Pharmaceutical Statistics最新文献

Biomarker-guided therapy is a growing area of research in medicine. To optimize the use of biomarkers, several study designs including the biomarker-strategy design (BSD) have been proposed. Unlike traditional designs, the emphasis here is on comparing treatment strategies and not on treatment molecules as such. Patients are assigned to either a biomarker-based strategy (BBS) arm, in which biomarker-positive patients receive an experimental treatment that targets the identified biomarker, or a non-biomarker-based strategy (NBBS) arm, in which patients receive treatment regardless of their biomarker status. We proposed a simulation method based on a partially clustered frailty model (PCFM) as well as an extension of Freidlin formula to estimate the sample size required for BSD with multiple targeted treatments. The sample size was mainly influenced by the heterogeneity of treatment effect, the proportion of biomarker-negative patients, and the randomization ratio. The PCFM is well suited for the data structure and offers an alternative to traditional methodologies.

The ICH E9(R1) Addendum (International Council for Harmonization 2019) suggests treatment-policy as one of several strategies for addressing intercurrent events such as treatment withdrawal when defining an estimand. This strategy requires the monitoring of patients and collection of primary outcome data following termination of randomised treatment. However, when patients withdraw from a study early before completion this creates true missing data complicating the analysis. One possible way forward uses multiple imputation to replace the missing data based on a model for outcome on- and off-treatment prior to study withdrawal, often referred to as retrieved dropout multiple imputation. This article introduces a novel approach to parameterising this imputation model so that those parameters which may be difficult to estimate have mildly informative Bayesian priors applied during the imputation stage. A core reference-based model is combined with a retrieved dropout compliance model, using both on- and off-treatment data, to form an extended model for the purposes of imputation. This alleviates the problem of specifying a complex set of analysis rules to accommodate situations where parameters which influence the estimated value are not estimable, or are poorly estimated leading to unrealistically large standard errors in the resulting analysis. We refer to this new approach as retrieved dropout reference-base centred multiple imputation.

In conventional subgroup analyses, subgroup treatment effects are estimated using data from each subgroup separately without considering data from other subgroups in the same study. The subgroup treatment effects estimated this way may be heterogenous with high variability due to small sample sizes in some subgroups and much different from the treatment effect in the overall population. A Bayesian hierarchical model (BHM) can be used to derive more precise, and less heterogenous estimates of subgroup treatment effects that are closer to the treatment effect in the overall population. BHM assumes exchangeability in treatment effect across subgroups after adjusting for effect modifiers and other relevant covariates. In this article, we will discuss the technical details for applying one-way and multi-way BHM using summary-level statistics, and patient-level data for subgroup analysis. Four case studies based on four new drug applications are used to illustrate the application of these models in subgroup analyses for continuous, dichotomous, time-to-event, and count endpoints.

Clinical trials with continuous primary endpoints typically measure outcomes at baseline, at a fixed timepoint (denoted T_min), and at intermediate timepoints. The analysis is commonly performed using the mixed model repeated measures method. It is sometimes expected that the effect size will be larger with follow-up longer than T_min. But extending the follow-up for all patients delays trial completion. We propose an alternative trial design and analysis method that potentially increases statistical power without extending the trial duration or increasing the sample size. We propose following the last enrolled patient until T_min, with earlier enrollees having variable follow-up durations up to a maximum of T_max. The sample size at T_max will be smaller than at T_min, and due to staggered enrollment, data missing at T_max will be missing completely at random. For analysis, we propose an alpha-adjusted procedure based on the smaller of the p values at T_min and T_max, termed $\text{minP}$ . This approach can provide the highest power when the powers at T_min and T_max are similar. If the power at T_min and T_max differ significantly, the power of $\text{minP}$ is modestly reduced compared with the larger of the two powers. Rare disease trials, due to the limited size of the patient population, may benefit the most with this design.

Chemistry, manufacturing, and control (CMC) statisticians play a key role in the development and lifecycle management of pharmaceutical and biological products, working with their non-statistician partners to manage product quality. Information used to make quality decisions comes from studies, where success is facilitated through adherence to the scientific method. This is carried out in four steps: (1) an objective, (2) design, (3) conduct, and (4) analysis. Careful consideration of each step helps to ensure that a study conclusion and associated decision is correct. This can be a development decision related to the validity of an assay or a quality decision like conformance to specifications. Importantly, all decisions are made with risk. Conventional statistical risks such as Type 1 and Type 2 errors can be coupled with associated impacts to manage patient value as well as development and commercial costs. The CMC statistician brings focus on managing risk across the steps of the scientific method, leading to optimal product development and robust supply of life saving drugs and biologicals.

Stratification on important variables is a common practice in clinical trials, since ensuring cosmetic balance on known baseline covariates is often deemed to be a crucial requirement for the credibility of the experimental results. However, the actual benefits of stratification are still debated in the literature. Other authors have shown that it does not improve efficiency in large samples and improves it only negligibly in smaller samples. This paper investigates different subgroup analysis strategies, with a particular focus on the potential benefits in terms of inferential precision of prestratification versus both poststratification and post hoc regression adjustment. For each of these approaches, the pros and cons of population-based versus randomization-based inference are discussed. The effects of the presence of a treatment-by-covariate interaction and the variability in the patient responses are also taken into account. Our results show that, in general, prestratifying does not provide substantial benefit. On the contrary, it may be deleterious, in particular for randomization-based procedures in the presence of a chronological bias. Even when there is treatment-by-covariate interaction, prestratification may backfire by considerably reducing the inferential precision.

During the drug development process, testing potency plays an important role in the quality assessment required for the manufacturing and marketing of biologics. Due to multiple operational and biological factors, higher variability is usually observed in bioassays compared with physicochemical methods. In this paper, we discuss different sources of bioassay variability and how this variability can be statistically estimated. In addition, we propose an algorithm to estimate the variability of reportable results associated with different numbers of runs and their corresponding OOS rates under a given specification. Numerical experiments are conducted on multiple assay formats to elucidate the empirical distribution of bioassay variability.

Cox regression and Kaplan-Meier estimations are often needed in clinical research and this requires access to individual patient data (IPD). However, IPD cannot always be shared because of privacy or proprietary restrictions, which complicates the making of such estimations. We propose a method that generates pseudodata replacing the IPD by only sharing non-disclosive aggregates such as IPD marginal moments and a correlation matrix. Such aggregates are collected by a central computer and input as parameters to a Gaussian copula (GC) that generates the pseudodata. Survival inferences are computed on the pseudodata as if it were the IPD. Using practical examples we demonstrate the utility of the method, via the amount of IPD inferential content recoverable by the GC. We compare GC to a summary-based meta-analysis and an IPD bootstrap distributed across several centers. Other pseudodata approaches are also considered. In the empirical results, GC approximates the utility of the IPD bootstrap although it might yield more conservative inferences and it might have limitations in subgroup analyses. Overall, GC avoids many legal problems related to IPD privacy or property while enabling approximation of common IPD survival analyses otherwise difficult to conduct. Sharing more IPD aggregates than is currently practiced could facilitate "second purpose"-research and relax concerns regarding IPD access.

In practice, we often encounter binary classification problems where both main classes consist of multiple subclasses. For example, in an ovarian cancer study where biomarkers were evaluated for their accuracy of distinguishing noncancer cases from cancer cases, the noncancer class consists of healthy subjects and benign cases, while the cancer class consists of subjects at both early and late stages. This article aims to provide a large number of optimal cut-point selection methods for such setting. Furthermore, we also study confidence interval estimation of the optimal cut-points. Simulation studies are carried out to explore the performance of the proposed cut-point selection methods as well as confidence interval estimation methods. A real ovarian cancer data set is analyzed using the proposed methods.

In clinical trials with time-to-event data, the evaluation of treatment efficacy can be a long and complex process, especially when considering long-term primary endpoints. Using surrogate endpoints to correlate the primary endpoint has become a common practice to accelerate decision-making. Moreover, the ethical need to minimize sample size and the practical need to optimize available resources have encouraged the scientific community to develop methodologies that leverage historical data. Relying on the general theory of group sequential design and using a Bayesian framework, the methodology described in this paper exploits a documented historical relationship between a clinical "final" endpoint and a surrogate endpoint to build an informative prior for the primary endpoint, using surrogate data from an early interim analysis of the clinical trial. The predictive probability of success of the trial is then used to define a futility-stopping rule. The methodology demonstrates substantial enhancements in trial operating characteristics when there is a good agreement between current and historical data. Furthermore, incorporating a robust approach that combines the surrogate prior with a vague component mitigates the impact of the minor prior-data conflicts while maintaining acceptable performance even in the presence of significant prior-data conflicts. The proposed methodology was applied to design a Phase III clinical trial in metastatic colorectal cancer, with overall survival as the primary endpoint and progression-free survival as the surrogate endpoint.