The goal of clinical trial research is to deliver safe and efficacious new treatments to patients in need in a timely and cost-effective manner. There is precedent in using historical control data to reduce the number of concurrent control subjects required in developing medicines for rare diseases and other areas of unmet need. The purpose of this paper is to provide a review for a regulatory and industry audience of the current state of relevant statistical methods, and of the uptake of these approaches and the opportunities for broader use of historical data in confirmatory clinical trials. General principles to consider when incorporating historical control data in a new trial are presented. Bayesian and frequentist approaches are outlined including how the operating characteristics for such a trial can be obtained. Finally, examples of approved new treatments that incorporated historical controls in their confirmatory trials are presented.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Innovation or Stagnation: Challenge and Opportunity on the Critical Path to New Medical Products. Rockville, MD: FDA; 2004.
2.
WatsonJLRyanLSilverbergNCahanVBernardMA. Obstacles and opportunities in Alzheimer’s clinical trial recruitment. Health Affairs (Millwood). 2014;33:574–579.
HigginsJPTAltmanDGGøtzschePC. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011;343: d5928.
5.
PocockSJ. The combination of randomized and historical controls in clinical trials. J Chronic Dis. 1976;29:175–188.
6.
EichlerHGBloechl-DaumBBauerP. Threshold-crossing: a useful way to establish the counterfactual in clinical trials?Clin Pharmacol Ther. 2016;100:699–712.
7.
NatanegaraFNeuenschwanderBSeamanJW. The current state of Bayesian methods in medical product development: survey results and recommendations from the DIA Bayesian Scientific Working Group. Pharm Stat. 2014;13:3–12.
8.
Substantial evidence in 21st century regulatory science: borrowing strength from accumulating data. Workshop sponsored by the American Course on Drug Development and Regulatory Sciences (ACDRS); 421, 2016; Washington, DC. Available at:http://pharmacy.ucsf.edu/events/2016/04/evidence. Accessed July 19, 2017.
9.
International Council on Harmonisation (ICH). Dose Response Information to Support Drug Registration E4. Geneva, Switzerland: ICH; 1994.
10.
International Council on Harmonisation (ICH). Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials E9. Geneva, Switzerland: ICH; 1998.
11.
International Council on Harmonisation (ICH). Choice of Control Group and Related Issues in Clinical Trials E10. Geneva, Switzerland: ICH; 2000.
12.
Food and Drug Administration Center for Devices and Radiological Health (FDA CDRH). Guidance for the Use of Bayesian Statistics in Medical Device Clinical Trials. Rockville, MD: FDA CDRH; 2010.
13.
European Medicines Agency (EMA). Concept Paper on Extrapolation of Efficacy and Safety in Medicine Development—EMA/129698/2012. London, UK: EMA; 2013.
14.
European Medicines Agency (EMA). Guideline on Clinical Trials in Small Populations. London, UK: EMA; 2006.
SpiegelhalterDAbramsKRMylesJP. Bayesian Approaches to Clinical Trials and Health Care Evaluation. Chichester, England: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2004.
17.
LunnDJacksonCBestNThomasASpiegelhalterD. The BUGS Book: A Practical Introduction to Bayesian Analysis. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press, Taylor & Francis Group, LLC; 2013.
18.
LeeJJChuCT. Bayesian clinical trials in action. Stat Med. 2012;31:2955–2972.
19.
SpiegelhalterDJMylesJPJonesDRAbramsKR. Bayesian methods in health technology assessment: a review. Health Technol Assess. 2000;4:1–130.
20.
SungLHaydenJGreenbergMLKorenGFeldmanBMTomlinsonGA. Seven items were identified for inclusion when reporting a Bayesian analysis of a clinical study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58:261–268.
21.
IbrahimJGChenMH. Power prior distributions for regression models. Statist Sci. 2000;15:46–60.
22.
TurnerRMDaveyJClarkeMJThompsonSGHigginsJP. Predicting the extent of heterogeneity in meta-analysis, using empirical data from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Int J Epidemiol. 2012;41:818–827.
23.
NeuenschwanderBCapkun-NiggliGBransonMSSpiegelhalterD. Summarizing historical information on controls in clinical trials. Clin Trials. 2010;7:5–18.
24.
SchmidliHGsteigerSRoychoudhurySO’HaganASpiegelhalterDNeuenschwanderB. Robust meta-analytic-predictive priors in clinical trials with historical control information. Biometrics. 2014;70:1023–1032.
25.
RhodesKMTurnerRMHigginsJP. Predictive distributions were developed for the extent of heterogeneity in meta-analyses of continuous outcome data. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68:52–60.
26.
FriedeTRöverCWandelSNeuenschwanderB. Meta-analysis of two studies in the presence of heterogeneity with applications in rare diseases. Biom J. 2017;59:658–671.
27.
HobbsBPSargentDJCarlinBP. Commensurate priors for incorporating historical information in clinical trials using general and generalized linear models. Bayesian Anal. 2012;7:639–674.
28.
NeelonBO’MalleyJ. Bayesian analysis using power priors with application to pediatric quality of care. J Biometrics Biostats. 2010;1:1–9.
29.
BennettMWhiteSRManderAP. A novel equivalence probability weighting of historical data in an adaptive clinical trial design: A comparison to standard methods. MRC Biostatistics Unit, Cambridge, UK; In press.
30.
GravestockIHeldL; COMBACTE-Net consortium. Adaptive power priors with empirical Bayes for clinical trials. Pharm Stat. 2017;16:349–360.
31.
LindleyDV. Cromwell’s Rule. Encyclopedia of Statistical Sciences. 2006. doi:10.1002/0471667196.ess0622.pub2.
32.
HobbsBPCarlinBPSargentDJ. Adaptive adjustment of the randomization ratio using historical control data. Clin Trials. 2013;10:430–440.
33.
VieleKBerrySNeuenschwanderB. Use of historical control data for assessing treatment effects in clinical trials. Pharm Stat. 2014;13:41–54.
34.
van RosmalenJDejardinDvan NordenYLöwenbergBLesaffreE. Including historical data in the analysis of clinical trials: is it worth the effort?Stat Method Med Res. 201711:962280217694506.In press.
35.
WadsworthIHampsonLVJakiT. Extrapolation of efficacy and other data to support the development of new medicines for children: a systematic review of methods. Stat Methods Med Res. 2018;27:398–413.
36.
RosenbaumPRRubinDB. The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects. Biometrika. 1983;70:41–55.
37.
RosenbaumPRRubinDB. Reducing bias in observational studies using subclassification on the propensity score. J Am Stat Assoc. 1984;79:516–524.
38.
RosenbaumPRRubinDB. Constructing a control group using multivariate matched sampling methods that incorporate the propensity score. Am Stat. 1985;39:33–38.
39.
WachterRHalbachMBakrisGL. An exploratory propensity score matched comparison of second-generation and first-generation baroreflex activation therapy systems. J Am Soc Hypertens. 2017;11:81–91.
40.
TarriconeRBoscoloPRArmeniP. What type of clinical evidence is needed to assess medical devices?Eur Respir Rev. 2016;25:259–265.
41.
StuartEARubinDB. Matching with multiple control groups and adjusting for group differences. J Educ Behav Stat. 2008;33:279–306.
42.
RubinDB. Estimating casual effects from large data sets using propensity scores. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127:757–763.
43.
AustinPC. The relative ability of different propensity score methods to balance measured covariates between treated and untreated subjects in observational studies. Med Decis Making. 2009;29:661–677.
44.
AustinPC. An introduction to propensity score methods for reducing the effects of confounding in observational studies. Multivariate Behav Res. 2011;46:399–424.
45.
BraitmanLRosenbaumPR. Rare outcomes, common treatments: analytic strategies using propensity scores. Ann Intern Med. 2002;137:693–696.
46.
BrookhartMASchneeweissSRothmanKJGlynnRJAvornJStürmerT. Variable selection for propensity score models. Am J Epidemiol. 2006;163:1149–1156.
47.
ShadishWRSteinerPM. A primer on propensity score analysis. Newborn Infant Nurs Rev. 2010;10:19–26.
48.
AustinPC. Optimal caliper widths for propensity score matching when estimating differences in means and differences in proportions in observational studies. Pharm Stat. 2011;10:150–161.
49.
LittleRJARubinDB. Statistical Analysis with Missing Data. 2nd ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 2002.
50.
RubinDB. Multiple Imputation for Nonresponse in Surveys. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc; 1987.
51.
RubinDB. On principles for modeling propensity scores in medical research. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2004;13:855–857.
52.
YueLQ. Statistical and regulatory issues with the application of propensity score analysis to nonrandomized medical device clinical studies. J Biopharm Stat. 2007;17:1–13.
53.
WrightDDayS. Discussion of: Statistical and regulatory issues with the application of propensity score analysis to nonrandomized medical device clinical studies. J Biopharm Stat. 2007;17:15–17.
54.
YueLQ. Regulatory considerations in the design of comparative observational studies using propensity scores. J Biopharm Stat. 2012;22:1272–1279.
55.
LevensonMSYueLQ. Regulatory issues of propensity score methodology application to drug and device safety studies. J Biopharm Stat. 2013;23:110–121.
DixonDOSimonR. Sample size considerations for studies comparing survival curves using historical controls. J Clin Epidemiol. 1988;41:1209–1213.
58.
LeeJJTsengC. Uniform power method for sample size calculation in historical control studies with binary response. Control Clin Trials. 2001;22:390–400.
59.
ZhangSCaoJAhnC. Calculating sample size in trials using historical controls. Clin Trials. 2010;7:343–353.
60.
ShanGMoonieSShenJ. Sample size calculation based on efficient unconditional tests for clinical trials with historical controls. J Biopharm Stat. 2016;26:240–249.
61.
LloydCJ. A new exact and more powerful unconditional test of no treatment effect from binary matched pairs. Biometrics. 2008;64:716–723.
62.
ZhuHZhangSAhnC. Sample size considerations for historical control studies with survival outcomes. J Biopharm Stat. 2016;26:657–671.
63.
HooperR. Versatile sample-size calculation using simulation. Stata J. 2013;13:21–38.
64.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Adaptive Design Clinical Trials for Drugs and Biologics. Rockville, MD: FDA; 2010.
65.
Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Adaptive Designs for Medical Device Clinical Studies. Rockville, MD: FDA; 2016.
66.
GrieveAP. Idle thoughts of a well-calibrated Bayesian in clinical drug development. Pharm Stat. 2016;15:96–108.
67.
GrieveAP. How to test hypotheses if you must. Pharm Stat. 2015;14:139–150.
68.
BurtonAAltmanDGRoystonPHolderRL. The design of simulation studies in medical statistics. Stat Med. 2006;25:4279–4292.
69.
GaydosBAndersonKMBerryD. Good practices for adaptive clinical trials in pharmaceutical product development. Drug Inform J. 2009;43:539–556.
70.
O’KellyMAnisimovVCampbellCHamiltonS. Proposed best practice for projects that involve modelling and simulation. Pharm Stat. 2017;16:107–113.
71.
SmithMKMarshallA. Importance of protocols for simulation studies in clinical drug development. Stat Methods Med Res. 2011;20:613–622.
72.
PoschMMaurerWBretzF. Type I error rate control in adaptive designs for confirmatory clinical trials with treatment selection at interim. Pharm Stat. 2011;10:96–104.
73.
SummarMLDobbelaereDBrusilowSLeeB. Diagnosis, symptoms, frequency and mortality of 260 patients with urea cycle disorders from a 21-year, multicentre study of acute hyperammonaemic episodes. Acta Paediatr. 2008;97:1420–1425.
KishnaniPSHwuWLMandelH. A retrospective, multinational, multicenter study on the natural history of infantile-onset Pompe disease. J Pediatr. 2006;148:671–676.
GökbugetNDombretHRiberaJM. International reference analysis of outcomes in adults with B-precursor Ph-negative relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Haematologica. 2016;101:1524–1533.
85.
GökbugetNKelshMChiaV. Blinatumomab vs historical standard therapy of adult relapsed/refractory acute lymphoblastic leukemia. Blood Cancer J. 2016;6:e473.
WandelSRoychoudhuryS. Designing and analysing clinical trials in mental health: an evidence synthesis approach. Evid Based Ment Health. 2016;19:114–117.
93.
DejardinDDelmarPWarneCPatelKvan RosmalenJLesaffreE. Use of a historical control group in a noninferiority trial assessing a new antibacterial treatment: a case study and discussion of practical implementation aspects. Pharm Stat. 2018;17:169–181.
