Early Biometrics & Statistical Innovation, Data Science & Artificial Intelligence, R&D, AstraZeneca, Gothenburg, Sweden.
Department of Medical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Karolinska Institutet, Stockholm, Sweden.
Pharm Stat. 2024 Sep-Oct;23(5):611-629. doi: 10.1002/pst.2376. Epub 2024 Mar 4.
Recent years have seen an increasing interest in incorporating external control data for designing and evaluating randomized clinical trials (RCT). This may decrease costs and shorten inclusion times by reducing sample sizes. For small populations, with limited recruitment, this can be especially important. Bayesian dynamic borrowing (BDB) has been a popular choice as it claims to protect against potential prior data conflict. Digital twins (DT) has recently been proposed as another method to utilize historical data. DT, also known as PROCOVA™, is based on constructing a prognostic score from historical control data, typically using machine learning. This score is included in a pre-specified ANCOVA as the primary analysis of the RCT. The promise of this idea is power increase while guaranteeing strong type 1 error control. In this paper, we apply analytic derivations and simulations to analyze and discuss examples of these two approaches. We conclude that BDB and DT, although similar in scope, have fundamental differences which need be considered in the specific application. The inflation of the type 1 error is a serious issue for BDB, while more evidence is needed of a tangible value of DT for real RCTs.
近年来,人们越来越关注将外部对照数据纳入随机临床试验 (RCT) 的设计和评估中。这可以通过减少样本量来降低成本和缩短纳入时间。对于人口较少、招募有限的情况,这一点尤为重要。贝叶斯动态借用 (BDB) 是一种很受欢迎的选择,因为它声称可以防止潜在的先验数据冲突。数字孪生 (DT) 最近被提议作为另一种利用历史数据的方法。DT,也称为 PROCOVA™,是基于从历史对照数据构建预后评分,通常使用机器学习。该评分包含在预先指定的 ANCOVA 中作为 RCT 的主要分析。这个想法的承诺是在保证强 1 型错误控制的同时增加功效。在本文中,我们应用分析推导和模拟来分析和讨论这两种方法的示例。我们得出的结论是,BDB 和 DT,虽然在范围上相似,但存在需要在具体应用中考虑的根本差异。1 型错误的膨胀是 BDB 的一个严重问题,而对于实际的 RCT,需要更多证据证明 DT 的实际价值。