Specific Aspects and Significance of Subgroup Assessment in Confirmatory Clinical Trials
https://doi.org/10.30895/1991-2919-2021-11-2-81-93
Abstract
Patient subgroup analysis plays an important role in interpretation of confirmatory clinical trial results and is mandatory in most cases. The purpose of subgroup analysis is to assess the consistency (heterogeneity) of the treatment effect in subgroups of patients identified based on such characteristics as demographics, stage and severity of the underlying disease, presence of a certain genetic mutation, etc. However, existing methodological issues (the problem of multiple comparisons, detection of differences between subgroups by chance alone, etc.) make it difficult to carry out the analysis and often lead to controversial conclusions. The aim of the study was to analyse and summarise foreign regulatory approaches to subgroup analysis in confirmatory clinical trials, and to elaborate science-based requirements for subgroup analysis and interpretation of the results by clinical trial sponsors and experts when assessing the risk-benefit ratio of medicinal products for the purpose of their authorisation in Russia and the Eurasian Economic Union. This paper discusses the objectives of subgroup analysis and statistical approaches to its performance, provides relevant examples of such analysis from regulatory practice. It describes approaches to interpretation of subgroup analysis depending on the presence/absence of evidence supporting the primary hypothesis of the study, the nature of the experimental medicinal product’s heterogeneous effects in the subgroups, and selection of the subgroups. The paper highlights areas of concern in subgroup analysis, potential controversies in interpretation of the obtained results, and regulatory expectations. The recommendations presented in the paper can be used by experts in the assessment of the risk-benefit ratio, as well as by medicine developers in the preparation of clinical trial protocols and reports.
Keywords
About the Authors
O. I. BasovaRussian Federation
Olga I. Basova
8/2 Petrovsky Blvd, Moscow 127051, Russian Federation
I. V. Lysikova
Russian Federation
Irina V. Lysikova, Cand. Sci. (Med.)
8/2 Petrovsky Blvd, Moscow 127051, Russian Federation
O. Yu. Ivanova
Russian Federation
Olga Yu. Ivanova
8/2 Petrovsky Blvd, Moscow 127051, Russian Federation
References
1. Alosh М, Fritsch К, Huque M, Mahjoob K, Pennello G, Rothmann M, et al. Statistical considerations on subgroup analysis in clinical trials. Stat Biopharm Res. 2015;7(4):286–303. https://doi.org/10.1080/19466315.2015.1077726
2. Dane A, Spencer A, Rosenkranz G, Lipkovich I, Parke T, PSI/EFSPI Working Group on Subgroup Analysis. Subgroup analysis and interpretation for phase 3 confirmatory trials: White paper of the EFSPI/PSI working group on subgroup analysis. Pharm Stat.2019;18(2):126–39. https://doi.org/10.1002/pst.1919
3. Millen BA, Dmitrienko A, Ruberg S, Shen L. A statistical framework for decision making in confirmatory multipopulation tailoring clinical trials. Drug Inf J. 2012;46(6):647–56. https://doi.org/10.1177/0092861512454116
4. Jones HE, Ohlssen DI, Neuenschwander B, Racine A, Branson M. Bayesian models for subgroup analysis in clinical trials. Clin Trials. 2011;8(2):129–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/1740774510396933
5. Simon R. Bayesian subset analysis: application to studying treatment-by-gender interactions. Stat Med. 2002;21(19):2909–16. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1295
6. Kahan BC, Jairath V, Doré CJ, Morris TP. The risks and rewards of covariate adjustment in randomized trials: an assessment of 12 outcomes from 8 studies. Trials. 2014;15:139. https://doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-139
7. Ting N. Statistical interactions in a clinical trial. Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2018;52(1):14–21. https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479017716491
8. Dmitrienko A, Millen B, Lipkovich I. Multiplicity considerations in subgroup analysis. Stat Med. 2017;36(28):4446–54. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.7416
9. Mahaffey KW, Wojdyla DM, Carroll K, Becker RC, Storey RF, Angiolillo DJ, et al. Ticagrelor compared with clopidogrel by geographic region in the Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial. Circulation. 2011;124(5):544–54. https://doi.org/10.1161/circulationaha.111.047498
10. Schneider L. A resurrection of aducanumab for Alzheimer’s disease. Lancet Neurol. 2020;19(2):111–2. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1474-4422(19)30480-6
11. Carroll J. In a stunning turnaround, Biogen says that aducanumab does work for Alzheimer’s — but data mining incites controversy and questions. Endpointsnews. 2019. October 22. https://endpts.com/ina-stunning-turnaround-biogen-says-that-aducanumab-does-workfor-alzheimers-and-theyre-prepping-a-pitch-to-the-fda/
12. Serruys PW, Morice MC, Kappetein AP, Colombo A, Holmes DR, Mack MJ, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronaryartery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(10):961–72. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa0804626
13. Pocock SJ, Stone GW. The primary outcome fails — what next? N Engl J Med. 2016;375(9):861–70. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmra1510064
14. Stone GW, Sabik JF, Serruys PW, Simonton CA, Généreux P, Puskas J, et al. Everolimus-eluting stents or bypass surgery for left main coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(23):2223–35. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejmoa1610227
15. Fornell D. EXCEL trial authors say european surgery society claims of bad science are groundless. DAIC. 2020. January 2. https://www.dicardiology.com/content/excel-trial-authors-say- european-surgerysociety-claims-bad-science-are-groundless
16. O’Riordan M. Former EXCEL investigator alleges trial manipulation, prompting vehement denials. TCTMD. 2019. October 7. https://www.tctmd.com/news/former-excel-investigator-allegestrial-manipulation-prompting-vehement-denials
Supplementary files
Review
For citations:
Basova O.I., Lysikova I.V., Ivanova O.Yu. Specific Aspects and Significance of Subgroup Assessment in Confirmatory Clinical Trials. The Bulletin of the Scientific Centre for Expert Evaluation of Medicinal Products. 2021;11(2):81-93. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.30895/1991-2919-2021-11-2-81-93