Top Banner
Therapeutic Equivalence & Active Control Clinical Trials Richard Simon, D.Sc. Chief, Biometric Research Branch National Cancer Institute
22

Therapeutic Equivalence & Active Control Clinical Trials Richard Simon, D.Sc. Chief, Biometric Research Branch National Cancer Institute.

Jan 04, 2016

Download

Documents

Welcome message from author
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
Page 1: Therapeutic Equivalence & Active Control Clinical Trials Richard Simon, D.Sc. Chief, Biometric Research Branch National Cancer Institute.

Therapeutic Equivalence & Active Control Clinical Trials

Richard Simon, D.Sc.

Chief, Biometric Research Branch

National Cancer Institute

Page 2: Therapeutic Equivalence & Active Control Clinical Trials Richard Simon, D.Sc. Chief, Biometric Research Branch National Cancer Institute.

Objectives

• Determine whether a new treatment is therapeutically equivalent to an established effective treatment

• Determine whether a new treatment is effective relative to no treatment

Page 3: Therapeutic Equivalence & Active Control Clinical Trials Richard Simon, D.Sc. Chief, Biometric Research Branch National Cancer Institute.

Problems With Therapeutic Equivalence Trials

• It is impossible to demonstrate therapeutic equivalence– At best, one can establish that results are only

consistent with differences in efficacy within specified limits

Page 4: Therapeutic Equivalence & Active Control Clinical Trials Richard Simon, D.Sc. Chief, Biometric Research Branch National Cancer Institute.

Problems With Therapeutic Equivalence Trials

• When your only tool is a hammer, everything looks like a nail– Failure to reject the null hypothesis may be the

result of inadequate sample size, not demonstration of equivalence

Page 5: Therapeutic Equivalence & Active Control Clinical Trials Richard Simon, D.Sc. Chief, Biometric Research Branch National Cancer Institute.

Problems With Therapeutic Equivalence Trials

• Large sample sizes are needed to establish that differences in efficacy are within narrow limits

Page 6: Therapeutic Equivalence & Active Control Clinical Trials Richard Simon, D.Sc. Chief, Biometric Research Branch National Cancer Institute.

Problems With Therapeutic Equivalence Trials

• The limits within which difference in efficacy should be bounded should depend on – The degree of effectiveness of the active

control– The precision with which the effectiveness of

the active control is estimated

Page 7: Therapeutic Equivalence & Active Control Clinical Trials Richard Simon, D.Sc. Chief, Biometric Research Branch National Cancer Institute.

Problems With Therapeutic Equivalence Trials

• Therapeutic equivalence trials are not feasible or interpretable unless there is strong quantifiable evidence for the effectiveness of the active control

Page 8: Therapeutic Equivalence & Active Control Clinical Trials Richard Simon, D.Sc. Chief, Biometric Research Branch National Cancer Institute.

Problems With Therapeutic Equivalence Trials

• Demonstrating that E (experimental rx) is at least 80% as effective as C (active control) is interpretable only in the context of knowledge of how effective C is with regard to P (previous standard or no rx).

Page 9: Therapeutic Equivalence & Active Control Clinical Trials Richard Simon, D.Sc. Chief, Biometric Research Branch National Cancer Institute.

Problems With Therapeutic Equivalence Trials

• In evaluating whether 80% effectiveness relative to C represents effectiveness relative to P, one must account for the uncertainty in effectiveness of C relative to P

Page 10: Therapeutic Equivalence & Active Control Clinical Trials Richard Simon, D.Sc. Chief, Biometric Research Branch National Cancer Institute.

Bayesian Design and Analysis of Active Control Clinical TrialsBiometrics 55:484-487, 1999

Page 11: Therapeutic Equivalence & Active Control Clinical Trials Richard Simon, D.Sc. Chief, Biometric Research Branch National Cancer Institute.

ayesiantatistics

Page 12: Therapeutic Equivalence & Active Control Clinical Trials Richard Simon, D.Sc. Chief, Biometric Research Branch National Cancer Institute.

= log of hazard ratio of C to P

= log of hazard ratio of E to P

- = log of HR of C to E

Page 13: Therapeutic Equivalence & Active Control Clinical Trials Richard Simon, D.Sc. Chief, Biometric Research Branch National Cancer Institute.

Prior Distributions

• Prior distribution for is N(,2)– Determined from random-effects meta-analysis

of relevant randomized trials of C versus P

Page 14: Therapeutic Equivalence & Active Control Clinical Trials Richard Simon, D.Sc. Chief, Biometric Research Branch National Cancer Institute.

Prior Distributions

• Prior distribution for is N(0,)– Reflecting no quantitative randomized evidence

for effectiveness of E

Page 15: Therapeutic Equivalence & Active Control Clinical Trials Richard Simon, D.Sc. Chief, Biometric Research Branch National Cancer Institute.

Results of Therapeutic Equivalence Trial

• Observed maximum likelihood estimate of log of hazard ratio of E to C is y with standard error

• “z value” is y/

• y<0 means E looked better than C

Page 16: Therapeutic Equivalence & Active Control Clinical Trials Richard Simon, D.Sc. Chief, Biometric Research Branch National Cancer Institute.

Posterior Distributions Given Data From Equivalence Trial

• Posterior distribution of is same as prior distribution

• Posterior distribution of is N(y+ , 2+2)

• Correlation of and is / 2+2

Page 17: Therapeutic Equivalence & Active Control Clinical Trials Richard Simon, D.Sc. Chief, Biometric Research Branch National Cancer Institute.

Probability that E is Effective and at least 50% as Effective as

C / y/ ss(E vs C)/ss(C vs P)

Prob( <0) Pr{ <0 & <0.5 }

-2 0 1 .92 .80-2 -1 1 .98 .94-2 1 1 .76 .49

-2 0 4 .96 .82-2 0 1/4 .81 .71

-3 0 1 .98 .91-3 1 1 .92 .67

Page 18: Therapeutic Equivalence & Active Control Clinical Trials Richard Simon, D.Sc. Chief, Biometric Research Branch National Cancer Institute.

Planning Sample Size for Therapeutic Equivalence Trial

• If E and C are equivalent, we want high probability (e.g. 0.80) of concluding that E is effective relative to P– Pr{<0|y}>0.95– 0.95 is probability of effectiveness

• The calculation is made assuming =, and using the predictive distribution of y with regard to the prior distribution of

Page 19: Therapeutic Equivalence & Active Control Clinical Trials Richard Simon, D.Sc. Chief, Biometric Research Branch National Cancer Institute.

Planning Sample Size for Therapeutic Equivalence Trial

• A more stringent requirement is if E and C are equivalent, we want high probability (e.g. 0.80) of concluding that E is effective relative to P and at least 100k% as effective as C– Pr{<0 & <k |y}>0.95– k=.5 represents 50% as effective as C– k=0 represents simply effective relative to P

Page 20: Therapeutic Equivalence & Active Control Clinical Trials Richard Simon, D.Sc. Chief, Biometric Research Branch National Cancer Institute.

Sample Size Planning for Therapeutic Equivalence Trial

Prob of effectiveness / k ss(E vs C) /ss(C vs P)

95% -3 0 1.295% -3 0.5 4.895% -2 0 9.6

90% -3 0 0.790% -3 0.5 2.690% -2 0 2.8

Page 21: Therapeutic Equivalence & Active Control Clinical Trials Richard Simon, D.Sc. Chief, Biometric Research Branch National Cancer Institute.

Conclusions

• Therapeutic equivalence trials cannot be meaningfully interpreted without quantitative consideration of the evidence that the control C is effective:– The strength of evidence that C is effective– The degree to which it is effective– The degree to which it’s effectiveness varies

among trials

Page 22: Therapeutic Equivalence & Active Control Clinical Trials Richard Simon, D.Sc. Chief, Biometric Research Branch National Cancer Institute.

Conclusions

• Therapeutic equivalence trials are not practical or appropriate in situations where strong quantitative evidence for the effectiveness of C is not available