1 / 55

Interim Analyses of Clinical Trials

Interim Analyses of Clinical Trials. A Requirement. Outline. Background and how DSMBs function Group sequential methods Examples. Suggested Reading . DeMets DL, Furberg CD, Friedman LM Data Monitoring in Clinical Trials. A Case Studies Approach Springer, 2006.

mauli
Download Presentation

Interim Analyses of Clinical Trials

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. Interim Analyses ofClinical Trials A Requirement

  2. Outline • Background and how DSMBs function • Group sequential methods • Examples

  3. Suggested Reading DeMets DL, Furberg CD, Friedman LM Data Monitoring in Clinical Trials. A Case Studies Approach Springer, 2006

  4. Example: ddI/ddC Trial, Good Thing We Did Not Stop Early ddC Better ddI Better FINAL 9/20/92 157:152 (ddI:ddC) Confidence Intervals: Repeated 95% DSMB #5 8/21/92 130:130 (ddI:ddC) DSMB #4 2/13/92 77:91 (ddI:ddC) DSMB #3 11/08/91 50:66 (ddI:ddC) DSMB #2 8/29/91 19:39 (ddI:ddC) 5.7 3.6 0.80 1.00 1.25 Relative Risk (on a log scale) Fleming TR, Neaton JD, et al, JAIDS, 1995.

  5. Lessons Learned: ddI/ddC • Early findings can be unreliable • Statistical monitoring can be useful for assessing whether interim trends are conclusive. • Importance of restricting interim results of trials to an independent DMC.

  6. Example: Prevention Trial of Toxoplasmic Encephalitis, A Trial Stopped 2, Maybe 3, Times 750 Patients Unblinded 375 Clindamycin Arm 375 Pyrimethamine Arm Blinded Blinded 250 ActiveTreatment 125Placebo 250 ActiveTreatment 125Placebo

  7. TOXO Protocol History September 1990: Enrollment begins February 1991: 1st DSMB review March 1991: 2nd DSMB review Clindamycin arm discontinueddue to dose-limiting toxicities; andprotocol amended Case 25 in Case Studies Book Lancet 1992;339:333-334. JID 1994; 169:384-394.

  8. TOXO Trial:Revised Design and Recruitment Goals 600 Patients PyrimethamineN=400 PlaceboN=200 Study re-powered for one placebo group (2:1) and patients in the clindamycin arm were offered re-randomization.

  9. TOXO Protocol History (cont.) August 29, 1991: 3rd DSMB review. Low overall TE event rate noted February 13, 1992: 4th DSMB review – DSMB recommends stopping the study due to low TE event rate among controls, and higher mortality on active drug. DSMB uncertain, also recommend un-blinding the chair to obtain his opinion.

  10. TOXO Protocol History (cont.) February 19, 1992: Protocol chair proposes to continue study based on review of interim analyses. He will no longer enroll patients. March 17, 1992: 5th DSMB review (special teleconference) to discuss chair’s position and new data; DSMB recommends termination of study again.

  11. Number of Deaths and Rateby Treatment Group and DSMB Review 08-29-91 07-31-91 3 (5) 6.5 (10.8) 2 (2) 7.8 (7.8) 02-13-92 12-31-91 22 (28) 19.3 (24.5) 8 (8) 13.7 (13.7) 03-17-92 01-31-92 28 (35) 21.4 (26.7) 10 (10) 14.1(14.1) Pyrimethamine Placebo Date ofReview CutoffDate No. Rate* No. Rate* ( ) = actual numbers updated after review *Per 100 person years

  12. TOXO Protocol History (cont.) March 30, 1992: Chair and Protocol Team concur with DSMB recommendation. April 3, 1992: Clinical alert sent to sites.

  13. Number of Deaths and Rateby Treatment Group and Report DSMB 01-31-92 28 (35) 21.4 (26.7) 10 (10) 14.1 (14.1) Clinical Alert 03-24-92 34 (46) 20.9 (28.3) 12 (14) 13.7 (16.0) Final 03-30-92 48 28.9 14 15.7 Pyrimethamine Placebo Report CutoffDate No. Rate* No. Rate* ( ) = actual numbers updated after review *Per 100 person years

  14. Lessons Learned: TOXO • Importance of ensuring timely reporting of outcomes. • Unexpected results may require unblinding of one or more investigators before making a decision.

  15. Example: CAST Study, A Trial Stopped for Harm • 1st DSMB meeting before enrollment started • Recommended =0.025 (one-sided) for benefit • Added =0.025 lower symmetric boundary for harm • Lan-DeMets spending function used with expected number of cardiac sudden deaths (425) used to estimate information fraction Case 13 in Case Studies Book

  16. CAST Sequential Boundaries

  17. CAST Study: 2nd DSMB Meeting • 6 months after study began • No outcome data available for review • DSMB decided to remain partially blinded in the review of future interim data to maintain objectivity • Could be unblinded if necessary for deliberations

  18. CAST Study: 3rd DSMB Meeting • 15 months after study began • 1147 patients randomized, ~ ¼ of target • Treatment assignment blinded to DSMB in reviewing data • Sudden Death: - DSMC report: 3/576 in drug X, and 19/571 in Drug Y - Data sweep: 10 in drug X, and 22 in Drug Y • DSMB decided no recommendations were appropriate • Planned to meet again 6 months later

  19. CAST Study: Events Following 3rd DSMB Review • CAST Coordinating Center monthly summarized the data for internal monitoring • 3 months after 3rd review, the results became more extreme • One month later, unblinded primary data presented to NHLBI • One month later, DSMB was notified the unblinded harmful findings by conference call • DSMB requested verification of treatment coding, additional detailed analysis and sweep of the clinical centers for yet unreported primary outcome

  20. CAST Study: 4th DSMB review • 33 sudden deaths in encainide and flecainide arms combined and 9 on placebo • Logrank Z=-3.22, crossed the harm boundary -3.04 • DSMB recommended dropping the encainide and flecainide arms • NHLBI, principal investigators, drug regulatory agencies were notified the harmful findings • The public was alerted because many non-study patients were being treated with these drugs • Primary report was published rapidly

  21. CAST Study: Interim and Final Results for Sudden Cardiac Mortality Z (normal approx. to Poisson) = a - b √ a + b a= no. deaths on encainide/flecainide b= no. deaths on placebo

  22. Lesson Learned: CAST • A 1-sided boundary is usually not appropriate (DMC modified it) • DSMBs need to be able to un-blind treatment codes • Timely review of data important (unblinded statistician alerted DMC)

  23. Example: CPCRA NuCombo Study, a Trial in Which DSMB’s Shared Data Unblinded Saravolatz L, N Eng J Med, 1996 ddI Arm ddC Arm Blinded Blinded ddI + AZT Placebo (ddI) + AZT ddC + AZT Placebo (ddC) + AZT

  24. NuCombo Interim Results: Late 1993 Treatment Group A 330 74 29.2 A-P 167 55 46.4 B 332 80 31.2 B-P 166 42 30.6 No. Patients No. AIDS or Death Rate (per 100) HR (A-P/B-P) = 1.6; 95% CI: 1.1 to 2.4; p=0.03 Armitage P, Cont Clin Trials, 1999

  25. Lessons Learned: NuCombo • In some situations (e.g., a major safety concern), exchange of information between DMCs can be helpful. • In most situations, external data considered by DMCs should be limited to published information. (see Dixon D and Lagakos S, Cont Clin Trials, 2000; 21:1-6)

  26. Example: MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study, a Trial Some Felt Should Have Been Stopped Early • 20, 536 men and women in the UK with CHD, other occlusive arterial disease or diabetes with cholesterol > 135 mg/dl • Randomized equally to simvastatin or placebo • Primary comparisons were of effects from all cause mortality, CHD mortality and from all other causes. Heart Protection Study Collaborative Group, Lancet, 2002.

  27. DMC Monitoring Guidelines With consideration of the study data and the results from other studies, the DMC was to advise the investigators if… • “Proof beyond reasonable doubt” that either for all participants or for some specific type of participant, use of statin therapy was clearly indicated or contraindicated in terms of the net difference in all-cause mortality. • Evidence that might reasonably be expected to influence materially the management of patients by many clinicians.

  28. Case Examples of Trials That Had to React to External Information • BEST (beta-blockers for heart failure) N Engl J Med 2001 • Concorde (zidovudine for asymptomatic HIV) Lancet 1994 and Cont Clin Trials1999 • CPCRA 023 (CMV prophylaxis) AIDS 1998 and Cont Clin Trials 2003

  29. General Requirements for Informed Consent Significant new findings developed during the course of the research that may relate to the subject’s willingness to continue participation will be provided. WHAT IF THERE ARE NEW FINDINGS? You will be told about any new information learned during the study that might cause you to change your mind about staying in the study. Code of U.S. Federal Regulations Part 46, Subpart A, Section 46.116

  30. Types of New External Information • A finding from a randomized study with clinical outcomes in the same target population? • A trial in a different target population? • A non-randomized study? • Changes in labeling due to adverse events (e.g., a modification to RISKS and/or DISCOMFORT section of consent)?

  31. All New Information is Not Equal: A Hierarchy of Evidence Should be Considered in Assessing Significance • Coherence of evidence from multiple sources • Systematic review of well-designed, large randomized trials • Strong evidence from one large randomized trial • Systematic review of small trials (e.g., surrogate outcome studies) • Systematic review of well-designed cohort studies • Strong evidence from one cohort study • Unsystematic observations (expert opinions) Adapted from Devereaux PJ et al, Evidence-Based Cardiology, 2nd Edition BMJ Books 2003.

  32. Responsibilities of the Data Monitoring Committee (DMC) Concerning External Information “A DMC may be asked to consider the impact of external information on the study being monitored. Release of results of a related study may have implications for the design of the ongoing study, or even its continuation.” “The role of the DMC in considering interim changes to a study protocol or other aspects of a study conduct in response to external information raises additional issues that merit consideration.” FDA Guidance for Clinical Trial Sponsors. Establishment and Operation of Clinical Trial Data Monitoring Committees.

  33. Consideration of External Information by the DMC: An Issue that Merits Consideration • Possible unblinding of study participants, investigators and sponsor. • In most cases, the study team and sponsor (if blinded): • Should make the assessment since they are blinded to treatment differences. • Should notify the DMC.

  34. Case Example: Beta-Blocker Evaluation of Survival Trial (BEST) Control (standard of care) arm: Optimal medical therapy and placebo for beta-blocker Setting: Beta-blockers had been avoided due to effects on heart rate and BP in heart failure patients, but data emerges indicating they may be effective treatment for heart failure. Several ongoing studies sponsored by pharmaceutical companies but most patients enrolled outside the U.S.

  35. Case Example: BEST

  36. Case Example: BESTTimeline of Events • May 1995: enrollment initiated • March 1998: Cardiac Insufficiency Bisprolol Study (CIBIS-II) (N=2647) stopped early due to significant mortality benefit of bisprolol (monitoring guidelines were changed in 1998 to a nominal 0.05 for primary outcome of mortality) • October 1998: MERIT-HF trial (N=3991) stopped early due to significant benefit of metoprolol on survival and HF hospitalization • July 1999: DMC recommends early termination due “information…from other studies of beta-blockers…and by a concern about the equipoise of the trial”. Sponsors (NHLBI and VA) concurred. (p-value at termination=0.16 at time of recommendation)

  37. Mortality Results of CIBIS-II, MERIT-HF and BEST

  38. Case Study: BEST Aftermath • Do benefits of beta-blockers diminish in patients with advanced heart failure?- Copernicus trial of patients with advanced heart failure (N=2289) stopped early in March 2000 for mortality benefit of carvedilol as compared to placebo (130 vs 190 deaths) • Is bucindolol fundamentally different from other beta-blockers? • Does beta-blockade work in African-Americans with HF? (23% black in BEST vs < 5% in other studies)

  39. Case Example: Concorde(Lancet, 1994) Control (standard of care) arm: Deferred zidovudine (placebo): open-label treatment provided after AIDS/ARC Setting: Several ongoing trials of zidovudine.

  40. Case Example: ConcordeDesign Schematic Open label treatment following AIDS/ARC • October 1989 Amendment: • Open-label treatment after 2 consecutive CD4+ counts <500 • Primary prophylaxis for PCP

  41. Case Example: Concorde DMC Deliberations-1(Armitage P, Cont Clinical Trials, 1999) • March 1988, enrollment begins. • September 1989: (987 participants randomized) Concorde DMC informed by NIAID of early termination ACTG 019 (<500 CD4+)- DMC recommends trial should continue as planned • October 1989, ACTG senior investigators meet with Concorde DMC and coordinating committee- Concorde DMC again recommends trial should continue as planned- Protocol amendment allowing open-label treatment after two consecutive CD4+ counts <500 - Letter sent to trial participants describing ACTG 019 results and why it was important to continue Concorde • October 1991 (1715 participants), 1st formal interim analysis- DMC recommends trial continue as planned and that recruitment end

  42. Case Example: Concorde DMC Deliberations-2(Armitage P, Cont Clinical Trials, 1999) • February 1992: DMC asked to consider another trial, European-Australian Collaborative Group Study, (CD4+ >400) which was terminated early based on CD4+ differences - DMC recommends continue as planned. • June 1992: (1749 participants), 2nd formal interim analysis- DMC recommends follow-up end in December 1992 due to growing lack of equipoise among investigators and growing use of open-label treatment

  43. Case Example: ConcordeACTG 019 and Interim Concorde Results in September 1989

  44. Final Concorde Study Results Lancet, 1994

  45. Overview of Trials of ZDV vs. Placebo (Immediate vs. Deferred) Lancet 353: 2014-2025, 1999.

  46. Case Example: CPCRA 023(CMV Prophylaxis) Control (standard of care) arm: Placebo (no prophylaxis for CMV) Setting: Ganciclovir and foscarnet approved for treatment, but not prophylaxis A similar, but not identical, trial sponsored by (Syntex) pharmaceutical sponsor is also conducted. CPCRA study is confirmatory.

  47. Case Example: CPCRA 023(CMV Prophylaxis) Background treatment: ART and prophylaxis for other infections September 1994 amendment: Open label treatment allowed

More Related