Abstract

BackgroundWhen conducing Phase-III trial, regulatory agencies and investigators might want to get reliable information about rare but serious safety outcomes during the trial. Bayesian non-inferiority approaches have been developed, but commonly utilize historical placebo-controlled data to define the margin, depend on a single final analysis, and no recommendation is provided to define the prespecified decision threshold. In this study, we propose a non-inferiority Bayesian approach for sequential monitoring of rare dichotomous safety events incorporating experts’ opinions on margins.MethodsA Bayesian decision criterion was constructed to monitor four safety events during a non-inferiority trial conducted on pregnant women at risk for premature delivery. Based on experts’ elicitation, margins were built using mixtures of beta distributions that preserve experts’ variability. Non-informative and informative prior distributions and several decision thresholds were evaluated through an extensive sensitivity analysis. The parameters were selected in order to maintain two rates of misclassifications under prespecified rates, that is, trials that wrongly concluded an unacceptable excess in the experimental arm, or otherwise.ResultsThe opinions of 44 experts were elicited about each event non-inferiority margins and its relative severity. In the illustrative trial, the maximal misclassification rates were adapted to events’ severity. Using those maximal rates, several priors gave good results and one of them was retained for all events. Each event was associated with a specific decision threshold choice, allowing for the consideration of some differences in their prevalence, margins and severity. Our decision rule has been applied to a simulated dataset.ConclusionsIn settings where evidence is lacking and where some rare but serious safety events have to be monitored during non-inferiority trials, we propose a methodology that avoids an arbitrary margin choice and helps in the decision making at each interim analysis. This decision rule is parametrized to consider the rarity and the relative severity of the events and requires a strong collaboration between physicians and the trial statisticians for the benefit of all. This Bayesian approach could be applied as a complement to the frequentist analysis, so both Data Safety Monitoring Boards and investigators can benefit from such an approach.

Highlights

  • When conducing a non-inferiority Phase-III trial, regulatory agencies and investigators might want to get reliable information about rare but serious safety outcomes during the trial

  • Non-inferiority (NI) randomized clinical trials aim to demonstrate whether an experimental treatment is not inferior, below a certain pre-specified margin, to the control treatment [1]

  • The analysis of some secondary outcomes, in addition to the primary endpoint, might be challenging, as the sample size was not tuned for that. This issue is of particular importance for safety events, and is even more true when considering rare but critical safety outcomes, which might not occur or only a few can be observed

Read more

Summary

Introduction

When conducing a non-inferiority Phase-III trial, regulatory agencies and investigators might want to get reliable information about rare but serious safety outcomes during the trial. Non-inferiority (NI) randomized clinical trials aim to demonstrate whether an experimental treatment is not inferior, below a certain pre-specified margin, to the control treatment [1] This margin should be formulated according to earlier knowledge and clinical relevance [1, 2]. The analysis of some secondary outcomes, in addition to the primary endpoint, might be challenging, as the sample size was not tuned for that This issue is of particular importance for safety events, and is even more true when considering rare but critical safety outcomes, which might not occur or only a few can be observed. Regulatory agencies and investigators may not wish to wait for post-marketing studies to draw conclusions about rare but serious outcomes of a new intervention They might want to get reliable safety information before the end of a trial

Objectives
Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call