“Threshold-crossing”: A Useful Way to Establish the Counterfactual in Clinical Trials?

Clinical Pharmacology and Therapeutics

Volumn 100, Issue 6, 2016, Pages 699-712

  Eichler, H G ^a   Bloechl Daum, B ^b   Bauer, P ^b   Bretz, F ^c   Brown, J ^d   Hampson, L V ^e   Honig, P ^f   Krams, M ^g   Leufkens, H ^h   Lim, R ⁱ   Lumpkin, M M ^j   Murphy, M J ^k   Pignatti, F ^a   Posch, M ^b   Schneeweiss, S ^l   Trusheim, M ^m   Koenig, F ^b  

^a EUROPEAN MEDICINES AGENCY   (United Kingdom)

^b MEDICAL UNIVERSITY OF VIENNA   (Austria)

^c NOVARTIS PHARMA AG   (Switzerland)

^d HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL   (United States)

^e LANCASTER UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^f Janssen Pharmaceutical Companies ^*  (United States)

^g JANSSEN RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT   (United States)

^h UTRECHT UNIVERSITY   (Netherlands)

ⁱ HEALTH CANADA   (Canada)

^j BILL AND MELINDA GATES FOUNDATION   (United States)

^k Project Data Sphere   (United States)

^l BRIGHAM AND WOMEN S HOSPITAL   (United States)

^m MASSACHUSETTS INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

STREPTOMYCIN; DRUG;

ARTICLE; BAYES THEOREM; CONTROL GROUP; DATA ANALYSIS; DRUG RESEARCH; HUMAN; MEDICAL ETHICS; METHODOLOGY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PATIENT HARM; PERSONALIZED MEDICINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIAL (TOPIC); SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS; STUDY DESIGN; THERAPY EFFECT; THRESHOLD CROSSING; PROCEDURES; THEORETICAL MODEL; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

HUMANS; MODELS, THEORETICAL; PHARMACEUTICAL PREPARATIONS; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS AS TOPIC; RESEARCH DESIGN; TREATMENT OUTCOME;

EID: 84991660225     PISSN: 00099236     EISSN: 15326535     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/cpt.515     Document Type: Article

References (70)

1. International Council on Harmonization. ICH Topic E10: Choice of control groups in clinical trials. .
2. Pocock, S.J. The combination of randomized and historical controls in clinical trials. J. Chronic Dis. 29, 175–188 (1976).
3. Eichler, H.G. et al. Bridging the efficacy-effectiveness gap: a regulator's perspective on addressing variability of drug response. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 10, 495–506 (2011).
4. Savović, J. et al. Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomized, controlled trials. Ann. Intern. Med. 157, 429–438 (2012).
5. Turner, R.M., Spiegelhalter, D.J., Smith, G.C. & Thompson, S.G. Bias modelling in evidence synthesis. J. R. Stat. Soc. A Stat. Soc. 172, 21–47 (2009).
6. Robins, J.M., Hernán, M.A. & Brumback, B. Marginal structural models and causal inference in epidemiology. Epidemiology 11, 550–560 (2000).
7. Mansournia, M.A. & Altman, D.G. Inverse probability weighting. BMJ 352, i189 (2016).
8. Rosenbaum, P.R. & Rubin, D.B. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika 70, 41–55 (1983).
9. Rosenbaum, P.R. & Rubin, D.B. Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 79, 516–524 (1984).
10. King, G. & Nielsen, R. Why Propensity Scores Should Not Be Used for Matching. . (2016).
11. Angrist, J.D., Imbens, G.W. & Rubin, D.B. Identification of causal effects using instrumental variables. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 91, 444–445 (1996).
12. Hernán, M.A. & Robins, J.M. Causal Inference. (Chapman & Hall/CRC, Boca Raton, FL, 2016). . Accessed 13 September 2016.
13. Chalmers, I. Why the 1948 MRC trial of streptomycin used treatment allocation based on random numbers. J. R. Soc. Med. 104, 383–386 (2011).
14. Crofton, J. The MRC randomized trial of streptomycin and its legacy: a view from the clinical front line. J. R. Soc. Med. 99, 531–534 (2006).
15. [No authors listed]. Streptomycin treatment of tuberculous meningitis. Lancet 1, 582–596 (1948).
16. Perera, R. & Stevens, R.J. Personalising results from large trials. BMJ 350, h553 (2015).
17. Sackett, D.L., Rosenberg, W.M., Gray, J.A., Haynes, R.B. & Richardson, W.S. Evidence based medicine: what it is and what it isn't. BMJ 312, 71–72 (1996).
18. Guide to Clinical Preventive Services: Report of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force 2014. US Preventive Services Task Force; p. 24. .
19. Smith, G.C. & Pell, J.P. Parachute use to prevent death and major trauma related to gravitational challenge: systematic review of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 327, 1459–1461 (2003).
20. Downing, N.S., Aminawung, J.A., Shah, N.D., Krumholz, H.M. & Ross, J.S. Clinical trial evidence supporting FDA approval of novel therapeutic agents, 2005–2012. JAMA 311, 368–377 (2014).
21. Martinalbo, J. et al. Early market access of cancer drugs in the EU. Ann. Oncol. 27, 96–105 (2016).
22. Bauer, K.A. Targeted anti-anticoagulants. N. Engl. J. Med. 373, 569–571 (2015).
23. Simon, R. et al. The role of nonrandomized trials in the evaluation of oncology drugs. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 97, 502–507 (2015).
24. Tufts CSDD's Outlook 2015. .
25. Long, G. & Works, J. .
26. Bluebird Bio Reports New Beta-Thalassemia Major and Severe Sickle Cell Disease Data From HGB-205 Study at EHA. .
27. European Medicines Agency website. EPAR Holoclar. .
28. Mullard, A. 2014 FDA drug approvals. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 14, 77–81 (2015).
29. Onakpoya, I.J., Spencer, E.A., Thompson, M.J. & Heneghan, C.J. Effectiveness, safety and costs of orphan drugs: an evidence-based review. BMJ Open 5, e007199 (2015).
30. Executive Summary: interim analysis of the National Cancer Institute-Molecular Analysis for Therapy Choice (NCI-MATCH) trial. .
31. Mahoney, K.M., Rennert, P.D. & Freeman, G.J. Combination cancer immunotherapy and new immunomodulatory targets. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 14, 561–584 (2015).
32. Klauschen, F., Andreeff, M., Keilholz, U., Dietel, M. & Stenzinger, A. The combinatorial complexity of cancer precision medicine. Oncoscience 1, 504–509 (2014).
33. Szyf, M. Prospects for the development of epigenetic drugs for CNS conditions. Nat. Rev. Drug Discov. 14, 461–474 (2015).
34. Schneider, L.S. et al. Clinical trials and late-stage drug development for Alzheimer's disease: an appraisal from 1984 to 2014. J. Intern. Med. 275, 251–283 (2014).
35. Welten, C.C. et al. Efficacy of drug treatment for acute mania differs across geographic regions: an individual patient data meta-analysis of placebo-controlled studies. J. Psychopharmacol. 29, 923–932 (2015).
36. Strom, B.L., Buyse, M., Hughes, J. & Knoppers, B.M. Data sharing, year 1--access to data from industry-sponsored clinical trials. N. Engl. J. Med. 371, 2052–2054 (2014).
37. Yale University Open Data Access (YODA) Project. .
38. Green, A.K. et al. Comparative effectiveness of mitoxantrone plus prednisone versus prednisone alone in metastatic castrate-resistant prostate cancer after docetaxel failure. Oncologist 20, 516–522 (2015).
39. The Virtual International Stroke Trials Archive (Vista). .
40. The Life Raft Group. .
41. Lacombe, D. et al. European perspective for effective cancer drug development. Nat. Rev. Clin. Oncol. 11, 492–498 (2014).
42. European Medical Information Framework (EMIF). .
43. Schneeweiss, S. Developments in post-marketing comparative effectiveness research. Clin. Pharmacol. Ther. 82, 143–156 (2007).
44. Tadrous, M., Gagne, J.J., Stürmer, T. & Cadarette, S.M. Disease risk score as a confounder summary method: systematic review and recommendations. Pharmacoepidemiol. Drug Saf. 22, 122–129 (2013).
45. Spiegelhalter, D.J., Abrams, K.R. & Myles, J.P. Bayesian Approaches to Clinical Trials and Healthcare Evaluation (Wiley & Sons, Hoboken, NJ, 2003).
46. Grieve, A.P. et al. Bayesian approaches to randomized trials – discussion. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. A Stat. Soc. 157, 387–416 (1994).
47. Hobbs, B.P., Carlin, B.P. & Sargent, D.J. Adaptive adjustment of the randomization ratio using historical control data. Clin. Trials 10, 430–440 (2013).
48. Cuffe, R.L. The inclusion of historical control data may reduce the power of a confirmatory study. Stat. Med. 30, 1329–1338 (2011).
49. Viele, K. et al. Use of historical control data for assessing treatment effects in clinical trials. Pharm. Stat. 13, 41–54 (2014).
50. Neuenschwander, B., Capkun-Niggli, G., Branson, M. & Spiegelhalter, DJ. Summarizing historical information on controls in clinical trials. Clin. Trials 7, 5–18 (2010).
51. Cooper, B.S. et al. Evaluating clinical trial designs for investigational treatments of Ebola virus disease. PLoS Med. 12, e1001815 (2015).
52. Simon, R.M. Chapter 18. Design and analysis of clinical trials. In: Cancer: Principles & Practice of Oncology, 7th edition (eds. DeVita Jr, V.T., Hellman, S. & Rosenberg, S.A) (Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, 2005).
53. Korn, E.L. et al. Meta-analysis of phase II cooperative group trials in metastatic stage IV melanoma to determine progression-free and overall survival benchmarks for future phase II trials. J. Clin. Oncol. 26, 527–534 (2008).
54. National Research Council. The Prevention and Treatment of Missing Data in Clinical Trials. Panel on Handling Missing Data in Clinical Trials. Committee on National Statistics, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC, 2010).
55. International Conference on Harmonisation. ICH E9(R1): Addendum to Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials on Choosing Appropriate Estimands and Defining Sensitivity Analyses in Clinical Trials .
56. Leuchs, A.-K., Zinserling, J., Brandt, A., Wirtz, D. & Benda, N. Choosing appropriate estimands in clinical trials. Ther. Innov. Regul. Sci. 49, 584–592 (2015).
57. Akacha, M., Bretz, F., Ohlssen, D., Rosenkranz, G. & Schmidli, H. Estimands and Their Role in Clinical Trials. .
58. Higgins, J.P.T. & Green, S. (eds). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. .
59. Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D.G. & The PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. Int. J. Surg. 8, 336–341 (2010).
60. Montazerhodjat, V. & Lo, A.W. Is the FDA too conservative or too aggressive? A Bayesian decision analysis of clinical trial design. NBER Working Paper No. 21499, August 2015. .
61. Baird, L., Teagarden, R., Unger, T. & Hirsch, G. New Medicines Eight Years Faster to Patients: Blazing a New Trail in Drug Development With Adaptive Licensing. Scrip Regulatory Affairs, June 2013. .
62. Hill, A.B. The environment and disease: association or causation? Bull. World Health Organ. 83, 796–798 (2005).
63. Byar, D.P. et al. Design considerations for AIDS trials. N. Engl. J. Med. 323, 1343–1348 (1990).
64. Koenig, F. et al. Sharing clinical trial data on patient level: opportunities and challenges. Biom. J. 57, 8–26 (2015).
65. Cfr. Article 28 (2) Regulation (EU) No. 536/2014. .
66. Article 89 of Regulation (EU) 2016/679. .
67. EMA Draft Extrapolation. .
68. Gsteiger, S., Neuenschwander, B., Mercier, F. & Schmidli, H. Using historical control information for the design and analysis of clinical trials with overdispersed count data. Stat. Med. 32, 3609–3622 (2013).
69. Elsaeßer, A. et al. Adaptive clinical trial designs for European marketing authorization: a survey of scientific advice letters from the European Medicines Agency. Trials 15, 383 (2014).
70. Bauer, P., Bretz, F., Dragalin, V., König, F. & Wassmer, G. Twenty-five years of confirmatory adaptive designs: opportunities and pitfalls. Stat. Med. 35, 325–347 (2016).