Abstract
The goal of clinical trial research is to deliver safe and efficacious new treatments to patients in need in a timely and cost-effective manner. There is precedent in using historical control data to reduce the number of concurrent control subjects required in developing medicines for rare diseases and other areas of unmet need. The purpose of this paper is to provide a review for a regulatory and industry audience of the current state of relevant statistical methods, and of the uptake of these approaches and the opportunities for broader use of historical data in confirmatory clinical trials. General principles to consider when incorporating historical control data in a new trial are presented. Bayesian and frequentist approaches are outlined including how the operating characteristics for such a trial can be obtained. Finally, examples of approved new treatments that incorporated historical controls in their confirmatory trials are presented.
Article PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
References
Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Innovation or Stagnation: Challenge and Opportunity on the Critical Path to New Medical Products. Rockville, MD: FDA; 2004.
Watson JL, Ryan L, Silverberg N, Cahan V, Bernard MA. Obstacles and opportunities in Alzheimer’s clinical trial recruitment. Health Affairs (Millwood). 2014;33:574–579.
ClinicalTrials.gov Web site. https://clinicaltrials.gov/ Accessed July 24, 2017.
Higgins JPT, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343: d5928.
Pocock SJ. The combination of randomized and historical controls in clinical trials. J Chronic Dis. 1976;29:175–188.
Eichler HG, Bloechl-Daum B, Bauer P, et al. Threshold-crossing: a useful way to establish the counterfactual in clinical trials? Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2016;100:699–712.
Natanegara F, Neuenschwander B, Seaman JW, et al. The current state of Bayesian methods in medical product development: survey results and recommendations from the DIA Bayesian Scientific Working Group. Pharm Stat. 2014;13:3–12.
Substantial evidence in 21st century regulatory science: borrowing strength from accumulating data. Workshop sponsored by the American Course on Drug Development and Regulatory Sciences (ACDRS); April 21, 2016; Washington, DC. Available at: http://pharmacy.ucsf.edu/events/2016/04/evidence. Accessed July 19, 2017.
International Council on Harmonisation (ICH). Dose Response Information to Support Drug Registration E4. Geneva, Switzerland: ICH; 1994.
International Council on Harmonisation (ICH). Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials E9. Geneva, Switzerland: ICH; 1998.
International Council on Harmonisation (ICH). Choice of Control Group and Related Issues in Clinical Trials E10. Geneva, Switzerland: ICH; 2000.
Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health (FDA CDRH). Guidance for the Use of Bayesian Statistics in Medical Device Clinical Trials. Rockville, MD: FDA CDRH; 2010.
European Medicines Agency (EMA). Concept Paper on Extrapolation of Efficacy and Safety in Medicine Development—EMA/129698/2012. London, UK: EMA; 2013.
European Medicines Agency (EMA). Guideline on Clinical Trials in Small Populations. London, UK: EMA; 2006.
Ad Hoc Group for the Development of Implementing Guidelines for Directive 2001/20/EC. Ethical Considerations for Clinical Trials on Medicinal Products Conducted with the Paediatric Population. 2008. http://ec.europa.eu/health//sites/health/files/files/eudralex/vol-10/ethical_considerations_en.pdf. Accessed July 19, 2017.
Spiegelhalter D, Abrams KR, Myles JP. Bayesian Approaches to Clinical Trials and Health Care Evaluation. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2004.
Lunn D, Jackson C, Best N, Thomas A, Spiegelhalter D. The BUGS Book: A Practical Introduction to Bayesian Analysis. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, LLC; 2013.
Lee JJ, Chu CT. Bayesian clinical trials in action. Stat Med. 2012;31:2955–2972.
Spiegelhalter DJ, Myles JP, Jones DR, Abrams KR. Bayesian methods in health technology assessment: a review. Health Technol Assess. 2000;4:1–130.
Sung L, Hayden J, Greenberg ML, Koren G, Feldman BM, Tomlinson GA. Seven items were identified for inclusion when reporting a Bayesian analysis of a clinical study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:261–268.
Ibrahim JG, Chen MH. Power prior distributions for regression models. Statist Sci. 2000;15:46–60.
Turner RM, Davey J, Clarke MJ, Thompson SG, Higgins JP. Predicting the extent of heterogeneity in meta-analysis, using empirical data from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Int J Epidemiol. 2012;41:818–827.
Neuenschwander B, Capkun-Niggli G, Branson MS, Spiegelhalter D. Summarizing historical information on controls in clinical trials. Clin Trials. 2010;7:5–18.
Schmidli H, Gsteiger S, Roychoudhury S, O’Hagan A, Spiegelhalter D, Neuenschwander B. Robust meta-analytic-predictive priors in clinical trials with historical control information. Biometrics. 2014;70:1023–1032.
Rhodes KM, Turner RM, Higgins JP. Predictive distributions were developed for the extent of heterogeneity in meta-analyses of continuous outcome data. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68:52–60.
Friede T, Röver C, Wandel S, Neuenschwander B. Meta-analysis of two studies in the presence of heterogeneity with applications in rare diseases. Biom J. 2017;59:658–671.
Hobbs BP, Sargent DJ, Carlin BP. Commensurate priors for incorporating historical information in clinical trials using general and generalized linear models. Bayesian Anal. 2012;7:639–674.
Neelon B, O’Malley J. Bayesian analysis using power priors with application to pediatric quality of care. J Biometrics Biostats. 2010;1:1–9.
Bennett M, White SR, Mander AP. A novel equivalence probability weighting of historical data in an adaptive clinical trial design: A comparison to standard methods. MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge, UK; In press.
Gravestock I, Held L; COMBACTE-Net consortium. Adaptive power priors with empirical Bayes for clinical trials. Pharm Stat. 2017;16:349–360.
Lindley DV. Cromwell’s Rule. Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences. 2006. doi:https://doi.org/10.1002/0471667196.ess0622.pub2.
Hobbs BP, Carlin BP, Sargent DJ. Adaptive adjustment of the randomization ratio using historical control data. Clin Trials. 2013;10:430–440.
Viele K, Berry S, Neuenschwander B, et al. Use of historical control data for assessing treatment effects in clinical trials. Pharm Stat. 2014;13:41–54.
van Rosmalen J, Dejardin D, van Norden Y, Löwenberg B, Lesaffre E. Including historical data in the analysis of clinical trials: is it worth the effort? Stat Method Med Res. 2017 Jan 1:962280217694506. In press.
Wadsworth I, Hampson LV, Jaki T. Extrapolation of efficacy and other data to support the development of new medicines for children: a systematic review of methods. Stat Methods Med Res. 2018;27:398–413.
Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983;70:41–55.
Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. J Am Stat Assoc. 1984;79:516–524.
Rosenbaum PR, Rubin DB. Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. Am Stat. 1985;39:33–38.
Wachter R, Halbach M, Bakris GL, et al. An exploratory propensity score matched comparison of second-generation and first-generation baroreflex activation therapy systems. J Am Soc Hypertens. 2017;11:81–91.
Tarricone R, Boscolo PR, Armeni P. What type of clinical evidence is needed to assess medical devices? Eur Respir Rev. 2016;25:259–265.
Stuart EA, Rubin DB. Matching with multiple control groups and adjusting for group differences. J Educ Behav Stat. 2008;33:279–306.
Rubin DB. Estimating casual effects from large data sets using propensity scores. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127:757–763.
Austin PC. The relative ability of different propensity score methods to balance measured covariates between treated and untreated subjects in observational studies. Med Decis Making. 2009;29:661–677.
Austin PC. An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behav Res. 2011;46:399–424.
Braitman L, Rosenbaum PR. Rare outcomes, common treatments: analytic strategies using propensity scores. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137:693–696.
Brookhart MA, Schneeweiss S, Rothman KJ, Glynn RJ, Avorn J, Stürmer T. Variable selection for propensity score models. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;163:1149–1156.
Shadish WR, Steiner PM. A primer on propensity score analysis. Newborn Infant Nurs Rev. 2010;10:19–26.
Austin PC. Optimal caliper widths for propensity score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies. Pharm Stat. 2011;10:150–161.
Little RJA, Rubin DB. Statistical Analysis with Missing Data. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2002.
Rubin DB. Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 1987.
Rubin DB. On principles for modeling propensity scores in medical research. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2004;13:855–857.
Yue LQ. Statistical and regulatory issues with the application of propensity score analysis to nonrandomized medical device clinical studies. J Biopharm Stat. 2007;17:1–13.
Wright D, Day S. Discussion of: Statistical and regulatory issues with the application of propensity score analysis to nonrandomized medical device clinical studies. J Biopharm Stat. 2007;17:15–17.
Yue LQ. Regulatory considerations in the design of comparative observational studies using propensity scores. J Biopharm Stat. 2012;22:1272–1279.
Levenson MS, Yue LQ. Regulatory issues of propensity score methodology application to drug and device safety studies. J Biopharm Stat. 2013;23:110–121.
Makuch RW, Simon RM. Sample size considerations for non-randomized comparative studies. J Chronic Dis. 1980;33:175–181.
Dixon DO, Simon R. Sample size considerations for studies comparing survival curves using historical controls. J Clin Epidemiol. 1988;41:1209–1213.
Lee JJ, Tseng C. Uniform power method for sample size calculation in historical control studies with binary response. Control Clin Trials. 2001;22:390–400.
Zhang S, Cao J, Ahn C. Calculating sample size in trials using historical controls. Clin Trials. 2010;7:343–353.
Shan G, Moonie S, Shen J. Sample size calculation based on efficient unconditional tests for clinical trials with historical controls. J Biopharm Stat. 2016;26:240–249.
Lloyd CJ. A new exact and more powerful unconditional test of no treatment effect from binary matched pairs. Biometrics. 2008;64:716–723.
Zhu H, Zhang S, Ahn C. Sample size considerations for historical control studies with survival outcomes. J Biopharm Stat. 2016;26:657–671.
Hooper R. Versatile sample-size calculation using simulation. Stata J. 2013;13:21–38.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Adaptive Design Clinical Trials for Drugs and Biologics. Rockville, MD: FDA; 2010.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Adaptive Designs for Medical Device Clinical Studies. Rockville, MD: FDA; 2016.
Grieve AP. Idle thoughts of a well-calibrated Bayesian in clinical drug development. Pharm Stat. 2016;15:96–108.
Grieve AP. How to test hypotheses if you must. Pharm Stat. 2015;14:139–150.
Burton A, Altman DG, Royston P, Holder RL. The design of simulation studies in medical statistics. Stat Med. 2006;25:4279–4292.
Gaydos B, Anderson KM, Berry D, et al. Good practices for adaptive clinical trials in pharmaceutical product development. Drug Inform J. 2009;43:539–556.
O’Kelly M, Anisimov V, Campbell C, Hamilton S. Proposed best practice for projects that involve modelling and simulation. Pharm Stat. 2017;16:107–113.
Smith MK, Marshall A. Importance of protocols for simulation studies in clinical drug development. Stat Methods Med Res. 2011;20:613–622.
Posch M, Maurer W, Bretz F. Type I error rate control in adaptive designs for confirmatory clinical trials with treatment selection at interim. Pharm Stat. 2011;10:96–104.
Summar ML, Dobbelaere D, Brusilow S, Lee B. Diagnosis, symptoms, frequency and mortality of 260 patients with urea cycle disorders from a 21-year, multicentre study of acute hyperammonaemic episodes. Acta Paediatr. 2008;97:1420–1425.
Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (FDA CDER). Application Number: 20-645 Medical Review. http://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2005/020645s000_MedR.pdf. Accessed July 19, 2017.
Ammonul [package insert]. Scottsdale, AZ: Medicis Pharmaceutical Corp; 2005.
Kishnani PS, Hwu WL, Mandel H, et al. A retrospective, multinational, multicenter study on the natural history of infantile-onset Pompe disease. J Pediatr. 2006;148:671–676.
Myozyme [package insert]. Cambridge, MA: Genzyme Corporation; 2014.
Genzyme Corporation. Myozyme approved in the US [International Pompe Assocation Web site]. http://www.worldpompe.org/index.php/news/170-myozyme-approved-in-the-us. Published April 28, 2006. Accessed July 19, 2017.
Quest Staff. FDA OKs lifesaving treatment for Pompe disease. Muscular Dystrophy Association (MDA) website. http://quest.mda.org/news/fda-oks-lifesaving-treatment-pompe-disease. Published April 27, 2006. Accessed July 19, 2017.
Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (FDA CDER), Application Number: 125327Orig1s000 Summary Review. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2012/125327Orig1s000SumR.pdf. Accessed July 19, 2017.
Voraxaze [package insert]. West Conshohocken, PA: BTG International Inc; 2013.
Rattu MA, Shah N, Lee JM, Pham AQ, Marzella N. Glucarpidase (Voraxaze), carboxypeptidase enzyme for methotrexate toxicity. PT. 2013;38:732–744.
Blincyto [package insert]. Thousand Oaks, CA: Amgen Inc; 2017.
Gökbuget N, Dombret H, Ribera JM, et al. International reference analysis of outcomes in adults with B-precursor Ph-negative relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Haematologica. 2016;101:1524–1533.
Gökbuget N, Kelsh M, Chia V, et al. Blinatumomab vs historical standard therapy of adult relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Blood Cancer J. 2016;6:e473.
FDA approves new treatment for rare metabolic disorder. FDA website. https://wayback.archive-it.org/7993/20170404214922/https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm468836.htm. Published October 23, 2015. Accessed June 7, 2018.
Drug Trials Snapshots STRENSIQ. FDA website. https://www.fda.gov/Drugs/InformationOnDrugs/ucm476307.htm. Accessed July 19, 2017.
Strensiq [package insert]. Cheshire, CT: Alexion Pharmaceuticals, Inc; 2015.
FDA approves first drug to treat a rare enzyme disorder in pediatric and adult patients. FDA website. https://www.fda.gov/NewsEvents/Newsroom/PressAnnouncements/ucm476013.htm. Published December 8, 2015. Accessed July 19, 2017.
Kanuma [package insert]. Cheshire, CT: Alexion Pharmaceuticals Inc; 2015.
Food and Drug Administration Center for Drug Evaluation and Research (FDA CDER). Application Number: 761052Orig1s000 Summary Review. https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/nda/2017/761052Orig1s000SumR.pdf. Accessed July 19, 2017.
Wandel S, Roychoudhury S. Designing and analysing clinical trials in mental health: an evidence synthesis approach. Evid Based Ment Health. 2016;19:114–117.
Dejardin D, Delmar P, Warne C, Patel K, van Rosmalen J, Lesaffre E. Use of a historical control group in a noninferiority trial assessing a new antibacterial treatment: a case study and discussion of practical implementation aspects. Pharm Stat. 2018;17:169–181.
Hugo V. https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/v/victorhugo136258.html. Accessed July 19, 2017.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Lim, J., Walley, R., Yuan, J. et al. Minimizing Patient Burden Through the Use of Historical Subject-Level Data in Innovative Confirmatory Clinical Trials: Review of Methods and Opportunities. Ther Innov Regul Sci 52, 546–559 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479018778282
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479018778282