method in a real data example to illustrate the practical utility.

Subgroup analysis may be used to investigate treatment effect heterogeneity among subsets of the study population defined by baseline characteristics. Several methodologies have been proposed in recent years and with these, statistical issues such as multiplicity, complexity, and selection bias have been widely discussed. Some methods adjust for one or more of these issues; however, few of them discuss or consider the stability of the subgroup assignments. We propose exploring the stability of subgroups as a sensitivity analysis step for stratified medicine to assess the robustness of the identified subgroups besides identifying possible factors that may drive this instability. After applying Bayesian credible subgroups, a nonparametric bootstrap can be used to assess stability at subgroup-level and patient-level. Our findings illustrate that when the treatment effect is small or not so evident, patients are more likely to switch to different subgroups (jumpers) across bootstrap resamples. In contrast, when the treatment effect is large or extremely convincing, patients generally remain in the same subgroup. While the proposed subgroup stability method is illustrated through Bayesian credible subgroups method on time-to-event data, this general approach can be used with other subgroup identification methods and endpoints.