Julius Center for Health Sciences and Primary Care, University Medical Center Utrecht, Universiteitsweg 100, 3584 CG, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Trials. 2014 Apr 2;15:103. doi: 10.1186/1745-6215-15-103.
In many therapeutic areas, individual patient markers have been identified that are associated with differential treatment response. These markers include both baseline characteristics, as well as short-term changes following treatment. Using such predictive markers to select subjects for inclusion in randomized clinical trials could potentially result in more targeted studies and reduce the number of subjects to recruit.
This study compared three trial designs on the sample size needed to establish treatment efficacy across a range of realistic scenarios. A conventional parallel group design served as the point of reference, while the alternative designs selected subjects on either a baseline characteristic or an early improvement after a short active run-in phase. Data were generated using a model that characterized the effect of treatment on survival as a combination of a primary effect, an interaction with a baseline marker and/or an early marker improvement. A representative scenario derived from empirical data was also evaluated.
Simulations showed that an active run-in design could substantially reduce the number of subjects to recruit when improvement during active run-in was a reliable predictor of differential treatment response. In this case, the baseline selection design was also more efficient than the parallel group design, but less efficient than the active run-in design with an equally restricted population. For most scenarios, however, the advantage of the baseline selection design was limited.
An active run-in design could substantially reduce the number of subjects to recruit in a randomized clinical trial. However, just as with the baseline selection design, generalizability of results may be limited and implementation could be difficult.
在许多治疗领域,已经确定了与治疗反应差异相关的个体患者标志物。这些标志物包括基线特征以及治疗后短期变化。使用这些预测标志物选择纳入随机临床试验的受试者,可能会导致更有针对性的研究并减少受试者招募数量。
本研究比较了三种试验设计在一系列现实场景下确定治疗效果所需的样本量。常规平行组设计作为参考点,而选择基线特征或短期积极导入期后早期改善的替代设计选择受试者。使用一种模型生成数据,该模型将治疗对生存的影响描述为主要效应、与基线标志物和/或早期标志物改善的相互作用的组合。还评估了一个来自经验数据的代表性场景。
模拟表明,当导入期内的改善是治疗反应差异的可靠预测指标时,导入期设计可以大大减少受试者的招募数量。在这种情况下,基线选择设计也比平行组设计更有效,但比具有同等限制人群的导入期设计效率更低。然而,对于大多数情况,基线选择设计的优势是有限的。
导入期设计可以大大减少随机临床试验的受试者招募数量。但是,与基线选择设计一样,结果的普遍性可能有限,实施可能很困难。