Lessons Learned From Multi-regional Trials With Signals of Treatment Effect Heterogeneity.

Inconsistent results across regions have been reported in a number of recent large trials. In this research, by reviewing results from studies that showed inconsistent treatment effects, and summarizing lessons learned, we provide some recommendations for minimizing the chance of inconsistency and allowing more accurate interpretation when such signs of heterogeneity arise, for example: keep the number of regions for consistency evaluation at a minimum to avoid observing false inconsistency signals; proactively address in the protocol the differences in culture, medical practices, and other factors that are potentially different across regions; closely monitor the blinded data from early-enrolled patients to more effectively identify and address issues such as imbalance of baseline covariates or inconsistency of primary outcome rates across regions. For treatments of life-threatening conditions, the stakes for accurate interpretation of MRCT results are high; the criteria for decisions warrant careful consideration.

Example-based illustrations of design, conduct, analysis and result interpretation of multi-regional clinical trials.

Extensive research has been conducted in the Multi-Regional Clinical Trial (MRCT) area. To effectively apply an appropriate approach to a MRCT, we need to synthesize and understand the features of different approaches. In this paper, examples are used to illustrate considerations regarding design, conduct, analysis and interpretation of result of MRCTs. We start with a brief discussion of region definitions and the scenarios where different regions have differing requirements for a MRCT. We then compare different designs and models as well as the corresponding interpretation of the results. We highlight the importance of paying special attention to trial monitoring and conduct to prevent potential issues associated with the final trial results. Besides evaluating the overall treatment effect for the entire MRCT, we also consider other key analyses including quantification of regional treatment effects within a MRCT, and assessment of consistency of these regional treatment effects.

Multi-regional clinical trial design and consistency assessment of treatment effects.

We can apply both fixed and random effects models to multi-regional clinical trial (MRCT) design and data analysis. Thoroughly, understanding the features of these models in an MRCT setting will help assessing their applicability to an MRCT. In this paper, we discuss the interpretations of trial results from these models. We also evaluate the impact of the number of regions and the sample size configuration across the regions on the required total sample size for the overall treatment effect assessment. For quantifying treatment effects of individual regions, the empirical shrinkage estimator and the James-Stein type shrinkage estimator associate with smaller variability compared with the regular sample estimator. We conduct computation and simulation to compare the performance of these estimators when they are applied to assess consistency of treatment effects across regions. We use a multinational trial example to illustrate the application of these methods.

Graphical assessment of consistency in treatment effect among countries in multi-regional clinical trials.

BACKGROUND: One key objective of a multi-regional clinical trial (MRCT) is to use the trial results to 'bridge' from the global level to local region in support of local registrations. However, data from each individual country are typically limited and the large number of countries will increase the chance of false positive findings. PURPOSE: Graphical tools to facilitate identification of potential outlying countries could be useful for country-level assessment. Existing methods such as funnel plot and expected range of treatment effect can substantially increase the false positive rate. The expected range approach can also have a very low power when there are a large number of small countries, which is typical in a MRCT. METHODS: In this article, we apply normal probability plots, commonly used as a diagnostic tool in linear regression analysis, to assess the differences among countries. Evidence of possible inconsistency, which incorporates both the estimated treatment effect and sample size, is plotted against its expected order statistic. RESULTS: A simulation study is conducted to assess the impact of the negative correlation among residuals due to unequal sample sizes among countries and the performance of the proposed methods compared to existing approaches. The proposed methods tend to have a balanced consideration with substantially smaller false positive rate and reasonable probability to identify outlying countries in realistic scenarios. LIMITATIONS: While much lower than that of commonly used methods, the false positive rates of the proposed methods are not strictly controlled. This may be acceptable for these graphical tools with intention to flag potential outliers for investigation. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend routine use of normal probability plots in MRCTs as a tool to identify potential outliers. If the normal probability plot is approximately linear but has heavy tails with a few outlying countries, these potential outliers should be examined carefully to understand the possible reasons.

Empirical shrinkage estimator for consistency assessment of treatment effects in multi-regional clinical trials.

Multi-regional clinical trials have been widely used for efficient global new drug developments. Both a fixed-effect model and a random-effect model can be used for trial design and data analysis of a multi-regional clinical trial. In this paper, we first compare these two models in terms of the required sample size, type I error rate control, and the interpretability of trial results. We then apply the empirical shrinkage estimation approach based on the random-effect model to two criteria of consistency assessment of treatment effects across regions. As demonstrated in our computations, compared with the sample estimator, the shrinkage estimator of the treatment effect of an individual region borrowing information from the other regions is much closer to the estimator of the overall treatment effect, has smaller variability, and therefore provides much higher probability for demonstrating consistency. We use a multinational trial example with time to event endpoint to illustrate the application of the method.