Informed decision-making: Statistical methodology for surrogacy evaluation and its role in licensing and reimbursement assessments

The effectiveness of problem-based learning and case-based learning teaching methods in clinical practical teaching in TACE treatment for hepatocellular carcinoma in China: a bayesian network meta-analysis

PURPOSE

To investigate the effectiveness of problem-based learning (PBL) and case-based learning (CBL) teaching methods in clinical practical teaching in transarterial chemoembolization (TACE) treatment in China.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

A comprehensive search of PubMed, the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI) database, the Weipu database and the Wanfang database up to June 2023 was performed to collect studies that evaluate the effectiveness of problem-based learning and case-based learning teaching methods in clinical practical teaching in TACE treatment in China. Statistical analysis was performed by R software (4.2.1) calling JAGS software (4.3.1) in a Bayesian framework using the Markov chain-Monte Carlo method for direct and indirect comparisons. The R packages "gemtc", "rjags", "openxlsx", and "ggplot2" were used for statistical analysis and data output.

RESULTS

Finally, 7 studies (five RCTs and two observational studies) were included in the meta-analysis. The combination of PBL and CBL showed more effectiveness in clinical thinking capacity, clinical practice capacity, knowledge understanding degree, literature reading ability, method satisfaction degree, learning efficiency, learning interest, practical skills examination scores and theoretical knowledge examination scores.

CONCLUSIONS

Network meta-analysis revealed that the application of PBL combined with the CBL teaching mode in the teaching of liver cancer intervention therapy significantly improves the teaching effect and significantly improves the theoretical and surgical operations, meeting the requirements of clinical education.

Novel Clinical Trial Designs with Dose Optimization to Improve Long-term Outcomes

Conventional designs for choosing a dose for a new therapy may select doses that are unsafe or ineffective and fail to optimize progression-free survival time, overall survival time, or response/remission duration. We explain and illustrate limitations of conventional dose-finding designs and make four recommendations to address these problems. When feasible, a dose-finding design should account for long-term outcomes, include screening rules that drop unsafe or ineffective doses, enroll an adequate sample size, and randomize patients among doses. As illustrations, we review three designs that include one or more of these features. The first illustration is a trial that randomized patients among two cell therapy doses and standard of care in a setting where it was assumed on biological grounds that dose toxicity and dose-response curves did not necessarily increase with cell dose. The second design generalizes phase I-II by first identifying a set of candidate doses, rather than one dose, randomizing additional patients among the candidates, and selecting an optimal dose to maximize progression-free survival over a longer follow-up period. The third design combines a phase I-II trial and a group sequential randomized phase III trial by using survival time data available after the first stage of phase III to reoptimize the dose selected in phase I-II. By incorporating one or more of the recommended features, these designs improve the likelihood that a selected dose or schedule will be optimal, and thus will benefit future patients and obtain regulatory approval.

A framework for the definition and interpretation of the use of surrogate endpoints in interventional trials

Background

Interventional trials that evaluate treatment effects using surrogate endpoints have become increasingly common. This paper describes four linked empirical studies and the development of a framework for defining, interpreting and reporting surrogate endpoints in trials.

Methods

As part of developing the CONSORT (Consolidated Standards of Reporting Trials) and SPIRIT (Standard Protocol Items: Recommendations for Interventional Trials) extensions for randomised trials reporting surrogate endpoints, we undertook a scoping review, e-Delphi study, consensus meeting, and a web survey to examine current definitions and stakeholder (including clinicians, trial investigators, patients and public partners, journal editors, and health technology experts) interpretations of surrogate endpoints as primary outcome measures in trials.

Findings

Current surrogate endpoint definitional frameworks are inconsistent and unclear. Surrogate endpoints are used in trials as a substitute of the treatment effects of an intervention on the target outcome(s) of ultimate interest, events measuring how patients feel, function, or survive. Traditionally the consideration of surrogate endpoints in trials has focused on biomarkers (e.g., HDL cholesterol, blood pressure, tumour response), especially in the medical product regulatory setting. Nevertheless, the concept of surrogacy in trials is potentially broader. Intermediate outcomes that include a measure of function or symptoms (e.g., angina frequency, exercise tolerance) can also be used as substitute for target outcomes (e.g., all-cause mortality)-thereby acting as surrogate endpoints. However, we found a lack of consensus among stakeholders on accepting and interpreting intermediate outcomes in trials as surrogate endpoints or target outcomes. In our assessment, patients and health technology assessment experts appeared more likely to consider intermediate outcomes to be surrogate endpoints than clinicians and regulators.

Interpretation

There is an urgent need for better understanding and reporting on the use of surrogate endpoints, especially in the setting of interventional trials. We provide a framework for the definition of surrogate endpoints (biomarkers and intermediate outcomes) and target outcomes in trials to improve future reporting and aid stakeholders' interpretation and use of trial surrogate endpoint evidence.

Funding

SPIRIT-SURROGATE/CONSORT-SURROGATE project is Medical Research Council Better Research Better Health (MR/V038400/1) funded.

Interpreting Randomized Controlled Trials

This article describes rationales and limitations for making inferences based on data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). We argue that obtaining a representative random sample from a patient population is impossible for a clinical trial because patients are accrued sequentially over time and thus comprise a convenience sample, subject only to protocol entry criteria. Consequently, the trial's sample is unlikely to represent a definable patient population. We use causal diagrams to illustrate the difference between random allocation of interventions within a clinical trial sample and true simple or stratified random sampling, as executed in surveys. We argue that group-specific statistics, such as a median survival time estimate for a treatment arm in an RCT, have limited meaning as estimates of larger patient population parameters. In contrast, random allocation between interventions facilitates comparative causal inferences about between-treatment effects, such as hazard ratios or differences between probabilities of response. Comparative inferences also require the assumption of transportability from a clinical trial's convenience sample to a targeted patient population. We focus on the consequences and limitations of randomization procedures in order to clarify the distinctions between pairs of complementary concepts of fundamental importance to data science and RCT interpretation. These include internal and external validity, generalizability and transportability, uncertainty and variability, representativeness and inclusiveness, blocking and stratification, relevance and robustness, forward and reverse causal inference, intention to treat and per protocol analyses, and potential outcomes and counterfactuals.

Less is More? First Impressions From COSMIC-313

The COSMIC-313 phase 3 randomized controlled trial tested the triplet combination of cabozantinib with nivolumab and ipilimumab in comparison with nivolumab plus ipilimumab control as fist-line systemic therapy in metastatic clear cell renal cell carcinoma. The first results presented at the 2022 European Society of Medical Oncology Congress are a milestone for the renal cell carcinoma field because they signal the advent of triplet combinations as potential treatment options for our patients. The present commentary highlights some considerations and potential next steps based on these first impressions.

[Progress and Application of Bayesian Approach in the Early Research and Development of New Anticancer Drugs]

Bayesian statistics is an approach for learning from evidences as it accumulates, combining prior distribution with current information on a quantity of interest, in which posterior distribution and inferences are being updated each time new data become available using Bayes' Theorem. Though frequentist approach has dominated medical studies, Bayesian approach has been more and more widely recognized by its flexibility and efficiency. Research and development (R&D) on anti-cancer new drugs have been so hot globally in recent years in spite of relatively high failure rate. It is the common demand of pharmaceutical enterprises and researchers to identify the optimal dose, regime and right population in the early-phase R&D stage more accurately and efficiently, especially when the following three major changes have been observed. The R&D on anticancer drugs have transformed from chemical drugs to biological products, from monotherapy to combination therapy, and the study design has also gradually changed from traditional way to innovative and adaptive mode. This also raises a number of subsequent challenges on decision-making of early R&D, such as inability to determine MTD, flexibility to deal with delayed toxicity, delayed response and dose-response changing relationships. It is because of the above emerging changes and challenges that the Bayesian approach is getting more and more attention from the industry. At least, Bayesian approach has more information for decision-making, which could potentially help enterprises achieve higher efficiency, shorter period and lower investment. This study also expounds the application of Bayesian statistics in the early R&D on anticancer new drugs, and compares and analyzes its idea and application scenarios with frequentist statistics, aiming to provide macroscopic and systematic reference for all related stakeholders.
.