L.J. Wei Harvard University Moving beyond the comfort zone in practicing translational statistics.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
A Comparison of Early Versus Late Initiation of Renal Replacement Therapy in Critically III Patients with Acute Kidney Injury: A Systematic Review and.
Advertisements

Which difference should we target? Alberto Sobrero Ospedale San Martino IRCCS Genova, Italy.
Foos et al, EASD, Lisbon, 13 September 2011 Comparison of ACCORD trial outcomes with outcomes estimated from modelled and meta- analysis studies Volker.
Introduction to Survival Analysis October 19, 2004 Brian F. Gage, MD, MSc with thanks to Bing Ho, MD, MPH Division of General Medical Sciences.
Valsartan Antihypertensive Long-Term Use Evaluation Results
Model and Variable Selections for Personalized Medicine Lu Tian (Northwestern University) Hajime Uno (Kitasato University) Tianxi Cai, Els Goetghebeur,
Point Estimation: Odds Ratios, Hazard Ratios, Risk Differences, Precision Elizabeth S. Garrett Oncology Biostatistics March 20, 2002 Clinical.
Chapter 11 Survival Analysis Part 2. 2 Survival Analysis and Regression Combine lots of information Combine lots of information Look at several variables.
T-PA in Treatment of Acute Stroke: What We Know From NINDS 2004 vs 2000 Sidney Starkman, MD Departments of Emergency Medicine and Neurology, UCLA UCLA.
Re-Examination of the Design of Early Clinical Trials for Molecularly Targeted Drugs Richard Simon, D.Sc. National Cancer Institute linus.nci.nih.gov/brb.
Analysis of Complex Survey Data
P H Y S I C I A N S ’ A C A D E M Y F O R C A R D I O V A S C U L A R E D U C A T I O N Oral drugs for type 2 diabetes and all cause mortality in General.
1 The Chemoprevention of Sporadic Colorectal Cancer Issues Surrounding a Benefit/Risk Analysis in Clinical Trials Mark Avigan MD CM Medical Officer Division.
Survival analysis Brian Healy, PhD. Previous classes Regression Regression –Linear regression –Multiple regression –Logistic regression.
Marshall University School of Medicine Department of Biochemistry and Microbiology BMS 617 Lecture 10: Survival Curves Marshall University Genomics Core.
1 Efficacy Results NDA (MTP-PE) Laura Lu Statistical Reviewer Office of Biostatistics FDA/CDER.
COURAGE: Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation Purpose To compare the efficacy of optimal medical therapy (OMT)
Multiple Choice Questions for discussion
Essentials of survival analysis How to practice evidence based oncology European School of Oncology July 2004 Antwerp, Belgium Dr. Iztok Hozo Professor.
Clinical Outcomes with Newer Antihyperglycemic Agents
Dr Laura Bonnett Department of Biostatistics. UNDERSTANDING SURVIVAL ANALYSIS.
CI - 1 Cure Rate Models and Adjuvant Trial Design for ECOG Melanoma Studies in the Past, Present, and Future Joseph Ibrahim, PhD Harvard School of Public.
Assessing Survival: Cox Proportional Hazards Model
Consumer behavior studies1 CONSUMER BEHAVIOR STUDIES STATISTICAL ISSUES Ralph B. D’Agostino, Sr. Boston University Harvard Clinical Research Institute.
1 Statistical Review Dr. Shan Sun-Mitchell. 2 ENT Primary endpoint: Time to treatment failure by day 50 Placebo BDP Patients randomized Number.
Introduction to Survival Analysis Utah State University January 28, 2008 Bill Welbourn.
BEST: Beta-blocker Evaluation Survival Trial Purpose To determine whether the β-blocker bucindolol reduces morbidity and mortality in patients with advanced.
1 Statistics in Drug Development Mark Rothmann, Ph. D.* Division of Biometrics I Food and Drug Administration * The views expressed here are those of the.
Empirical Efficiency Maximization: Locally Efficient Covariate Adjustment in Randomized Experiments Daniel B. Rubin Joint work with Mark J. van der Laan.
Lecture 9: Analysis of intervention studies Randomized trial - categorical outcome Measures of risk: –incidence rate of an adverse event (death, etc) It.
© 2008 Millennium Pharmaceuticals Inc., The Takeda Oncology Company Type I error control using law of iterated logarithm in cumulative meta-analysis Mingxiu.
Impact of Air Pollution on Public Health: Transportability of Risk Estimates Jonathan M. Samet, MD, MS NERAM V October 16, 2006 Vancouver, B.C. Department.
1 Lecture 6: Descriptive follow-up studies Natural history of disease and prognosis Survival analysis: Kaplan-Meier survival curves Cox proportional hazards.
1 Study Design Issues and Considerations in HUS Trials Yan Wang, Ph.D. Statistical Reviewer Division of Biometrics IV OB/OTS/CDER/FDA April 12, 2007.
Background There are 12 different types of medications to lower blood sugar levels in patients with type 2 diabetes. It is widely agreed upon that metformin.
Biostatistics Case Studies 2014 Youngju Pak Biostatistician Session 5: Survival Analysis Fundamentals.
Biostatistics Case Studies 2006 Peter D. Christenson Biostatistician Session 3: An Alternative to Last-Observation-Carried-Forward:
1 BLA Sipuleucel-T (APC-8015) FDA Statistical Review and Findings Bo-Guang Zhen, PhD Statistical Reviewer, OBE, CBER March 29, 2007 Cellular, Tissue.
 An exposure-response (E-R) analysis in oncology aims at describing the relationship between drug exposure and survival and in addition aims at comparing.
Effect of Rosiglitazone on the Risk of Myocardial Infarction And Death from Cardiovascular Causes Alternative Interpretations of the Evidence George A.
Clinical Outcomes with Newer Antihyperglycemic Agents FDA-Mandated CV Safety Trials 1.
CV-1 Trial 709 The ISEL Study (IRESSA ® Survival Evaluation in Lung Cancer) Summary of Data as of December 16, 2004 Kevin Carroll, MSc Summary of Data.
1 Pulminiq™ Cyclosporine Inhalation Solution Pulmonary Drug Advisory Committee Meeting June 6, 2005 Statistical Evaluation Statistical Evaluation Jyoti.
Rosuvastatin 10 mg n=2514 Placebo n= to 4 weeks Randomization 6weeks3 monthly Closing date 20 May 2007 Eligibility Optimal HF treatment instituted.
SNDA # GLIADEL® WAFER (Polifeprosan 20 with Carmustine Implant) APPLICANT: GUILFORD PHARMACEUTICALS ODAC: December 6, 2001 Medical Reviewer: Alla.
Long-Term Tolerability of Ticagrelor for Secondary Prevention: Insights from PEGASUS-TIMI 54 Trial Marc P. Bonaca, MD, MPH on behalf of the PEGASUS-TIMI.
Long-Term Tolerability of Ticagrelor for Secondary Prevention: Insights from PEGASUS-TIMI 54 Trial Marc P. Bonaca, MD, MPH on behalf of the PEGASUS-TIMI.
Pulmonary-Allergy Drugs Advisory Committee May 1, 2007 OutlineOutline History of development programHistory of development program –Dr. Carol Bosken Introduction.
1 Chapter 6 SAMPLE SIZE ISSUES Ref: Lachin, Controlled Clinical Trials 2:93-113, 1981.
Zometa for Prostate Cancer Bone Metastases Protocol 039 Amna Ibrahim, M.D. Oncology Drug Products FDA.
Approaches to quantitative data analysis Lara Traeger, PhD Methods in Supportive Oncology Research.
Carina Signori, DO Journal Club August 2010 Macdonald, M. et al. Diabetes Care; Jun 2010; 33,
HAART Initiation Within 2 Weeks of Seroconversion Associated With Virologic and Immunologic Benefits Slideset on: Hecht FM, Wang L, Collier A, et al. A.
Double-blind, randomized trial in 4,162 patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome
J Clin Oncol 30: R2 윤경한 / Prof. 김시영 Huan Jin, Dongsheng Tu, Naiqing Zhao, Lois E. Shepherd, and Paul E. Goss.
Methods and Statistical analysis. A brief presentation. Markos Kashiouris, M.D.
Date of download: 7/9/2016 Copyright © The American College of Cardiology. All rights reserved. From: Making Sense of Statistics in Clinical Trial Reports:
Statistics in Drug Regulation: The Next 10 Years Thomas Permutt Director, Division of Biometrics II Center for Drug Evaluation and Research The views expressed.
RTI International RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute. Selecting Endpoints for Clinical Trials.
Clinical Outcomes with Newer Antihyperglycemic Agents
Clinical Outcomes with Newer Antihyperglycemic Agents
The Importance of Adequately Powered Studies
Impact of censoring on the statistical methods for handling non-proportional hazards in Immuno-Oncology studies Yifan Huang, Luping Zhao, Jiabu Ye, and.
RAAS Blockade: Focus on ACEI
Benefits of switching postmenopausal women with hormone-sensitive early breast cancer to anastrozole after 2 years adjuvant tamoxifen: Combined results.
Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT)
Narrative Reviews Limitations: Subjectivity inherent:
Use of Piecewise Weighted Log-Rank Test for Trials with Delayed Effect
Björn Bornkamp, Georgina Bermann
Daniel Li and L.J. Wei Harvard University
Presentation transcript:

L.J. Wei Harvard University Moving beyond the comfort zone in practicing translational statistics

Why are we staying in a “Comfort Zone” ? Generally following a fixed pattern for conducting studies Are we like lawyers? Avoiding delay of review processes?

What is the goal of a clinical study? Use efficient and reliable procedures to obtain robust, clinically interpretable results with respect to risk-benefit perspectives at the patient’s level.

What are the problems? The conventional way to conduct trials gives us fragmentary information Lack of clinically meaningful totality evidence Difficult to use the trial results for future patient’s management

A Few Methodology Issues 1. Estimation vs. testing P-value provides little clinical information about treatment effectiveness The size of the effects (efficacy and toxicity) matters Design using interval estimates is quite flexible Almost everything we want to know via testing, we can get from estimation

TREAT study for EPO CV safety If we follow the patients up to 48 month, the control arm's average stroke-free time is 46.9 months and the Darb arm's is 46 months. The difference is 0.9 month (0.95 CI: 0.4m, 1.4m) with p<0.001 (very significant).

2. How do we define a primary endpoint with multiple outcomes? What is current practice? Component/composite analyses Efficacy and toxicity (how to connect them together?) Disease burden measure? Competing risks problem? Informative dropout?

Example : Beta-Blocker Evaluation of Survival (BEST) Trial (NEJM, 2001) Study Bucindolol vs. placebo patients with advanced chronic heart failure -- n = 2707 Average follow-up: 2 years Primary endpoint: overall survival Hazard ratio for death = 0.90 (p-value = 0.1)

BEST Trial

Possible solutions? Using the patient’s disease burden or progression information during the entire followup to define the “responder” Creating more than one response categories: ordinal categorical response Brian Claggett’s thesis paper

BEST Example: 8 Categories 1: No events 2: Alive, non-HF hospitalization only 3: Alive, 1 HF hosp. 4: Alive, >1 HF hosp. 5: Late non-CV death (>12 months) 6: Late CV death (>12 months) 7: Early non-CV death (<12 months) 8: Early CV death (<12 months)

3. How to handle dropouts or competing risks? LOCF? BOCF? MMRM (model based) Pattern mixture model (cannot handle non-random missing) Using responder analysis with different ways to define informative dropouts for sensitivity analysis

4. Analysis of Covariance Compare two treatments with baseline adjustments via regression models For nonlinear model, different adjustments may lead to incoherent results The inadequacy of the Cox ANCOVA

Possible solutions? Using the augmentation method by Tsiatis et al; Tian et al. No need to pre-specify the baseline covariates, but a set of potential covariates in the adjustment process

5. Data monitoring Heavily utilizing p-value or conditional power A low conditional power may indicate that the sample size is too small or there is no real treatment difference Using estimation and prediction for monitoring?

6. Stratified medicine (personalized medicine)? A negative trial does not mean the treatment is no good for anyone A positive trial does not mean it works for everyone The usual subgroup analysis is not adequate to address this issue Need a built-in pre-specified procedure for identifying patients who benefit from treatment

7. Identify patients who respond the new therapy (predictive enrichment)

8. How to monitor safety? What is the conventional way? Component-wise tabulation or analysis? No information about multiple AE events at the patient level Graphical method?

9. Quantifying treatment contrast (difference)? Should be model-free parameter Using difference of means, median, etc. For censored data, using a constant hazard ratio (heavily model-based)? Model-based measure is difficult to interpret or validate

Issues for the hazard ratio estimate Hazard ratio estimate is routinely used for designing, monitoring and analyzing clinical studies in survival analysis

Model Free Parameter for Treatment Contrast * Considering a two treatment comparison study in “survival analysis” * How do we quantify the treatment difference? Median failure time (may not be estimable); t-year survival rate (not an overall measure)? A constant hazard ratio over time with the log-rank test

Eastern Cooperative Oncology Group E4A03 trial to compare low- and high-dose dexamethasone for naïve patients with multiple myeloma The primary endpoint is the survival time n=445 The trial stopped early at the second interim analysis; the low dose was superior. Patients on high-dose arm were then received low-dose and follow-up for overall survival were continued.

A Cancer Study Example Group 1 Group 2

The proportional hazards assumption is not valid The PH estimator is estimating a quantity which cannot be interpreted and, worse, depends on the study-specific censoring distributions Any model-based treatment contrast has such issues (need a model-free parameter) The logrank test is not powerful

Conventional analysis: Log-rank test: p=0.47 Hazard Ratio: HR=0.87 (0.60, 1.27)

What is the alternative way for survival analysis? Using the area under the curve of Kaplan-Meier estimate up to a fixed time point Restricted mean survival time Model-free and a global measure of efficacy Can be estimated even under heavy censoring

Cancer Study Example Restricted Mean (up to 40 months): 35.4 months vs months Δ = 2.1 (0.1, 4.2) months; p=0.04 Ratio of Survival time = 35.4/33.3 = 1.06 (1.00, 1.13) Ratio of time lost = 6.7/4.6 = 1.46 (1.02, 2.13)

10. Post-marketing/safety studies ? It is not appropriate to use an event driven procedure to conduct a safety study. The event rate is low, the exposure time matters Requires lot of resources (large or long-term study) Meta analysis; observational studies

CV safety study for anti-diabetes drugs Event driven studies, that is, we need to have a pre-specified # of events so the resulting confidence interval for the treatment difference is “narrow” For example, the upper bound of 95% confidence interval is less than 1.3

The EXAMINE trial (alogliptin) NEJM, October 3, 2013

RMST (24 months): Placebo 21.9 (21.7, 22.2) Alogliptin 22.0 (21.8, 22.3) Difference (-0.39, 0.24) Ratio 1.00 (0.98, 1.01) RMST (30 months): Placebo 27.1 (26.7, 27.4) Alogliptin 27.2 (26.9, 27.5) Difference (-0.56, 0.33) Ratio 1.00 (0.98, 1.01)

34 What if a smaller study? 95% confidence intervals for various measures All data25%20%15% N=16492N=4123N=3298N=2427 Hazard Ratio (0.89, 1.12)(0.80, 1.26)(0.78, 1.28)(0.76, 1.36) Difference in event rate at Day 900 [%] (-1.2, 0.9)(-2.3, 2.0)(-2.6, 2.2)(-2.9, 2.6) Difference in RMST at Day 900 [days] (-5, 4)(-9, 9)(-11, 10)(-12, 12)

11. Meta analysis for safety issues

Nissen and Wolski (2007) performed a meta analysis to examine whether Rosiglitazone (Avandia, GSK), a drug for treating type 2 diabetes mellitus, significantly increases the risk of MI or CVD related death.

Example Effect of Rosiglitazone on MI or CVD Deaths Avandia was introduced in 1999 and is widely used as monotherapy or in fixed-dose combinations with either Avandamet or Avandaryl. The original approval of Avandia was based on its ability in reducing blood glucose and glycated hemoglobin levels. Initial studies were not adequately powered to determine the effects of this agent on micro- or macro- vascular complications of diabetes, including cardiovascular morbidity and mortality.

Example Effect of Rosiglitazone on MI or CVD Deaths However, the effect of any anti-diabetic therapy on cardiovascular outcomes is particularly important because more than 65% of deaths in patients with diabetes are from cardiovascular causes. Of 116 screened studies, 48 satisfied the inclusion criteria for the analysis proposed in Nissen and Wolski (2007).  42 studies were reported in Nissen and Wolski (2007), the remaining 6 studies have zero MI or CVD death  10 studies with zero MI events  25 studies with zero CVD related deaths

 Event Rates from 0% to 2.70% for MI  Event Rates from 0% to 1.75% for CVD Death

Log Odds Ratio MI 95% CI: (1.03, 1.98); p-value = 0.03 (in favor of the control) CVD Death 95% CI: (0.98, 2.74); p-value = 0.06 Log Odds Ratio ??????

Questions Rare events? How to utilize studies with 0/0 events? Validity of asymptotic inference? Exact inference? Choice of effect measure? Between Study Heterogeneity? Common treatment effect or study specific treatment effect? The number of studies not large?

MI 95% CI: (-0.08, 0.38)% P-value = % CI: (0.02, 0.42)% P-value = 0.03 Exact InferenceAsymptotic Inference

CVD Death 95% CI: (-0.13, 0.23)% P-value = % CI: (0.00, 0.31)% P-value = 0.05 Exact InferenceAsymptotic Inference

Summary Could we modify our statistical training? Teaching young generations “how, where and what to learn” Learning from doing a project with mentoring? Could we have a coherent approach from the beginning to the end for a research project? George Box: Instead of figuring out the optimal solution to a wrong problem, try to get A solution to a right problem. Asking ourselves “What is the question?”