Incorporating external controls in the design of randomized clinical trials: a case study in solid tumors.

IF 3.9 3区 医学 Q1 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES
Emily M Damone, Jiawen Zhu, Herbert Pang, Xiao Li, Yinqi Zhao, Evan Kwiatkowski, Lisa A Carey, Joseph G Ibrahim
{"title":"Incorporating external controls in the design of randomized clinical trials: a case study in solid tumors.","authors":"Emily M Damone, Jiawen Zhu, Herbert Pang, Xiao Li, Yinqi Zhao, Evan Kwiatkowski, Lisa A Carey, Joseph G Ibrahim","doi":"10.1186/s12874-024-02383-3","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>The use of historical external control data in clinical trials has grown in interest and needs when considering the design of future trials. Hybrid control designs can be more efficient to achieve the same power with fewer patients and limited resources. The literature is sparse on appropriate statistical methods which can account for the differences between historical external controls and the control patients in a study. In this article, we illustrate the analysis framework of a clinical trial if a hybrid control design was used after determining an RCT may not be feasible.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>We utilize two previously completed RCTs in nonsquamous NSCLC and a nationwide electronic health record derived de-identified database as examples and compare 5 analysis methods on each trial, as well as a set of simulations to determine operating characteristics of such designs.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In single trial estimation, the Case Weighted Adaptive Power Prior provided estimated treatment hazard ratios consistent with the original trial's conclusions with narrower confidence intervals. The simulation studies showed that the Case Weighted Adaptive Power Prior achieved the highest power (and well controlled type-1 error) across all 5 methods with consistent study sample size.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>By following the proposed hybrid control framework, one can design a hybrid control trial transparently and accounting for differences between control groups while controlling type-1 error and still achieving efficiency gains from the additional contribution from external controls.</p>","PeriodicalId":9114,"journal":{"name":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","volume":"24 1","pages":"264"},"PeriodicalIF":3.9000,"publicationDate":"2024-11-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11529009/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"BMC Medical Research Methodology","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-024-02383-3","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: The use of historical external control data in clinical trials has grown in interest and needs when considering the design of future trials. Hybrid control designs can be more efficient to achieve the same power with fewer patients and limited resources. The literature is sparse on appropriate statistical methods which can account for the differences between historical external controls and the control patients in a study. In this article, we illustrate the analysis framework of a clinical trial if a hybrid control design was used after determining an RCT may not be feasible.

Methods: We utilize two previously completed RCTs in nonsquamous NSCLC and a nationwide electronic health record derived de-identified database as examples and compare 5 analysis methods on each trial, as well as a set of simulations to determine operating characteristics of such designs.

Results: In single trial estimation, the Case Weighted Adaptive Power Prior provided estimated treatment hazard ratios consistent with the original trial's conclusions with narrower confidence intervals. The simulation studies showed that the Case Weighted Adaptive Power Prior achieved the highest power (and well controlled type-1 error) across all 5 methods with consistent study sample size.

Conclusions: By following the proposed hybrid control framework, one can design a hybrid control trial transparently and accounting for differences between control groups while controlling type-1 error and still achieving efficiency gains from the additional contribution from external controls.

在随机临床试验设计中纳入外部控制:实体瘤案例研究。
背景:在考虑未来试验设计时,临床试验中使用历史外部对照数据的兴趣和需求日益增长。混合对照设计可以更有效地利用更少的患者和有限的资源达到相同的效果。目前有关适当统计方法的文献很少,而这些方法可以解释研究中历史外部对照和对照患者之间的差异。在本文中,我们将说明在确定 RCT 不可行后,如果采用混合对照设计,临床试验的分析框架:方法:我们以之前完成的两项非鳞癌 NSCLC 的 RCT 和一个全国性的电子健康记录衍生去标识数据库为例,比较了每项试验的 5 种分析方法,并进行了一组模拟,以确定此类设计的运行特征:结果:在单一试验估算中,病例加权自适应功率先验法估算出的治疗危险比与原始试验结论一致,但置信区间较窄。模拟研究表明,在研究样本量一致的情况下,病例加权自适应功率先验法在所有 5 种方法中取得了最高的功率(并很好地控制了 1 类误差):通过遵循所提出的混合控制框架,我们可以透明地设计混合控制试验,并考虑到控制组之间的差异,同时控制类型-1 误差,并从外部控制的额外贡献中获得效率收益。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
BMC Medical Research Methodology
BMC Medical Research Methodology 医学-卫生保健
CiteScore
6.50
自引率
2.50%
发文量
298
审稿时长
3-8 weeks
期刊介绍: BMC Medical Research Methodology is an open access journal publishing original peer-reviewed research articles in methodological approaches to healthcare research. Articles on the methodology of epidemiological research, clinical trials and meta-analysis/systematic review are particularly encouraged, as are empirical studies of the associations between choice of methodology and study outcomes. BMC Medical Research Methodology does not aim to publish articles describing scientific methods or techniques: these should be directed to the BMC journal covering the relevant biomedical subject area.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信