Causal inference for longitudinal data based on historical controls.

Use of historical data has become a hot topic recently, considered to provide a way to reduce patient burden, lower drug development cost, and make innovative therapies available to patients earlier. In a single-arm study designed to examine the benefit of an experimental treatment, there is often a desire to compare the outcomes of patients receiving the new intervention with those receiving a control treatment, which can be extracted from sources such as historical trials or electronic medical records. Since the treatment is not randomly assigned, there is a need to adjust for the potential imbalance in key patient characteristics between the current study and historical controls. If the outcome of interest is measured longitudinally and subject to random missing, the required adjustment becomes more complicated. In this paper, we propose a doubly robust adjustment procedure specifically designed for longitudinal data analysis with missing data. The proposed method yields valid analysis results, if either the propensity score model or the mixed effects model for repeated measures (MMRM) regression model is correctly specified. An extensive numerical study is conducted to examine the performance of the proposed method. Data from a real clinical trial comparing with historical data are analyzed as an example applying the proposed procedure.

Phase 3, Randomized, 20-Month Study of the Efficacy and Safety of Bimatoprost Implant in Patients with Open-Angle Glaucoma and Ocular Hypertension (ARTEMIS 2).

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the intraocular pressure (IOP)-lowering efficacy and safety of 10 and 15 µg bimatoprost implant in patients with open-angle glaucoma (OAG) or ocular hypertension (OHT). METHODS: This randomized, 20-month, multicenter, masked, parallel-group, phase 3 trial enrolled 528 patients with OAG or OHT and an open iridocorneal angle inferiorly in the study eye. Study eyes were administered 10 or 15 µg bimatoprost implant on day 1, week 16, and week 32, or twice-daily topical timolol maleate 0.5%. Primary endpoints were IOP and IOP change from baseline through week 12. Safety measures included treatment-emergent adverse events (TEAEs) and corneal endothelial cell density (CECD). RESULTS: Both 10 and 15 µg bimatoprost implant met the primary endpoint of noninferiority to timolol in IOP lowering through 12 weeks. Mean IOP reductions from baseline ranged from 6.2-7.4, 6.5-7.8, and 6.1-6.7 mmHg through week 12 in the 10 µg implant, 15 µg implant, and timolol groups, respectively. IOP lowering was similar after the second and third implant administrations. Probabilities of requiring no IOP-lowering treatment for 1 year after the third administration were 77.5% (10 µg implant) and 79.0% (15 µg implant). The most common TEAE was conjunctival hyperemia, typically temporally associated with the administration procedure. Corneal TEAEs of interest (primarily corneal endothelial cell loss, corneal edema, and corneal touch) were more frequent with the 15 than the 10 µg implant and generally were reported after repeated administrations. Loss in mean CECD from baseline to month 20 was ~ 5% in 10 µg implant-treated eyes and ~ 1% in topical timolol-treated eyes. Visual field progression (change in the mean deviation from baseline) was reduced in the 10 µg implant group compared with the timolol group. CONCLUSIONS: The results corroborated the previous phase 3 study of the bimatoprost implant. The bimatoprost implant met the primary endpoint and effectively lowered IOP. The majority of patients required no additional treatment for 12 months after the third administration. The benefit-risk assessment favored the 10 over the 15 µg implant. Studies evaluating other administration regimens with reduced risk of corneal events are ongoing. The bimatoprost implant has the potential to improve adherence and reduce treatment burden in glaucoma. CLINICALTRIALS. GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT02250651.

Evaluation of alternative confidence intervals to address non-inferiority through the stratified difference between proportions.

The confidence interval (CI) for the difference between two proportions has been an important and active research topic, especially in the context of non-inferiority hypothesis testing. Issues concerning the Type 1 error rate, power, coverage rate and aberrations have been extensively studied for non-stratified cases. However, stratified confidence intervals are frequently used in non-inferiority trials and similar settings. In this paper, several methods for stratified confidence intervals for the difference between two proportions, including existing methods and novel extensions from unstratified CIs, are evaluated across different scenarios. When sparsity across the strata is not a concern, adding imputed observations to the stratification analysis can strengthen Type-1 error control without substantial loss of power. When sparseness of data is a concern, most of the evaluated methods fail to control Type-1 error; the modified stratified t-test CI is an exception. We recommend the modified stratified t-test CI as the most useful and flexible method across the respective scenarios; the modified stratified Wald CI may be useful in settings where sparsity is unlikely. These findings substantially contribute to the application of stratified CIs for non-inferiority testing of differences between two proportions.

Reducing Patient Burden in Clinical Trials Through the Use of Historical Controls: Appropriate Selection of Historical Data to Minimize Risk of Bias.

Historical data have been used to augment or replace control arms in some rare disease and pediatric clinical trials. With greater availability of historical data and new methodology such as dynamic borrowing, the inclusion of historical data in clinical trials is an increasingly appealing approach for larger disease areas as well, as this can result in increased power and precision and can minimize the burden on patients in clinical trials. However, sponsors must assess whether the potential biases incurred with this approach outweigh the benefits and discuss this trade-off with the regulatory agencies. This paper discusses important points for the appropriate selection of historical controls for inclusion in the analysis of primary and/or key secondary endpoint(s) in clinical trials. The general steps are as follows: (1) Assess whether a trial is a suitable candidate for this approach. (2) If it is, then carefully identify appropriate historical trials to minimize selection bias. (3) Refine the historical control set if appropriate, for example, by selecting subsets of studies or patients. Identification of trial settings that are amenable to historical borrowing and selection of appropriate historical data using the principles discussed in this paper has the potential to lead to more efficient estimation and decision making. Ultimately, this efficiency gain results in lower patient burden and gets effective drugs to patients more quickly.

OnabotulinumtoxinA for the treatment of major depressive disorder: a phase 2 randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial in adult females.

This 24-week double-blind placebo-controlled multicenter randomized phase 2 trial evaluated efficacy and safety of onabotulinumtoxinA (onabotA; BOTOX) vs. placebo for major depressive disorder (MDD) [NCT02116361]. Primary endpoint was the change in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS); secondary endpoints were Clinical Global Impressions-Severity and 17-item Hamilton Depression Rating Scale at week 6. A total of 255 adult females were treated. OnabotA 30 U approached significance compared to placebo on MADRS (mixed-effect model repeated measures least-squares mean difference: -3.7; P = 0.053) and reached significance [least-squares mean differences: -3.6 to -4.2; P < 0.05 (two-sided)] at weeks 3 and 9. Secondary endpoints were also significant at several time points. At week 6, onabotA 50 U did not separate from placebo in any parameters. OnabotA was generally well-tolerated: the only treatment-emergent adverse events reported in ≥5% in either onabotA group, and more than matching placebo were headache, upper respiratory infection, and eyelid ptosis. OnabotA 30 U, administered in a standardized injection pattern in a single session, had a consistent efficacy signal across multiple depression symptom scales for 12 or more weeks. OnabotA 30 U/placebo MADRS differences of (observed ANCOVA) ≥4.0 points (up to week 15) and ≥2.0 points (weeks 18-24) agree with the 2-point change threshold considered clinically relevant in MDD. OnabotA is a local therapy and is not commonly associated with systemic effects of conventional antidepressants and may represent a novel treatment option for MDD.

Design of randomized controlled confirmatory trials using historical control data to augment sample size for concurrent controls.

This paper deals with the methods to augment concurrent controls (CC) in a randomized controlled trial with available historical data in clinical studies. In their article, Matching with multiple control groups and adjusting for group differences, Stuart and Rubin proposed a matching method where the primary/local control and the secondary/non-local control are both included in the propensity score estimates. The authors discuss a similar approach taking the CC as the primary and the historical control as the secondary, and find that this approach does not save the sample size of the randomized trial compared to the traditional randomized design without supplementation of historical data. A new matching method that saves sample size is proposed, where propensity scores are estimated without the concurrent randomized control patients. A two-stage design is proposed, which allows one to examine the assumption of the new matching method before a commitment of using the matching method in the second stage. Previous clinical trials data is used as an example to illustrate the feasibility of the proposed methods. Simulation studies have been used to investigate operating characteristics of the proposed method.

Seamless phase IIa/IIb adaptive design with the same primary endpoint for proof of concept and dose finding.

This paper considers combining a proof of concept (POC) study and a dose finding (DF) study where the POC and the DF share the same primary endpoint. An example based on real study conditions shows that compared to a conventional design the proposed adaptive design tests more active doses, with a smaller sample size and a shorter overall duration leading to a budget saving of 30% in study operations.

Minimizing Patient Burden Through the Use of Historical Subject-Level Data in Innovative Confirmatory Clinical Trials: Review of Methods and Opportunities.

The goal of clinical trial research is to deliver safe and efficacious new treatments to patients in need in a timely and cost-effective manner. There is precedent in using historical control data to reduce the number of concurrent control subjects required in developing medicines for rare diseases and other areas of unmet need. The purpose of this paper is to provide a review for a regulatory and industry audience of the current state of relevant statistical methods, and of the uptake of these approaches and the opportunities for broader use of historical data in confirmatory clinical trials. General principles to consider when incorporating historical control data in a new trial are presented. Bayesian and frequentist approaches are outlined including how the operating characteristics for such a trial can be obtained. Finally, examples of approved new treatments that incorporated historical controls in their confirmatory trials are presented.

Clinical Study Design to Assess Both Short- and Long-term Efficacy in Addition to Group Sequential Test on Safety.

In clinical studies for disorders such as rheumatoid arthritis, type 2 diabetes mellitus, multiple sclerosis, osteoporosis, etc, sometimes the developers need to address safety concerns (eg, cardiovascular risk) in the phase III development, so that a large long-term safety study is needed before registration. This article does not contain any studies with human or animal subjects performed by any of the authors. Aiming for potential regulatory approval with a single confirmatory study, the authors suggest a design that assesses short-term efficacy (eg, signs or symptoms) and long-term efficacy (eg, structure or imaging), as well as safety (eg, major adverse cardiac events), for which a group sequential test is performed applying an alpha spending function. A graphical testing procedure is suggested for the data analysis. The testing procedure controls the family-wise type I error rate. The study may reach all or part of short-term efficacy, long-term efficacy, and/or safety objectives. It is possible to get market approval with a single confirmatory study that assesses short-term efficacy, long-term efficacy, and safety.

Omalizumab is effective in the long-term control of severe allergic asthma.

BACKGROUND: Previous reports show that addition of omalizumab to standard therapy reduces asthma exacerbations and simultaneously decreases use of inhaled corticosteroids (ICSs) and rescue medication in patients with allergic asthma. OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of omalizumab on long-term disease control in patients with severe allergic asthma. METHODS: The present study concerns the 24-week, double-blind extension phase to a previous 28-week core study in which patients received subcutaneous omalizumab or matching placebo (at least 0.016 mg/kg/IgE [IU/mL] every 4 weeks) for 16 weeks in addition to their existing ICS therapy (beclomethasone dipropionate [BDP]; steroid-stable phase), followed by a 12-week phase in which controlled attempts were made to gradually reduce ICS therapy (steroid-reduction phase). During the extension phase patients were maintained on randomized treatment (omalizumab or placebo) and the lowest sustainable dose of BDP. The use of other asthma medications was permitted during the extension phase. Investigators were also allowed to switch patients from BDP to other ICS medications if considered necessary. RESULTS: A total of 460 patients (omalizumab, n = 245; placebo, n = 215) entered the extension phase. Overall, omalizumab-treated patients experienced significantly fewer exacerbations vs placebo during the extension phase (0.60 and 0.83 exacerbations per patient, respectively; P = 0.023), despite a sustained significant reduction in their use of ICS (mean BDP equivalent dose: omalizumab, 227 microg/d; placebo, 335 microg/d; P < 0.001). Treatment with omalizumab was well tolerated and the incidence of adverse events was similar in both treatment groups. CONCLUSIONS: These results indicate that omalizumab is effective in the long-term control of severe allergic asthma.

Omalizumab improves asthma-related quality of life in patients with severe allergic asthma.

BACKGROUND: We have previously shown that omalizumab, a recombinant humanized monoclonal anti-IgE antibody, reduces asthma exacerbations and decreases inhaled corticosteroid (ICS) requirement in patients with severe allergic asthma who were symptomatic despite moderate-to-high doses of ICSs. OBJECTIVE: The aim of the present study was to assess the effects of omalizumab on asthma-related quality of life (QOL). METHODS: These analyses were part of a multicenter, 52-week, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study assessing the efficacy, safety, and tolerability of subcutaneous omalizumab (> or =0.016 mg/kg of IgE [in international unit per milliliter] per 4 weeks) in 525 adults with severe allergic asthma. A 16-week steroid-stable phase was followed by a 12-week steroid-reduction phase and a 24-week double-blind extension phase. The effect of treatment on asthma-related QOL was evaluated by using the Asthma Quality of Life Questionnaire (AQLQ) administered at baseline and at weeks 16, 28, and 52. RESULTS: The 2 treatment groups were comparable in terms of baseline AQLQ scores. At weeks 16, 28, and 52, omalizumab-treated patients demonstrated statistically significant improvements across all AQLQ domains, as well as in overall score. Moreover, a greater proportion of patients receiving omalizumab achieved a clinically meaningful improvement in asthma-related QOL during each phase of the study. Greater than 50% of both patients and investigators rated treatment similarly with omalizumab as excellent or good compared with less than 40% of placebo recipients. CONCLUSION: In patients requiring moderate-to-high doses of ICSs for severe allergic asthma, the measurably improved disease control afforded by add-on omalizumab therapy is paralleled by clinically meaningful improvements in asthma-related QOL.