Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics最新文献

Traditional two-arm randomized trial designs have played a pivotal role in establishing the efficacy of medical interventions. However, their efficiency is often compromised when confronted with multiple experimental treatments or limited resources. In response to these challenges, the multi-arm multi-stage designs have emerged, enabling the simultaneous evaluation of multiple treatments within a single trial. In such an approach, if an arm meets efficacy success criteria at an interim stage, the whole trial stops and the arm is selected for further study. However when multiple treatment arms are active, stopping the trial at the moment one arm achieves success diminishes the probability of selecting the best arm. To address this issue, we have developed a group sequential multi-arm multi-stage survival trial design with an arm-specific stopping rule. The proposed method controls the familywise type I error in a strong sense and selects the best promising treatment arm with a high probability.

We study optimal designs for clinical trials when the value of the response and its variance depend on treatment and covariates are included in the response model. Such designs are generalizations of Neyman allocation, commonly used in personalized medicine when external factors may have differing effects on the response depending on subgroups of patients. We develop theoretical results for D-, A-, E- and D${ }_A$-optimal designs and construct semidefinite programming (SDP) formulations that support their numerical computation. D-, A-, and E-optimal designs are appropriate for efficient estimation of distinct properties of the parameters of the response models. Our formulation allows finding optimal allocation schemes for a general number of treatments and of covariates. Finally, we study frequentist sequential clinical trial allocation within contexts where response parameters and their respective variances remain unknown. We illustrate, with a simulated example and with a redesigned clinical trial on the treatment of neuro-degenerative disease, that both theoretical and SDP results, derived under the assumption of known variances, converge asymptotically to allocations obtained through the sequential scheme. Procedures to use static and sequential allocation are proposed.

A non-inferiority trial is usually conducted to investigate whether a new drug/treatment is no worse than a reference drug/treatment by a small, pre-specified, non-inferiority margin. This study aimed to assess the non-inferiority of the difference between two binary-outcome treatments in a matched-pairs design based on the method of variance of estimates recovery (MOVER). The processes for estimating the confidence interval of a single proportion included in the MOVER are the Wilson score interval, Agresti - Coull interval, Jeffreys interval, modified Jeffreys interval, score method with continuity correction, and arcsin interval. The performance of the six MOVER tests, the fiducial test, and the restricted maximum likelihood estimation test were evaluated by comparing their type I error rates and power at different pre-assigned levels and with varying combinations of parameters. The evaluation results showed that the modified Jeffreys MOVER test can be a competitive alternative to the other recommended tests. It can control type I errors well, and its power is not inferior to other methods. The proposed tests were illustrated with three real-world examples.

Dose optimization is a critical challenge in drug development. Historically, dose determination in oncology has followed a divergent path from other non-oncology therapeutic areas due to the unique characteristics and requirements in Oncology. However, with the emergence of new drug modalities and mechanisms of drugs in oncology, such as immune therapies, radiopharmaceuticals, targeted therapies, cytostatic agents, and others, the dose-response relationship for efficacy and toxicity could be vastly varied compared to the cytotoxic chemotherapies. The doses below the MTD may demonstrate similar efficacy to the MTD with an improved tolerability profile, resembling what is commonly observed in non-oncology treatments. Hence, alternate strategies for dose optimization are required for new modalities in oncology drug development. This paper delves into the historical evolution of dose finding methods from non-oncology to oncology, highlighting examples and summarizing the underlying drivers of change. Subsequently, a practical framework and guidance are provided to illustrate how dose optimization can be incorporated into various stages of the development program. We provide the following general recommendations: 1) The objective for phase I is to identify a dose range rather than a single MTD dose for subsequent development to better characterize the safety and tolerability profile within the dose range. 2) At least two doses separable by PK are recommended for dose optimization in phase II. 3) Ideally, dose optimization should be performed before launching the confirmatory study. Nevertheless, innovative designs such as seamless II/III design can be implemented for dose selection and may accelerate the drug development program.

In this paper, we aim to show the process of simulating survival data when the distribution of the overall population and one subgroup (called "positive subgroup") as well as the proportion of the subgroup is known, while the distribution of the other subgroup (called "negative subgroup") is unknown. We propose a combination method which generates survival data of the positive subgroup and negative subgroup, respectively, and survival data of the overall population are the combination of the two subgroups. The parameters of the overall population and the positive subgroup need to satisfy certain constraints, otherwise the parameters may lead to contradictions. From simulation, we show that our proposed combination method can reflect the correlation between the test statistics of overall population and positive subgroup, which makes the simulated data more realistic and the results of simulation more reliable. Moreover, for a multiplicity control in trial design, the combination method can help to determine the $\alpha$ splitting strategy between primary endpoints, and is helpful in designs of clinical trials as shown in three applications.

The Multiple Comparison Procedure and Modelling (MCPMod) approach has been shown to be a powerful statistical technique that can significantly improve the design and analysis of dose-finding studies under model uncertainty. Due to its frequentist nature, however, it is difficult to incorporate information into MCPMod from historical trials on the same drug. BMCPMod, a recently introduced Bayesian version of MCPMod, is designed to take into account historical information on the placebo dose group. We introduce a Bayesian hierarchical framework capable of incorporating historical information on an arbitrary number of dose groups, including both placebo and active ones, taking into account the relationship between responses of these dose groups. Our approach can also model both prognostic and predictive between-trial heterogeneity and is particularly useful in situations where the effect sizes of two trials are different. Our goal is to reduce the necessary sample size in the dose-finding trial while maintaining its target power.

The development of next-generation sequencing (NGS) opens opportunities for new applications such as liquid biopsy, in which tumor mutation genotypes can be determined by sequencing circulating tumor DNA after blood draws. However, with highly diluted samples like those obtained with liquid biopsy, NGS invariably introduces a certain level of misclassification, even with improved technology. Recently, there has been a high demand to use mutation genotypes as biomarkers for predicting prognosis and treatment selection. Many methods have also been proposed to build classifiers based on multiple loci with machine learning algorithms as biomarkers. How the higher misclassification rate introduced by liquid biopsy will affect the performance of these biomarkers has not been thoroughly investigated. In this paper, we report the results from a simulation study focused on the clinical utility of biomarkers when misclassification is present due to the current technological limit of NGS in the liquid biopsy setting. The simulation covers a range of performance profiles for current NGS platforms with different machine learning algorithms and uses actual patient genotypes. Our results show that, at the high end of the performance spectrum, the misclassification introduced by NGS had very little effect on the clinical utility of the biomarker. However, in more challenging applications with lower accuracy, misclassification could have a notable effect on clinical utility. The pattern of this effect can be complex, especially for machine learning-based classifiers. Our results show that simulation can be an effective tool for assessing different scenarios of misclassification.

Platform trials offer a framework to study multiple interventions in one trial with the opportunity of opening and closing arms. The use of common controls can increase efficiency as compared to individual controls. The need for multiplicity adjustment because of common controls is currently a debate among researchers, pharmaceutical companies, and regulators. The impact of common controls on the type one error in a fixed platform trial, i.e. when all treatments start and end recruitment at the same time, has been discussed in the literature before. We complement these findings by investigating the impact of a common control on the type one error and power in a flexible platform trial, i.e. when one arm joins the platform later. We derived the correlation of test statistics to assess the impact of the overlap and compared the results to a trial with individual controls. Furthermore, we evaluate the power, and the impact of multiplicity adjustment on the power in fixed and flexible platform trials. These methodological considerations are complemented by a regulatory guideline review. With multiple arms, the FWER is inflated when no multiplicity adjustment is applied. However, the FWER inflation is smaller with common controls than with individual controls. Even after multiplicity adjustment, a trial with common controls is often beneficial in terms of sample size and power. However, in some cases, the trial with common controls loses the efficiency gain and it might be advisable to run a separate trial rather than joining a platform trial.

The delayed treatment effect, which manifests as a separation of survival curves after a change point, has often been observed in immunotherapy clinical trials. A late effect of this kind may violate the proportional hazards assumption, resulting in the non-negligible loss of statistical power of an ordinary log-rank test when comparing survival curves. The Fleming-Harrington (FH) test, a weighted log-rank test, is configured to mitigate the loss of power by incorporating a weight function with two parameters, one each for early and late treatment effects. The two parameters need to be appropriately determined, but no helpful guides have been fully established. Since the late effect is expected in immunotherapy trials, we focus on the late effect parameter in this study. We consider parameterizing the late effect in a readily interpretable fashion and determining the optimal late effect parameter in the FH test to maintain statistical power in reference to the asymptotic relative efficiency (ARE). The optimization is carried out under three lag models (i.e. linear, threshold, and generalized linear lag), where the optimal weights are proportional to the lag functions characterized by the change points. Extensive simulation studies showed that the FH test with the selected late parameter reliably provided sufficient power even when the change points in the lag models were misspecified. This finding suggests that the FH test with the ARE-guided late parameter may be a reasonable and practical choice for the primary analysis in immunotherapy clinical trials.