Advertisement

Introduction

  • Toshimitsu Hamasaki
  • Koko Asakura
  • Scott R. Evans
  • Toshimitsu Ochiai
Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Statistics book series (BRIEFSSTATIST)

Abstract

In this chapter, we provide an overview of several emerging statistical challenges in recent clinical trials. These include multiple endpoints, non-inferiority designs, and adaptive designs.

Keywords

Modern adaptive designs Group-sequential designs Multiple endpoints Non-inferiority designs 

References

  1. Ando Y, Hamasaki T, Evans SR, Asakura K, Sugimoto T, Sozu T, Ohno Y (2015) Sample size considerations in clinical trials when comparing two interventions using multiple co-primary binary relative risk contrasts. Stat Biopharm Res 7:81–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Armitage P, McPherson CK, Rowe BC (1969) Repeated significance test on accumulating data. J Roy Stat Soc A132:235–244MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Asakura K, Hamasaki T, Sugimoto T, Hayashi K, Evans SR, Sozu T (2014) Sample size determination in group-sequential clinical trials with two co-primary endpoints. Stat Med 33:2897–2913MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Asakura K, Hamasaki T, Evans SR (2015a) Interim evaluation of efficacy or futility in group-sequential clinical trials with multiple co-primary endpoints. The 2015 Joint Statistical Meetings, Seattle, USA, 8–13 AugustGoogle Scholar
  5. Asakura K, Hamasaki T, Evans SR, Sugimoto T, Sozu T (2015b) Sample size determination in group-sequential clinical trials with two co-primary endpoints. In: Chen Z, Liu A, Qu Y, Tang L, Ting N, Tsong Y (eds) Applied statistics in bio-medicine and clinical trial design (Chapter 14). Springer International Publishing, Cham/Heidelberg/New York, pp 235–262Google Scholar
  6. Bauer P, Köhne K (1994) Evaluation of experiments with adaptive interim analyses. Biometrics 50:1029–1041 (correction in Biometrics 1996, 52:380)Google Scholar
  7. Bauer P, Bretz F, Dragalin V, König F, Wassmer G (2016) Twenty-five years of confirmatory adaptive designs: opportunities and pitfalls. Stat Med 35:325–347CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Beta-Blocker Heart Attack Trial Research Group (1982) A randomized trial of propranolol in patients with acute myocardial infraction: I. Motility results. J Am Med Assoc 247:1707–1714CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Blackwelder WC (2002) Showing a treatment is good because it is not bad: when does “noninferiority” imply effectiveness. Control Clin Trials 23:52–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Chen YHJ, DeMets DL, Lan KKG (2004) Increasing the sample size when the unblinded interim results is promising. Stat Med 23:1023–1038CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Chuang-Stein C, Stryszak P, Dmitrienko A, Offen W (2007) Challenge of multiple co-primary endpoints: a new approach. Stat Med 26:1181–1192MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (2007) Reflection paper on methodological issues in confirmatory clinical trials planned with an adaptive design (CHMP/EWP/2459/02). European Medicines Agency, London, UK. Available at: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500003616.pdf. Accessed 25 Nov 2015
  13. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (2008) Guideline on medicinal products for the treatment Alzheimer’s disease and other dementias (CPMP/EWP/553/95 Rev.1). European Medicines Agency, London, UK. Available at: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500003562.pdf. Accessed 25 Nov 2015
  14. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (2012a) Guideline on clinical investigation of medicinal products for the treatment of acute heart failure (CHMP/EWP/2986/03 Rev.1). European Medical Agency, London, UK. Available at: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2015/06/WC500187797.pdf. Accessed 25 Nov 2015
  15. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (2012b) Guideline on clinical investigation of medicinal products in the treatment or prevention of diabetes mellitus (CPMP/EWP/1080/00 Rev.1). European Medical Agency, London, UK. Available at: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2012/06/WC500129256.pdf. Accessed 25 Nov 2015
  16. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (2013a) Draft guideline on the clinical investigation of medicinal products for the treatment of duchenne and becker muscular dystrophy (EMA/CHMP/236981/2011). European Medical Agency, London, UK. Available at: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2013/03/WC500139508.pdf. Accessed 25 Nov 2015
  17. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (2013b) Guideline on the evaluation of medicinal products for the treatment of irritable bowel syndrome (CPMP/EWP/785/97 Rev.1, 27). European Medical Agency, London, UK. Available at: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2014/09/WC500173457.pdf. Accessed 25 Nov 2015
  18. Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use European Medicines Agency (2006) Guideline on the choice of the non-inferiority margin. Stat Med 25:1628–1638Google Scholar
  19. Committee for Proprietary Medical Products (2000) Points to consider on switching between superiority and non-inferiority. CPMP/EWP/482/99. European Medicines Agency, London, UK. Available at: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500003658.pdf. Accessed 25 Nov 2015
  20. Committee for Proprietary Medical Products (2002) Points to consider on multiplicity issues in clinical trials (CPMP/EWP/908/99). European Medicines Agency, London, UK. Available at: http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2009/09/WC500003640.pdf. Accessed 25 Nov 2015
  21. Cordoba G, Schwartz L, Woloshin S, Bae H, Gøtzsche PC (2010) Definition, reporting, and interpretation of composite outcomes in clinical trials: systematic review. Br Med J 341:c3920CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Cui L, Hung HMJ, Wang SJ (1999) Modification of sample size in group sequential clinical trials. Biometrics 55:853–857CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  23. D’Agostino RB, Massaro JM, Sullivan LM (2003) Non-inferiority trials: design concepts and issues—the encounters of academic consultants in statistics. Stat Med 22:169–186Google Scholar
  24. DeMets D, Furberg CD, Friedman LM (2006) Data monitoring in clinical trials: a case studies approach. Springer, New YorkCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. Dmitrienko A, Tamhane AC, Bretz F (2010) Multiple testing problems in pharmaceutical statistics. Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  26. Evans SR (2009) Noninferiority clinical trials. Chance 22:53–58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Evans SR, Follmann D (2015) Fundamentals and innovation in antibiotic trials. Stat Biopharm Res 7:331–336CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Evans SR, Ting N (2015) Fundamental concepts for new clinical trialists. Chapman and Hall/CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  29. Fisher LD (1998) Self-designing clinical trials. Stat Med 17:1551–1562CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Fleming TR (2008) Current issues in non-inferiority trials. Stat Med 27:317–332MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Food and Drug Administration (2006) Critical path opportunities list. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD, USAGoogle Scholar
  32. Food and Drug Administration (2010a) Guidance for industry: non-inferiority clinical trials (draft guidance). U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD, USA. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/ucm/groups/fdagov-public/@fdagov-drugs-gen/documents/document/ucm202140.pdf. Accessed 25 Nov 2015
  33. Food and Drug Administration (2010b) Guidance for industry: adaptive design clinical trials for drugs and biologics. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD, USA. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/Guidances/ucm201790.pdf. Accessed 25 Nov 2015
  34. Food and Drug Administration (2012) Guidance for industry: irritable bowel syndrome: clinical evaluation of products for treatment. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD, USA. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/ucm/groups/fdagov-public/documents/document/ucm205269.pdf. Accessed 25 Nov 2015
  35. Food and Drug Administration (2013) Guidance for industry: Alzheimer’s disease: developing drugs for the treatment of early stage disease. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD, USA. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/ucm/groups/fdagov-public/@fdagov-drugs-gen/documents/document/ucm338287.pdf. Accessed 25 Nov 2015
  36. Food and Drug Administration (2015) Draft guidance for industry and food and drug administration staff: adaptive designs for medical device clinical studies. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Food and Drug Administration, Rockville, MD, USA. Available at: http://www.fda.gov/ucm/groups/fdagov-public/@fdagov-meddev-gen/documents/document/ucm446729.pdf. Accessed 25 Nov 2015
  37. Gallo P, Chuang-Stein C, Dragalin V, Gaydos B, Krams M, Pinheiro J (2006) PhRMA working group adaptive designs in clinical drug development: an executive summary of the PhRMA working group. J Biopharm Stat 16:275–283MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Gong J, Pinheiro JC, DeMets DL (2000) Estimating significance level and power comparisons for testing multiple endpoints in clinical trials. Contr Clin Trials 21:313–329CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Halperin M, DeMets DL, Ware JH (1990) Early methodological developments for clinical trials at the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. Stat Med 9:881–892CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Hamasaki T, Evans SR (2013) Noninferiority clinical trials: issues in design, monitoring, analyses, and reporting. Igaku no Ayumi (J Clin Exp Med) 244:1212–1216 (in Japanese)Google Scholar
  41. Hamasaki T, Sugimoto T, Evans SR, Sozu T (2013) Sample size determination for clinical trials with co-primary outcomes: exponential event times. Pharm Stat 12:28–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Hamasaki T, Asakura K, Evans SR, Sugimoto T, Sozu T (2015) Group-sequential strategies in clinical trials with multiple co-primary endpoints. Stat Biopharm Res 7:36–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Hung HMJ, Wang SJ (2009) Some controversial multiple testing problems in regulatory applications. J Biopharm Stat 19:1–11MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Hung HMJ, Wang SJ, Yang P, Jin K, Lawrence J, Kordzakhia G, Massie T (2015) Statistical challenges in regulatory review of cardiovascular and CNS clinical trials. J Biopharm Stat (First published online on 14 Sept 2015 as doi: 10.1080/10543406.2015.1092025)
  45. Huque MF, Dmitrienko A, D’Agostino R (2013) Multiplicity issues in clinical trials with multiple objectives. Stat Biopharm Res 5:321–337CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) (1998) ICH harmonised tripartite guideline E9: statistical principles for clinical trials. February 1998. Available at: http://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Efficacy/E9/Step4/E9_Guideline.pdf. Accessed 25 Nov 2015
  47. International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use (ICH) (2000) ICH harmonised tripartite guideline E10: choice of control group and related issues in clinical trials. July 2000. Available at: http://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Efficacy/E10/Step4/E10_Guideline.pdf. Accessed 25 Nov 2015
  48. Jennison C, Turnbull BW (2000) Group sequential methods with applications to clinical trials. Chapman and Hall/CRC Press, Boca RatonzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  49. Julious S, Mclntyre NE (2012) Sample sizes for trials involving multiple correlated must-win comparisons. Pharm Stat 11:177–185CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Kordzakhia G, Siddiqui O, Huque MF (2010) Method of balanced adjustment in testing co-primary endpoints. Stat Med 29:2055–2066MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Lan KKG, DeMets DL (1983) Discrete sequential boundaries for clinical trials. Biometrika 70:659–663MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  52. Lehmacher W, Wassmer G (1999) Adaptive sample size calculations in group sequential trials. Biometrics 55:1286–1290CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  53. Li QH (2009) Evaluating co-primary endpoints collectively in clinical trials. Biometrical J 51:137–145MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Mehta CR, Bauer P, Posch M, Brannath W (2007) Repeated confidence intervals for adaptive group sequential trials. Stat Med 26:5422–5433Google Scholar
  55. Mosteller F (1981) Innovation and evaluation. Science 211:881–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Müller HH, Schäfer H (2001) Adaptive group sequential designs for clinical trials: combining the advantages of adaptive and of classical group sequential approaches. Biometrics 57:886–891MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  57. O’Brien PC, Fleming TR (1979) A multiple testing procedure for clinical trials. Biometrics 35:549–556CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. Ochiai T, Hamasaki T, Evans SR, Asakura K, Ohno Y (2016) Group-sequential three-arm noninferiority clinical trial designs. J Biopharm Stat (First published online: 18 Feb 2016 as doi: 10.1080/10543406.2016.1148710)
  59. Offen W, Chuang-Stein C, Dmitrienko A, Littman G, Maca J, Meyerson L, Muirhead R, Stryszak P, Boddy A, Chen K, Copley-Merriman K, Dere W, Givens S, Hall D, Henry D, Jackson JD, Krishen A, Liu T, Ryder S, Sankoh AJ, Wang J, Yeh CH (2007) Multiple co-primary endpoints: medical and statistical solutions. Drug Inf J 41:31–46Google Scholar
  60. Pocock SJ (1977) Group sequential methods in the design and analysis of clinical trials. Biometrika 64:191–199CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  61. Powers JH (2008) Noninferiority and equivalence trials: deciphering ‘similarity’ of medical interventions. Stat Med 27:343–352MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Powers JH, Cooper CK, Lin D, Ross DB (2005) Sample size and the ethics of non-inferiority trials. Lancet 366:24–25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  63. Proschan MA, Hunsberger SA (1995) Designed extension of studies based on conditional power. Biometrics 51:1315–1324CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  64. Proschan MA, Lan KKG, Wittes JT (2006) Statistical monitoring of clinical trials: a unified approach. Springer, New YorkzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  65. Rothmann MD, Wiens BL, Chan ISF (2011) Design and analysis of non-inferiority trials. Chapman and Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FLGoogle Scholar
  66. Sankoh AJ, D’Agostino RB, Huque MF (2003) Efficacy endpoint selection and multiplicity adjustment methods in clinical trials with inherent multiple endpoint issues. Stat Med 22:3133–3150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  67. Senn S, Bretz F (2007) Power and sample size when multiple endpoints are considered. Pharm Stat 6:161–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Slud EV, Wei LJ (1982) Two-sample repeated significance tests based on the modified Wilcoxon statistics. J Am Stat Assoc 77:862–868MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  69. Snappin SM (2000) Noninferiority trials. Curr Control Trials Cardiovasc Med 1:19–21CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  70. Song JX (2009) Sample size for simultaneous testing of rate differences in noninferiority trials with multiple endpoints. Comput Stat Data Anal 53:1201–1207CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  71. Sozu T, Sugimoto T, Hamasaki T (2010) Sample size determination in clinical trials with multiple co-primary binary endpoints. Stat Med 29:2169–2179MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  72. Sozu T, Sugimoto T, Hamasaki T (2011) Sample size determination in superiority clinical trials with multiple co-primary correlated endpoints. J Biopharm Stat 21:1–19MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  73. Sozu T, Sugimoto T, Hamasaki T (2012) Sample size determination in clinical trials with multiple co-primary endpoints including mixed continuous and binary variables. Biometrical J 54:716–729MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  74. Sozu T, Sugimoto T, Hamasaki T, Evans SR (2015) Sample size determination in clinical trials with multiple primary endpoints. Springer International Press, Cham/Heidelberg/New YorkCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  75. Sugimoto T, Sozu T, Hamasaki T (2012) A convenient formula for sample size calculations in clinical trials with multiple co-primary continuous endpoints. Pharm Stat 11:118–128CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  76. Sugimoto T, Sozu T, Hamasaki T, Evans SR (2013) A logrank test-based method for sizing clinical trials with two co-primary time-to-event endpoints. Biostatistics 14:409–421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  77. Tsiatis AA, Mehta C (2003) On the inefficiency of the adaptive design for monitoring clinical trials. Biometrika 90:367–378MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  78. Wei LJ (1978) The adaptive biased coin design for sequential experiments. Ann Stat 6:92–100MathSciNetCrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  79. Wei LJ, Durham S (1978) The randomized play-the-winner rule in medical trials. J Am Stat Assoc 73:840–843CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  80. Whitehead J (1997) The design and analysis of sequential clinical trials, revised, 2nd edn. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  81. Xiong C, Yu K, Gao F, Yan Y, Zhang Z (2005) Power and sample size for clinical trials when efficacy is required in multiple endpoints: application to an Alzheimer’s treatment trial. Clin Trials 2:387–393CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Zelen M (1969) Play the winner rule and the controlled clinical trial. J Am Stat Assoc 64:131–146MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Toshimitsu Hamasaki
    • 1
  • Koko Asakura
    • 2
  • Scott R. Evans
    • 3
  • Toshimitsu Ochiai
    • 4
  1. 1.Department of Data ScienceNational Cerebral and Cardiovascular CenterSuitaJapan
  2. 2.Department of Data ScienceNational Cerebral and Cardiovascular CenterSuitaJapan
  3. 3.Department of Biostatistics and the Center for Biostatistics in AIDS ResearchHarvard T.H. Chan School of Public HealthBostonUSA
  4. 4.Biostatistics DepartmentShionogi & Co., Ltd.OsakaJapan

Personalised recommendations