MRL, Merck & Co, Rahway, New Jersey, USA
Department of Oral Health Policy and Epidemiology, Harvard School of Dental Medicine, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.
BMJ Open. 2022 Jul 29;12(7):e058146. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2021-058146.
To examine the validity and statistical limitations of exploratory analyses of clinical trial data commonly requested by agencies responsible for determining which medical products may be financed or reimbursed by a healthcare system.
This was a retrospective review of efficacy and safety analyses conducted for German Health Technology Assessment (HTA) evaluations with a decision date between 2015 and 2020, and an illustrative safety-related exploratory analysis of data from two phase III clinical trials of verubecestat (an anti-amyloid drug whose development was stopped for lack of efficacy) as would be mandated by the German HTA agency.
We identified 422 HTA evaluations of 404 randomised controlled clinical trials. For 140 trials (34.7%), the evaluation was based on subpopulations of participants in the originating confirmatory trial (175 subpopulations were assessed). In 57% (100 of 175), the subpopulation sample size was 50% or less of the original study population. Detailed analysis of five evaluations based on subpopulations of the original trial is presented. The safety-related exploratory analysis of verubecestat led to 206 statistical analyses for treatments and 812 treatment-by-subgroup interaction tests. Of 31 safety endpoints with an elevated HR (suggesting association with drug treatment), the HR for 81% of these (25 of 31) was not elevated in both trials. Of the 812 treatment-by-subgroup interactions evaluated, 26 had an elevated HR for a subgroup in one trial, but only 1 was elevated in both trials.
Many HTA evaluations rely on subpopulation analyses and numerous post hoc statistical hypothesis tests. Subpopulation analysis may lead to loss of statistical power and uncontrolled influences of random imbalances. Multiple testing may introduce spurious findings. Decisions about benefits of medical products should therefore not rely on exploratory analyses of clinical trial data but rather on prospective clinical studies and careful synthesis of all available evidence based on prespecified criteria.
检验负责确定哪些医疗产品可由医疗保健系统资助或报销的机构通常要求对临床试验数据进行探索性分析的有效性和统计局限性。
这是对 2015 年至 2020 年期间进行的德国卫生技术评估(HTA)评估的疗效和安全性分析进行的回顾性审查,以及对因缺乏疗效而停止开发的抗淀粉样蛋白药物 verubecestat 的两项 III 期临床试验数据进行的说明性安全性相关探索性分析,这是德国 HTA 机构的要求。
我们确定了 422 项 HTA 评估,涉及 404 项随机对照临床试验。对于 140 项试验(34.7%),评估基于原始确证试验参与者的亚组(评估了 175 个亚组)。在 57%(175 个中的 100 个)中,亚组样本量为原始研究人群的 50%或更少。对基于原始试验亚组的五个评估进行了详细分析。verubecestat 的安全性相关探索性分析导致对治疗方法进行了 206 项统计分析和 812 项治疗-亚组交互检验。在 31 个具有升高 HR(提示与药物治疗相关)的安全性终点中,这些终点的 HR 中有 81%(31 个中的 25 个)在两项试验中均未升高。在所评估的 812 项治疗-亚组交互作用中,有 26 项在一项试验中的一个亚组中 HR 升高,但仅在两项试验中均升高。
许多 HTA 评估依赖于亚组分析和大量事后统计假设检验。亚组分析可能导致统计效力丧失和随机不平衡的不受控制影响。多次检验可能会引入虚假发现。因此,关于医疗产品益处的决策不应依赖于临床试验数据的探索性分析,而应依赖于前瞻性临床研究和基于预设标准的所有现有证据的仔细综合。