1 / 22

Futility stopping

Futility stopping. Carl-Fredrik Burman, PhD Statistical Science Director AstraZeneca R&D. Stakeholder perspectives. The patient A pharmaceutical company The public (MRC, NIHR). The fundamental design requirement: Ethics. ”My old mother – principle” The trial is ethical if (and only if)

buddyn
Download Presentation

Futility stopping

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Futility stopping Carl-Fredrik Burman, PhD Statistical Science Director AstraZeneca R&D RSS / MRC / NIHR HTA Futility Meeting

  2. Stakeholder perspectives • The patient • A pharmaceutical company • The public (MRC, NIHR) RSS / MRC / NIHR HTA Futility Meeting

  3. The fundamental design requirement:Ethics ”My old mother – principle” The trial is ethical if (and only if) I would recommend my mother to take part in the trial, given that she would be eligible. RSS / MRC / NIHR HTA Futility Meeting

  4. Interim stopping • Stop the trial as soon as I would not include my mother, e.g. if • One (publicly available) treatment is clearly better • A “new” treatment fails to show sufficient effect, when it has known safety disadvantages • No ethical obligation to stop • If two treatments with similar safety have no clear difference in effect RSS / MRC / NIHR HTA Futility Meeting

  5. (Genuine) informed consent • The patient should get • Full information regarding the trial treatments (and procedures), including previous data, potential risks, etc. • Help to understand the information and • Apply it to his/her specific situation (health status, preferences) • When would a fully informed, fully competent patient give consent? • If and only if it is better (not worse) for him/her to take part in the trial, as compared to receiving standard therapy. • Cf. “my old mother” principle RSS / MRC / NIHR HTA Futility Meeting

  6. Easy-going clinical equipose is not enough • Clinical equipose • If there is uncertainty about which treatment is better • (Alternatively, compelling evidence of one treatment being better) • (Alternatively, medical experts disagree) • It’s far too easy to say that we are uncertain • I expect my doctor to say what he believes is best RSS / MRC / NIHR HTA Futility Meeting

  7. Our old Mother Earth • Scientific equipose • Not every expert agree on CO2-induced global warming • Do you suggest a randomised N-of-1 trial? • Of course not — choose the treatment we believe is best RSS / MRC / NIHR HTA Futility Meeting

  8. What is ”best” for the patient?May depend on e.g. • Effect (best guess + uncertainty) • Safety • Better care in the trial? • Economic compensation (but beware of exploitation) • Altruism Likely effect will differ between individuals (covariates) Preferences are different Decision theory may help decide (at least in theory …) RSS / MRC / NIHR HTA Futility Meeting

  9. Decision analysis (DA) Patient perspective • Utility function U(effect, safety, QoL, cost, …) • Model for effect, safety, etc., based on best information (data, expert knowledge, …). Often Bayesian prior. • Choose decision (volunteer to participate in trial, or not) to maximise expected utility The DA approach can also be used by a trial sponsor RSS / MRC / NIHR HTA Futility Meeting

  10. A pharmaceutical company perspective(simplified) • A new drug will be licensed if and only if the (next) phase III trial has a statistically significant effect (p<5%) • If licensed, the company will make a profit of V (unit: £) • The trial cost is k·N, where N is the sample size • The assumed (believed) treatment effect is d. • Maximise V · Power(N) – k · N Of course, this model is wrong (as all models are). Should e.g. have V=V(T)=V(T(N)), where T is time. RSS / MRC / NIHR HTA Futility Meeting

  11. Optimal sample size Gain Net gain = Gain–Cost Cost Nopt = 1010 RSS / MRC / NIHR HTA Futility Meeting

  12. The interim decision(continue vs. stop for futility) • Value V if significant • Conditional power CP if trial is continued • C additional trial cost if continued (compared to if stopped) • Continue iff V · CP > C, that is, iff CP > C / V RSS / MRC / NIHR HTA Futility Meeting

  13. DA vs. ”least clinically relevant” effect • DA approach: • Maximise expected utility based on ”best guess” effect (or prior) • Traditional approach: • 90% power at ”least clinically relevant” effect • What is the least clinically relevant effect? • If no adverse effects, no cost • And the outcome is death • One single saved life is clinically relevant … at least to the one saved • What is a relevant effect depends on safety, cost etc. RSS / MRC / NIHR HTA Futility Meeting

  14. Conditional power at interim • Final estimate d is N(D, 1/N). • Stage i has sample size Ni and estimate di. Then d = (N1·d1+N2·d2)/N • Statistical significance if d > C / N (where C=1.96 say) • CP = P(d > C / N ) = F( D·N2+ d1·N1/N2-C(N/N2) ) • But which D to use when calculating CP? • Original alternative DAlternative ? • Interim estimate d1 ? • Linear combination of d1 and DAlternative ? • Bayesian posterior based on interim data ? RSS / MRC / NIHR HTA Futility Meeting

  15. Stop, continue, or something else? • Run a new trial? • Sample size reestimation, based on interim estimates • Flexible design methodology (Bauer & Köhne –94) • Predefined weights for the different stages (generally, weight not proportional to information) • May change the sample size for stage 2 after viewing interim results • Discussion on CP • Somewhat controversial • May be better than design with only futility stopping • Group-sequential designs should often be preferred RSS / MRC / NIHR HTA Futility Meeting

  16. Publicly funded trial:Treatments with similar safety • Assume • Whole patient population will receive one of these treatments • Efficacy is the only unknown • Same safety, cost, etc. • The closer the interim effect is to zero, the more value in continuing • Thus, no reason to stop for futility RSS / MRC / NIHR HTA Futility Meeting

  17. Example 1: Value of information • Compare 2 treatments with probabilities pA, pB for death. • Assume total future population size is T (10,000 say) • If we knew that D>0, we would choose treatment A • T·D lives would be spared as compared to using B • Similarily, choose B if D<0 • Net value T·Abs(D) or T·Abs(D)/2 if compared to using random treatment RSS / MRC / NIHR HTA Futility Meeting

  18. Example cont’d Maximal value of information • Before trial, D=p2-p1 has approximately normal prior with mean=0, SD=t (say 10%) • What would the value be if we could learn the exact value of D ? • Take the Bayesian expectation of the value T·Abs(D)/2, Eprior [T·Abs(D)/2] = T· t / (2) • With T=10,000 and t=10%, about 400 lives would be spared RSS / MRC / NIHR HTA Futility Meeting

  19. RSS / MRC / NIHR HTA Futility Meeting

  20. Publicly funded trial:Intervention vs. no treatment (placebo) • Assume • Intervention is associated with some cost, safety risks • Not clear whether intervention has a positive effect • If effect, then the size of the effect will determine the size of the patient population which will get a positive net benefit • First objective: is there any effect? • Reasonable to stop for futility if interim estimate is low • Expected value by continuing study is then small RSS / MRC / NIHR HTA Futility Meeting

  21. Information leakage • In regulatory setting, large discussion on who should see interim data • Does the DMC have to be independent from the sponsor • What are the risks of potential information leakage? • Problems may be over-emphasised? • The ethical aspect RSS / MRC / NIHR HTA Futility Meeting

  22. Summary • Futility stopping may be an ethical requirement • Industry funded trials: Tradeoff cost and expected value • Publicly funded trials (examples) • Don’t stop for futility if two active treatments differ only in effect • May stop for futility if “active” treatment unlikely to have sufficient effect (tradeoff cost and value) • (If basic science objective …) RSS / MRC / NIHR HTA Futility Meeting

More Related