Estimands: discussion points from the PSI estimands and sensitivity expert group.

ICH E9 Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials was issued in 1998. In October 2014, an addendum to ICH E9 was proposed relating to estimands and sensitivity analyses. In preparation for the release of the addendum, Statisticians in the Pharmaceutical Industry held a 1-day expert group meeting in February 2015. Topics debated included definition, development, implementation, education and communication challenges associated with estimands and sensitivity analyses. The topic of estimands is an important and relatively new one in clinical development. A clear message from the meeting was that estimands bridge the gap between study objectives and statistical methods. When defining estimands, an iterative process linking trial objectives, estimands, trial design, statistical and sensitivity analysis needs to be established. Each objective should have at least one distinct estimand, supported by sensitivity analyses. Because clinical trials are multi-faceted and expensive, it is unrealistic to restrict a study to a single objective and associated estimand. The actual set of estimands and sensitivity analyses for a study will depend on the study objectives, the disease setting and the needs of the various stakeholders. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Missing data: discussion points from the PSI missing data expert group.

The Points to Consider Document on Missing Data was adopted by the Committee of Health and Medicinal Products (CHMP) in December 2001. In September 2007 the CHMP issued a recommendation to review the document, with particular emphasis on summarizing and critically appraising the pattern of drop-outs, explaining the role and limitations of the 'last observation carried forward' method and describing the CHMP's cautionary stance on the use of mixed models. In preparation for the release of the updated guidance document, statisticians in the Pharmaceutical Industry held a one-day expert group meeting in September 2008. Topics that were debated included minimizing the extent of missing data and understanding the missing data mechanism, defining the principles for handling missing data and understanding the assumptions underlying different analysis methods. A clear message from the meeting was that at present, biostatisticians tend only to react to missing data. Limited pro-active planning is undertaken when designing clinical trials. Missing data mechanisms for a trial need to be considered during the planning phase and the impact on the objectives assessed. Another area for improvement is in the understanding of the pattern of missing data observed during a trial and thus the missing data mechanism via the plotting of data; for example, use of Kaplan-Meier curves looking at time to withdrawal.

Conditional approval: discussion points from the PSI conditional approval expert group.

The European Agency for the Evaluation of Medicinal Products has recently completed the consultation of a draft guidance on how to implement conditional approval. This route of application is available for orphan drugs, emergency situations and serious debilitating or life-threatening diseases. Although there has been limited experience in implementing conditional approval to date, PSI (Statisticians in the Pharmaceutical Industry) sponsored a meeting of pharmaceutical statisticians with an interest in the area to discuss potential issues. This article outlines the issues raised and resulting discussions, based on the group's interpretation of the legislation. Conditional approval seems to fit well with the accepted regulatory strategy in HIV. In oncology, conditional approval may be most likely when (a) compelling phase II data are available using accepted clinical outcomes (e.g. progression/recurrence-free survival or overall survival) and Phase III has been planned or started, or (b) when data are available using a surrogate endpoint for clinical outcome (e.g. response rate or biochemical measures) from a single-arm study in rare tumours with high response, compared with historical data. The use of interim analyses in Phase III for supporting conditional approval raises some challenging issues regarding dissemination of information, maintenance of blinding, potential introduction of bias, ethics, switching, etc.