Detecting qualitative interactions in clinical trials with binary responses

A nested group sequential framework for regional evaluation in global drug development program

The primary objective of a multiregional clinical trial (MRCT) is to assess the efficacy of all participating regions and evaluate the probability of applying the overall results to a specific region. The consistency assessment of the target region with the overall results is the most common way of evaluating the efficacy in a specific region. Recently, Huang et al. (2012) proposed an additional trial in the target region to an MRCT to evaluate the efficacy in the target ethnic (TE) population under the framework of simultaneous global drug development program (SGDDP). However, the operating characteristics of this statistical framework were not well considered. Therefore, a nested group sequential program for regional efficacy evaluation is proposed in this paper. It is an extension of Huang's SGDDP framework and allows interim analysis after MRCT and in the course of local clinical trial (LCT) phase. It is able to well control the family-wise type I error in the program level and enhances the flexibility of the program. In LCT sample size estimation, we introduce virtual trial, which is transformed from the original program by using discounting factor, and an iteration method is employed to calculate the sample size and stopping boundaries of interim analyses. The proposed sample size estimation method is validated in the simulations and the effect of varied weight, effect size of TE population, and design setting is explored. Examples with normal end point, binary end point, and survival end point are shown to illustrate the application of the proposed nested group sequential program.

Subgroup analyses in confirmatory clinical trials: time to be specific about their purposes

Background

It is well recognized that treatment effects may not be homogeneous across the study population. Subgroup analyses constitute a fundamental step in the assessment of evidence from confirmatory (Phase III) clinical trials, where conclusions for the overall study population might not hold. Subgroup analyses can have different and distinct purposes, requiring specific design and analysis solutions. It is relevant to evaluate methodological developments in subgroup analyses against these purposes to guide health care professionals and regulators as well as to identify gaps in current methodology.

Methods

We defined four purposes for subgroup analyses: (1) Investigate the consistency of treatment effects across subgroups of clinical importance, (2) Explore the treatment effect across different subgroups within an overall non-significant trial, (3) Evaluate safety profiles limited to one or a few subgroup(s), (4) Establish efficacy in the targeted subgroup when included in a confirmatory testing strategy of a single trial. We reviewed the methodology in line with this “purpose-based” framework. The review covered papers published between January 2005 and April 2015 and aimed to classify them in none, one or more of the aforementioned purposes.

Results

In total 1857 potentially eligible papers were identified. Forty-eight papers were selected and 20 additional relevant papers were identified from their references, leading to 68 papers in total. Nineteen were dedicated to purpose 1, 16 to purpose 4, one to purpose 2 and none to purpose 3. Seven papers were dedicated to more than one purpose, the 25 remaining could not be classified unambiguously. Purposes of the methods were often not specifically indicated, methods for subgroup analysis for safety purposes were almost absent and a multitude of diverse methods were developed for purpose (1).

Conclusions

It is important that researchers developing methodology for subgroup analysis explicitly clarify the objectives of their methods in terms that can be understood from a patient’s, health care provider’s and/or regulator’s perspective. A clear operational definition for consistency of treatment effects across subgroups is lacking, but is needed to improve the usability of subgroup analyses in this setting. Finally, methods to particularly explore benefit-risk systematically across subgroups need more research.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-016-0122-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.