Duration of and time to response in oncology clinical trials from the perspective of the estimand framework.

Duration of response (DOR) and time to response (TTR) are typically evaluated as secondary endpoints in early-stage clinical studies in oncology when efficacy is assessed by the best overall response and presented as the overall response rate. Despite common use of DOR and TTR in particular in single-arm studies, the definition of these endpoints and the questions they are intended to answer remain unclear. Motivated by the estimand framework, we present relevant scientific questions of interest for DOR and TTR and propose corresponding estimand definitions. We elaborate on how to deal with relevant intercurrent events which should follow the same considerations as implemented for the primary response estimand. A case study in mantle cell lymphoma illustrates the implementation of relevant estimands of DOR and TTR. We close the paper with practical recommendations to implement DOR and TTR in clinical study protocols.

Regulatory agilities impacting review timelines for Pfizer/BioNTech's BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 vaccine: a retrospective study.

The appropriate use of regulatory agilities has the potential to accelerate regulatory review, utilize resources more efficiently and deliver medicines and vaccines more rapidly, all without compromising quality, safety and efficacy. This was clearly demonstrated during the COVID-19 pandemic where regulators and industry rapidly adapted to ensure continued supply of existing critical medicines and review and approve new innovative medicines. In this retrospective study, we analyze the impact of regulatory agilities on the review and approval of Pfizer/BioNTech's BNT162b2 mRNA COVID-19 Vaccine globally using regulatory approval data from 73 country/regional approvals. We report on the critical role of reliance and provide evidence that demonstrates reliance approaches and certain regulatory agilities reduced review times for the COVID-19 vaccine. These findings support the case for more widespread implementation of regulatory agilities and demonstrate the important role of such approaches to improve public health outcomes.

Case-control matching-guided exposure-efficacy relationship for avelumab in patients with urothelial carcinoma.

Exposure-response (E-R) analyses are an integral component of understanding the benefit/risk profile of novel oncology therapeutics. These analyses are typically conducted using data from the treatment arm to characterize the relationship between drug exposure (low vs. high) and efficacy or safety outcomes. For example, outcomes of patients with lower exposure in the treatment arm (e.g., Q1) might be compared to outcomes of those with higher drug exposure (Q2, Q3, and Q4). Outcomes from the lowest exposure quartile may be also compared to the control arm to evaluate whether the Q1 subgroup derived clinical benefit. However, the sample size and the distribution of patient baseline characteristics and disease risk factors are not balanced in such a comparison (Q1 vs. control), which may bias the analysis and causal interpretation of clinical benefit in the Q1 subgroup. Herein, we report the use of case-control matching to account for this bias and better understand the E-R relationship for avelumab in urothelial carcinoma, a PD-L1 inhibitor approved for the treatment of several cancers. Data from JAVELIN-100 was utilized which is a phase III study of avelumab in first-line maintenance treatment in patients with urothelial carcinoma; this clinical study demonstrated superiority of avelumab versus best-supportive care leading to approval in the United States, Europe, and other countries. A post hoc case-control matching method was implemented to compare the efficacy outcome between Q1 avelumab subgroup and matched patients extracted from the control arm with similar baseline characteristics, which showed a clinically relevant difference in overall survival in favor of the Q1 avelumab subgroup. This analysis demonstrates the importance of accounting for imbalance in important baseline covariates when comparing efficacy outcomes between subgroups within the treatment arm versus the control arm.

Modeling immunogenecity data to establish screening bioassays cut point.

The response of immunogenecity anti-drug antibody (ADA) generally includes biological and analytical variability. The nature of biological and analytical variations may lead to a variety of symmetric and asymmetric ADA data. As a result, current statistical methods may yield unreliable results because these methods assume special types of symmetric or asymmetric ADA data. In this paper, we survey and compare parametric models that are useful for analyzing a variety of asymmetric data that have rarely been used to calculate assay cut points. These models include symmetric distributions as limiting case; therefore, they are useful in the analysis of a variety of symmetric data. We also investigate two nonparametric approaches that have received little attention in screening cut point calculations. A simulation study was conducted to compare the performance of the methods. We evaluate the methods using four published different types of data, and make recommendations concerning the use of the methods.

Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints in Cancer Clinical Trials-Innovative Medicines Initiative (SISAQOL-IMI): stakeholder views, objectives, and procedures.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs), such as symptoms, functioning, and other health-related quality-of-life concepts are gaining a more prominent role in the benefit-risk assessment of cancer therapies. However, varying ways of analysing, presenting, and interpreting PRO data could lead to erroneous and inconsistent decisions on the part of stakeholders, adversely affecting patient care and outcomes. The Setting International Standards in Analyzing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Endpoints in Cancer Clinical Trials-Innovative Medicines Initiative (SISAQOL-IMI) Consortium builds on the existing SISAQOL work to establish recommendations on design, analysis, presentation, and interpretation for PRO data in cancer clinical trials, with an expanded set of topics, including more in-depth recommendations for randomised controlled trials and single-arm studies, and for defining clinically meaningful change. This Policy Review presents international stakeholder views on the need for SISAQOL-IMI, the agreed on and prioritised set of PRO objectives, and a roadmap to ensure that international consensus recommendations are achieved.

Dynamic enrichment of Bayesian small-sample, sequential, multiple assignment randomized trial design using natural history data: a case study from Duchenne muscular dystrophy.

In Duchenne muscular dystrophy (DMD) and other rare diseases, recruiting patients into clinical trials is challenging. Additionally, assigning patients to long-term, multi-year placebo arms raises ethical and trial retention concerns. This poses a significant challenge to the traditional sequential drug development paradigm. In this paper, we propose a small-sample, sequential, multiple assignment, randomized trial (snSMART) design that combines dose selection and confirmatory assessment into a single trial. This multi-stage design evaluates the effects of multiple doses of a promising drug and re-randomizes patients to appropriate dose levels based on their Stage 1 dose and response. Our proposed approach increases the efficiency of treatment effect estimates by (i) enriching the placebo arm with external control data, and (ii) using data from all stages. Data from external control and different stages are combined using a robust meta-analytic combined (MAC) approach to consider the various sources of heterogeneity and potential selection bias. We reanalyze data from a DMD trial using the proposed method and external control data from the Duchenne Natural History Study (DNHS). Our method's estimators show improved efficiency compared to the original trial. Also, the robust MAC-snSMART method most often provides more accurate estimators than the traditional analytic method. Overall, the proposed methodology provides a promising candidate for efficient drug development in DMD and other rare diseases.

Single-arm studies involving patient-reported outcome data in oncology: a literature review on current practice.

Patient-reported outcomes (PROs) are increasingly used in single-arm cancer studies. We reviewed 60 papers published between 2018 and 2021 of single-arm studies of cancer treatment with PRO data for current practice on design, analysis, reporting, and interpretation. We further examined the studies' handling of potential bias and how they informed decision making. Most studies (58; 97%) analysed PROs without stating a predefined research hypothesis. 13 (22%) of the 60 studies used a PRO as a primary or co-primary endpoint. Definitions of PRO objectives, study population, endpoints, and missing data strategies varied widely. 23 studies (38%) compared the PRO data with external information, most often by using a clinically important difference value; one study used a historical control group. Appropriateness of methods to handle missing data and intercurrent events (including death) were seldom discussed. Most studies (51; 85%) concluded that PRO results supported treatment. Conducting and reporting of PROs in cancer single-arm studies need standards and a critical discussion of statistical methods and possible biases. These findings will guide the Setting International Standards in Analysing Patient-Reported Outcomes and Quality of Life Data in Cancer Clinical Trials-Innovative Medicines Initiative (SISAQOL-IMI) in developing recommendations for the use of PRO-measures in single-arm studies.

A Tutorial on Modern Bayesian Methods in Clinical Trials.

Clinical trials continue to be the gold standard for evaluating new medical technologies. New advancements in modern computation power have led to increasing interest in Bayesian methods. Despite the multiple benefits of Bayesian approaches, application to clinical trials has been limited. Based on insights from the survey of clinical researchers in drug development conducted by the Drug Information Association Bayesian Scientific Working Group (DIA BSWG), insufficient knowledge of Bayesian approaches was ranked as the most important perceived barrier to implementing Bayesian methods. Results of the same survey indicate that clinical researchers may find the interpretation of results from a Bayesian analysis to be more useful than conventional interpretations. In this article, we illustrate key concepts tied to Bayesian methods, starting with familiar concepts widely used in clinical practice before advancing in complexity, and use practical illustrations from clinical development.

Challenges in Implementing Futility Schemes, with Reference to Aducanumab.

Stopping an ongoing clinical trial based on an interim analysis that shows poor outcomes, often referred to as a judgment of "futility", is a familiar feature in current clinical trials practice. Interim data can be misleading, and the implications of prematurely terminating a trial that should not stop are severe. It is thus critical that designs allowing futility stopping be planned and implemented carefully and cautiously. A recent Phase III development program for aducanumab in Alzheimer's disease was halted based on a pre-defined futility guideline, yet based upon updated data and closer examination, the terminated studies became the basis for a regulatory submission. Not surprisingly, this situation generated much controversy and discussion. It provides a good basis for illustrating important principles governing the planning and implementation of futility schemes.

Bayesian hierarchical model-based network meta-analysis to overcome survival extrapolation challenges caused by data immaturity.

Aim: This research evaluated standard Weibull mixture cure (WMC) network meta-analysis (NMA) with Bayesian hierarchical (BH) WMC NMA to inform long-term survival of therapies. Materials & methods: Four trials in previously treated metastatic non-small-cell lung cancer with PD-L1 >1% were used comparing docetaxel with nivolumab, pembrolizumab and atezolizumab. Cure parameters related to a certain treatment class were assumed to share a common distribution. Results: Standard WMC NMA predicted cure rates were 0.03 (0.01; 0.07), 0.18 (0.12; 0.24), 0.07 (0.02; 0.15) and 0.03 (0.00; 0.09) for docetaxel, nivolumab, pembrolizumab and atezolizumab, respectively, with corresponding incremental life years (LY) of 3.11 (1.65; 4.66), 1.06 (0.41; 2.37) and 0.42 (-0.57; 1.68). The Bayesian hierarchical-WMC-NMA rates were 0.06 (0.03; 0.10), 0.17 (0.11; 0.23), 0.12 (0.05; 0.20) and 0.12 (0.03; 0.23), respectively, with incremental LY of 2.35 (1.04; 3.93), 1.67 (0.68; 2.96) and 1.36 (-0.05; 3.64). Conclusion: BH-WMC-NMA impacts incremental mean LYs and cost-effectiveness ratios, potentially affecting reimbursement decisions.

Assessing adverse events in clinical trials during the era of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Interpretation of safety data for clinical trials that were ongoing at the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic or were started subsequent to the beginning of the pandemic may be affected in a variety of ways. Pandemic-related issues can influence the extent of study participation and introduce data collection gaps. A SARS-CoV-2 infection among study subjects as a post-randomization event may introduce a number of confounding factors that can alter the frequency of adverse events, in some cases appearing as an increase in the frequency of an adverse event associated with a study drug relative to a comparator. The authors discuss clinical challenges and statistical concerns, specifically the estimand framework, including examples for consideration, to address these challenges in safety evaluation wrought by the COVID-19 pandemic. Our aim is to shed light on the importance of starting an early dialogue among the drug development team on the evaluation of safety, critical for benefit-risk evaluation throughout the drug development process.

Statistical considerations for assessing precision of heterogeneous duplicate measurements: An application to pharmaceutical bioanalysis.

Duplicate analysis is a strategy commonly used to assess precision of bioanalytical methods. In some cases, duplicate analysis may rely on pooling data generated across organizations. Despite being generated under comparable conditions, organizations may produce duplicate measurements with different precision. Thus, these pooled data consist of a heterogeneous collection of duplicate measurements. Precision estimates are often expressed as relative difference indexes (RDI), such as relative percentage difference (RPD). Empirical evidence indicates that the frequency distribution of RDI values from heterogeneous data exhibits sharper peaks and heavier tails than normal distributions. Therefore, traditional normal-based models may yield faulty or unreliable estimates of precision from heterogeneous duplicate data. In this paper, we survey application of the mixture models that satisfactorily represent the distribution of RDI values from heterogeneous duplicate data. A simulation study was conducted to compare the performance of the different models in providing reliable estimates and inferences of percentile calculated from RDI values. These models are readily accessible to practitioners for study implementation through the use of modern statistical software. The utility of mixture models are explained in detail using a numerical example.

Natural History and Real-World Data in Rare Diseases: Applications, Limitations, and Future Perspectives.

Rare diseases represent a highly heterogeneous group of disorders with high phenotypic and genotypic diversity within individual conditions. Due to the small numbers of people affected, there are unique challenges in understanding rare diseases and drug development for these conditions, including patient identification and recruitment, trial design, and costs. Natural history data and real-world data (RWD) play significant roles in defining and characterizing disease progression, final patient populations, novel biomarkers, genetic relationships, and treatment effects. This review provides an introduction to rare diseases, natural history data, RWD, and real-world evidence, the respective sources and applications of these data in several rare diseases. Considerations for data quality and limitations when using natural history and RWD are also elaborated. Opportunities are highlighted for cross-sector collaboration, standardized and high-quality data collection using new technologies, and more comprehensive evidence generation using quantitative approaches such as disease progression modeling, artificial intelligence, and machine learning. Advanced statistical approaches to integrate natural history data and RWD to further disease understanding and guide more efficient clinical study design and data analysis in drug development in rare diseases are also discussed.

Novel and existing flexible survival methods for network meta-analyses.

Aim: Technical Support Document 21 discusses trial-based, flexible relative survival models. The authors generalized flexible relative survival models to the network meta-analysis (NMA) setting while accounting for different treatment-effect specifications. Methods: The authors compared the standard parametric model with mixture, mixture cure and nonmixture cure, piecewise, splines and fractional polynomial models. The optimal treatment-effect parametrization was defined in two steps. First, all models were run with treatment effects on all parameters and subsequently the optimal model was defined by removing uncertain treatment effects, for which the parameter was smaller than its standard deviation. The authors used a network in previously treated advanced non-small-cell lung cancer. Results: Flexible model-based NMAs impact fit and incremental mean survival and they increase corresponding uncertainty. Treatment-effect specification impacts incremental survival, reduces uncertainty and improves the fit statistic. Conclusion: Extrapolation techniques already available for individual trials can now be used for NMAs to ensure that the most plausible extrapolations are being used for health technology assessment submissions.

Log-Rank Test vs MaxCombo and Difference in Restricted Mean Survival Time Tests for Comparing Survival Under Nonproportional Hazards in Immuno-oncology Trials: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: The log-rank test is considered the criterion standard for comparing 2 survival curves in pivotal registrational trials. However, with novel immunotherapies that often violate the proportional hazards assumptions over time, log-rank can lose power and may fail to detect treatment benefit. The MaxCombo test, a combination of weighted log-rank tests, retains power under different types of nonproportional hazards. The difference in restricted mean survival time (dRMST) test is frequently proposed as an alternative to the log-rank under nonproportional hazard scenarios. Objective: To compare the log-rank with the MaxCombo and dRMST in immuno-oncology trials to evaluate their performance in practice. Data Sources: Comprehensive literature review using Google Scholar, PubMed, and other sources for randomized clinical trials published in peer-reviewed journals or presented at major clinical conferences before December 2019 assessing efficacy of anti-programmed cell death protein-1 or anti-programmed death/ligand 1 monoclonal antibodies. Study Selection: Pivotal studies with overall survival or progression-free survival as the primary or key secondary end point with a planned statistical comparison in the protocol. Sixty-three studies on anti-programmed cell death protein-1 or anti-programmed death/ligand 1 monoclonal antibodies used as monotherapy or in combination with other agents in 35 902 patients across multiple solid tumor types were identified. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Statistical comparisons (n = 150) were made between the 3 tests using the analysis populations as defined in the original protocol of each trial. Main Outcomes and Measures: Nominal significance based on a 2-sided .05-level test was used to evaluate concordance. Case studies featuring different types of nonproportional hazards were used to discuss more robust ways of characterizing treatment benefit instead of sole reliance on hazard ratios. Results: In this systematic review and meta-analysis of 63 studies including 35 902 patients, between the log-rank and MaxCombo, 135 of 150 comparisons (90%) were concordant; MaxCombo achieved nominal significance in 15 of 15 discordant cases, while log-rank did not. Several cases appeared to have clinically meaningful benefits that would not have been detected using log-rank. Between the log-rank and dRMST tests, 137 of 150 comparisons (91%) were concordant; log-rank was nominally significant in 5 of 13 cases, while dRMST was significant in 8 of 13. Among all 3 tests, 127 comparisons (85%) were concordant. Conclusions and Relevance: The findings of this review show that MaxCombo may provide a pragmatic alternative to log-rank when departure from proportional hazards is anticipated. Both tests resulted in the same statistical decision in most comparisons. Discordant studies had modest to meaningful improvements in treatment effect. The dRMST test provided no added sensitivity for detecting treatment differences over log-rank.

Application of Bayesian methods to accelerate rare disease drug development: scopes and hurdles.

BACKGROUND: Design and analysis of clinical trials for rare and ultra-rare disease pose unique challenges to the practitioners. Meeting conventional power requirements is infeasible for diseases where sample sizes are inherently very small. Moreover, rare disease populations are generally heterogeneous and widely dispersed, which complicates study enrollment and design. Leveraging all available information in rare and ultra-rare disease trials can improve both drug development and informed decision-making processes. MAIN TEXT: Bayesian statistics provides a formal framework for combining all relevant information at all stages of the clinical trial, including trial design, execution, and analysis. This manuscript provides an overview of different Bayesian methods applicable to clinical trials in rare disease. We present real or hypothetical case studies that address the key needs of rare disease drug development highlighting several specific Bayesian examples of clinical trials. Advantages and hurdles of these approaches are discussed in detail. In addition, we emphasize the practical and regulatory aspects in the context of real-life applications. CONCLUSION: The use of innovative trial designs such as master protocols and complex adaptive designs in conjunction with a Bayesian approach may help to reduce sample size, select the correct treatment and population, and accurately and reliably assess the treatment effect in the rare disease setting.

The Predictive Individual Effect for Survival Data.

BACKGROUND: The call for patient-focused drug development is loud and clear, as expressed in the twenty-first Century Cures Act and in recent guidelines and initiatives of regulatory agencies. Among the factors contributing to modernized drug development and improved health-care activities are easily interpretable measures of clinical benefit. In addition, special care is needed for cancer trials with time-to-event endpoints if the treatment effect is not constant over time. OBJECTIVE: To quantify the potential clinical survival benefit for a new patient, would he/she be treated with the test or control treatment. METHODS: We propose the predictive individual effect which is a patient-centric and tangible measure of clinical benefit under a wide variety of scenarios. It can be obtained by standard predictive calculations under a rank preservation assumption that has been used previously in trials with treatment switching. RESULTS: We discuss four recent Oncology trials that cover situations with proportional as well as non-proportional hazards (delayed treatment effect or crossing of survival curves). It is shown that the predictive individual effect offers valuable insights beyond p-values, estimates of hazard ratios or differences in median survival. CONCLUSION: Compared to standard statistical measures, the predictive individual effect is a direct, easily interpretable measure of clinical benefit. It facilitates communication among clinicians, patients, and other parties and should therefore be considered in addition to standard statistical results.

Assessing treatment benefit in the presence of placebo response using the sequential parallel comparison design.

In clinical trials, placebo response is considered a beneficial effect arising from multiple factors, including the patient's expectations for the treatment. Its presence makes the classical parallel study design suboptimal and can bias the inference. The sequential parallel comparison design (SPCD), a two-stage design where the first stage is a classical parallel study design, followed by another parallel design among placebo subjects from the first stage, was proposed to address the shortcomings of the classical design. In SPCD, in lieu of treatment effect, a weighted average of the mean treatment difference in Stage I among all randomized subjects and the mean treatment difference in Stage II among placebo non-responders was proposed as the efficacy measure. However, by linking two possibly different populations, this weighted average lacks interpretability, and the choice of weight remains controversial. In this work, under the principal stratification framework, we propose a causal estimand for the treatment effect under each of three clinically important principal strata: Always Responders, Never Responders, and Drug-only Responders. To make the stratum treatment effect identifiable, we introduce a set of assumptions and two sensitivity parameters. By further considering the strata as latent characteristics, the sensitivity parameters can be estimated. An extensive simulation study is conducted to evaluate the operating characteristics of the proposed method. Finally, we apply our method on the ADAPT-A study data to assess the benefit of low-dose aripiprazole adjunctive to antidepressant therapy treatment.

Bayesian basket trial design with false-discovery rate control.

BACKGROUND: Recent advances in developing "tumor agnostic" oncology therapies have identified molecular targets that define patient subpopulations in a manner that supersedes conventional criteria for cancer classification. These successes have produced effective targeted therapies that are administered to patients regardless of their tumor histology. Trials have evolved as well with master protocol designs. By blending translational and clinical science, basket trials in particular are well-suited to investigate and develop targeted therapies among multiple cancer histologies. However, basket trials intrinsically involve more complex design decisions, including issues of multiple testing across baskets, and guidance for investigators is needed. METHODS: The sensitivity of the multisource exchangeability model to prior specification under differing degrees of response heterogeneity is explored through simulation. Then, a multisource exchangeability model design that incorporates control of the false-discovery rate is presented and a simulation study compares the operating characteristics to a design where the family-wise error rate is controlled and to the frequentist approach of treating the baskets as independent. Simulations are based on the original design of a real-world clinical trial, the SUMMIT trial, which investigated Neratinib treatment for a variety of solid tumors. The methods studied here are specific to single-arm phase II trials with binary outcomes. RESULTS: Values of prior probability of exchangeability in the multisource exchangeability model between 0.1 and 0.3 provide the best trade-offs between gain in precision and bias, especially when per-basket sample size is below 30. Application of these calibration results to a re-analysis of the SUMMIT trial showed that the breast basket exceeded the null response rate with posterior probability of 0.999 while having low posterior probability of exchangeability with all other baskets. Simulations based on the design of the SUMMIT trial revealed that there is meaningful improvement in power even in baskets with small sample size when the false-discovery rate is controlled as opposed to the family-wise error rate. For example, when only the breast basket was active, with a sample size of 25, the power was 0.76 when the false-discovery rate was controlled at 0.05 but only 0.56 when the family-wise error rate was controlled at 0.05, indicating that impractical sample sizes for the phase II setting would be needed to achieve acceptable power while controlling the family-wise error rate in this setting of a trial with 10 baskets. CONCLUSION: Selection of the prior exchangeability probability based on calibration and incorporation of false-discovery rate control result in multisource exchangeability model designs with high power to detect promising treatments in the context of phase II basket trials.