Search

There has been an increased interest in borrowing information from historical control data to improve the statistical power for hypothesis testing, therefore reducing the required sample sizes in clinical trials. To account for the heterogeneity between the historical and current trials, power priors are often considered to discount the information borrowed from the historical data. However, it can be challenging to choose a fixed power prior parameter in the application. The modified power prior approach, which defines a random power parameter with initial prior to control the amount of historical information borrowed, may not directly account for heterogeneity between the trials. In this paper, we propose a novel approach to pick a power prior based on some direct measures of distributional differences between historical control data and current control data under normal assumptions. Simulations are conducted to investigate the performance of the proposed approach compared with current approaches (e.g. commensurate prior, meta-analytic-predictive, and modified power prior). The results show that the proposed power prior improves the study power while controlling the type I error within a tolerable limit when the distribution of the historical control data is similar to that of the current control data. The method is developed for both superiority and non-inferiority trials and is illustrated with an example from vaccine clinical trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this paper, we develop a general Bayesian hierarchical model for bridging across patient subgroups in phase I oncology trials, for which preliminary information about the dose–toxicity relationship can be drawn from animal studies. Parameters that re-scale the doses to adjust for intrinsic differences in toxicity, either between animals and humans or between human subgroups, are introduced to each dose–toxicity model. Appropriate priors are specified for these scaling parameters, which capture the magnitude of uncertainty surrounding the animal-to-human translation and bridging assumption. After mapping data onto a common, 'average' human dosing scale, human dose–toxicity parameters are assumed to be exchangeable either with the standardised, animal study-specific parameters, or between themselves across human subgroups. Random-effects distributions are distinguished by different covariance matrices that reflect the between-study heterogeneity in animals and humans. Possibility of non-exchangeability is allowed to avoid inferences for extreme subgroups being overly influenced by their complementary data. We illustrate the proposed approach with hypothetical examples, and use simulation to compare the operating characteristics of trials analysed using our Bayesian model with several alternatives. Numerical results show that the proposed approach yields robust inferences, even when data from multiple sources are inconsistent and/or the bridging assumptions are incorrect. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Before a first-in-man trial is conducted, preclinical studies are performed in animals to help characterise the safety profile of the new medicine. We propose a robust Bayesian hierarchical model to synthesise animal and human toxicity data, using scaling factors to translate doses administered to different animal species onto an equivalent human scale. After scaling doses, the parameters of dose-toxicity models intrinsic to different animal species can be interpreted on a common scale. A prior distribution is specified for each translation factor to capture uncertainty about differences between toxicity of the drug in animals and humans. Information from animals can then be leveraged to learn about the relationship between dose and risk of toxicity in a new phase I trial in humans. The model allows human dose-toxicity parameters to be exchangeable with the study-specific parameters of animal species studied so far or non-exchangeable with any of them. This leads to robust inferences, enabling the model to give greatest weight to the animal data with parameters most consistent with human parameters or discount all animal data in the case of non-exchangeability. The proposed model is illustrated using a case study and simulations. Numerical results suggest that our proposal improves the precision of estimates of the toxicity rates when animal and human data are consistent, while it discounts animal data in cases of inconsistency. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Data of previous trials with a similar setting are often available in the analysis of clinical trials. Several Bayesian methods have been proposed for including historical data as prior information in the analysis of the current trial, such as the (modified) power prior, the (robust) meta-analytic-predictive prior, the commensurate prior and methods proposed by Pocock and Murray et al. We compared these methods and illustrated their use in a practical setting, including an assessment of the comparability of the current and the historical data. The motivating data set consists of randomised controlled trials for acute myeloid leukaemia. A simulation study was used to compare the methods in terms of bias, precision, power and type I error rate. Methods that estimate parameters for the between-trial heterogeneity generally offer the best trade-off of power, precision and type I error, with the meta-analytic-predictive prior being the most promising method. The results show that it can be feasible to include historical data in the analysis of clinical trials, if an appropriate method is used to estimate the heterogeneity between trials, and the historical data satisfy criteria for comparability. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]