Novartis Pharma, Basel, Switzerland.
Clin Trials. 2010 Feb;7(1):5-18. doi: 10.1177/1740774509356002.
Historical information is always relevant when designing clinical trials, but it might also be incorporated in the analysis. It seems appropriate to exploit past information on comparable control groups.
Phase IV and proof-of-concept trials are used to discuss aspects of summarizing historical control data as prior information in a new trial. The importance of a fair assessment of the similarity of control parameters is emphasized.
The methodology is meta-analytic-predictive. Heterogeneity of control parameters is expressed via the between-trial variation, which is the key parameter determining the prior effective sample size and its upper bound (prior maximum sample size).
For a Phase IV trial (930 control patients in 11 historical trials) between-trial heterogeneity was fairly small, resulting in a prior effective sample size of approximately 90 patients. For a proof-of-concept trial (363 patients in four historical trials) heterogeneity was moderate to substantial, resulting in a prior effective sample size of approximately 20. For another proof-of-concept trial (14 patients in one historical trial), assuming substantial heterogeneity implied a prior effective sample size of 7. The prior effective sample size can only be large if the amount of historical data is large and between-trial heterogeneity is small. The prior effective sample size is bounded by the prior maximum sample size (ratio of within- to between-trial variance), irrespective of the amount of historical data.
The meta-analytic-predictive approach assumes exchangeability of control parameters across trials. Due to the difficulty to quantify between-trial variability, sensitivity of conclusions regarding assumptions and type of inference should be assessed.
The use of historical control information is a valuable option and may lead to more efficient clinical trials. The proposed approach is attractive for nonconfirmatory trials, but under certain circumstances extensions to the confirmatory setting could be envisaged as well.
在设计临床试验时,历史信息始终是相关的,但也可以将其纳入分析中。利用过去类似对照组的信息似乎是合理的。
IV 期和概念验证试验用于讨论将历史对照数据作为新试验中的先验信息进行总结的各个方面。强调了公平评估对照参数相似性的重要性。
该方法是荟萃分析预测性的。通过试验间变异来表示对照参数的异质性,这是决定先验有效样本量及其上限(先验最大样本量)的关键参数。
对于 IV 期试验(11 项历史试验中的 930 例对照患者),试验间异质性相当小,导致先验有效样本量约为 90 例。对于概念验证试验(4 项历史试验中的 363 例患者),异质性为中度至高度,导致先验有效样本量约为 20 例。对于另一项概念验证试验(1 项历史试验中的 14 例患者),假设存在高度异质性意味着先验有效样本量为 7 例。只有当历史数据量大且试验间异质性小时,先验有效样本量才会很大。先验有效样本量受先验最大样本量(试验内方差与试验间方差之比)的限制,而与历史数据量无关。
荟萃分析预测方法假设对照参数在试验间可互换。由于难以量化试验间变异性,应评估结论对假设和推理类型的敏感性。
使用历史对照信息是一种有价值的选择,可能会导致更有效的临床试验。所提出的方法对于非确证性试验很有吸引力,但在某些情况下,也可以考虑将其扩展到确证性试验中。