Randomized reverse marker strategy design for prospective biomarker validation

Randomized test-treatment studies with an outlook on adaptive designs

Background

Diagnostic accuracy studies aim to examine the diagnostic accuracy of a new experimental test, but do not address the actual merit of the resulting diagnostic information to a patient in clinical practice. In order to assess the impact of diagnostic information on subsequent treatment strategies regarding patient-relevant outcomes, randomized test-treatment studies were introduced. Various designs for randomized test-treatment studies, including an evaluation of biomarkers as part of randomized biomarker-guided treatment studies, are suggested in the literature, but the nomenclature is not consistent.

Methods

The aim was to provide a clear description of the different study designs within a pre-specified framework, considering their underlying assumptions, advantages as well as limitations and derivation of effect sizes required for sample size calculations. Furthermore, an outlook on adaptive designs within randomized test-treatment studies is given.

Results

The need to integrate adaptive design procedures in randomized test-treatment studies is apparent. The derivation of effect sizes induces that sample size calculation will always be based on rather vague assumptions resulting in over- or underpowered study results. Therefore, it might be advantageous to conduct a sample size re-estimation based on a nuisance parameter during the ongoing trial.

Conclusions

Due to their increased complexity, compared to common treatment trials, the implementation of randomized test-treatment studies poses practical challenges including a huge uncertainty regarding study parameters like the expected outcome in specific subgroups or disease prevalence which might affect the sample size calculation. Since research on adaptive designs within randomized test-treatment studies is limited so far, further research is recommended.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at (10.1186/s12874-021-01293-y).

Biomarker-Guided Non-Adaptive Trial Designs in Phase II and Phase III: A Methodological Review

Biomarker-guided treatment is a rapidly developing area of medicine, where treatment choice is personalised according to one or more of an individual’s biomarker measurements. A number of biomarker-guided trial designs have been proposed in the past decade, including both adaptive and non-adaptive trial designs which test the effectiveness of a biomarker-guided approach to treatment with the aim of improving patient health. A better understanding of them is needed as challenges occur both in terms of trial design and analysis. We have undertaken a comprehensive literature review based on an in-depth search strategy with a view to providing the research community with clarity in definition, methodology and terminology of the various biomarker-guided trial designs (both adaptive and non-adaptive designs) from a total of 211 included papers. In the present paper, we focus on non-adaptive biomarker-guided trial designs for which we have identified five distinct main types mentioned in 100 papers. We have graphically displayed each non-adaptive trial design and provided an in-depth overview of their key characteristics. Substantial variability has been observed in terms of how trial designs are described and particularly in the terminology used by different authors. Our comprehensive review provides guidance for those designing biomarker-guided trials.

Value-based and benefit-based strategies in deciding to bring a test into use should be distinguished

BACKGROUND

Regulatory and health technology assessment agencies have commented differently on the question whether results from enrichment studies can be used to justify to bring a test into use. We try to provide a framework to discuss this issue.

RESULTS

Mathematical definitions for the value and the benefit of a new diagnostic test are given. The possible conclusions about value and benefit from enrichment studies and interaction studies are explored. The terms benefit-based strategy and value-based strategy are introduced. Several potential consequences of using one of the two strategies in deciding to bring a test into use are identified and quantified. Interaction designs allow to assess benefit and value. Enrichment designs allow only to assess benefit. However, it is often probable that interaction studies allow no firm conclusions about the value. The advantage of a benefit-based strategy stems mainly from allowing test-positive patients earlier or even ever to benefit. The main disadvantage is a potential delay in detecting tests of no value.

CONCLUSIONS

Benefit-based strategies are preferable if the risk of off-label use and of delayed decisions on the value of a test can be limited. Otherwise, the superiority depends highly on research practice.

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.

Methods for identification and confirmation of targeted subgroups in clinical trials: A systematic review

Important objectives in the development of stratified medicines include the identification and confirmation of subgroups of patients with a beneficial treatment effect and a positive benefit-risk balance. We report the results of a literature review on methodological approaches to the design and analysis of clinical trials investigating a potential heterogeneity of treatment effects across subgroups. The identified approaches are classified based on certain characteristics of the proposed trial designs and analysis methods. We distinguish between exploratory and confirmatory subgroup analysis, frequentist, Bayesian and decision-theoretic approaches and, last, fixed-sample, group-sequential, and adaptive designs and illustrate the available trial designs and analysis strategies with published case studies.