A Comparison Between a Meta-analytic Approach and Power Prior Approach to Using Historical Control Information in Clinical Trials With Binary Endpoints

Abstract

Background:

In the process of research and development of a new treatment, clinical trials are conducted to evaluate its safety and efficacy. Key to streamlining the process is to utilize appropriate historical information on an outcome of a control treatment when designing and analyzing a clinical trial.

Methods:

For the use of such historical control information, there exist a meta-analytic approach and power prior approach. In this article, we evaluate their performance with regard to the type I error (TIE) rate and power through a simulation study where we analyze the data on a binary outcome of an experimental treatment and a control treatment from a new small-scale trial, along with the corresponding data of the control treatment from multiple historical trials. The reason is that the difference in the performance between the 2 approaches has not been clear.

Results:

When historical trials were homogeneous, the power was higher in the power prior approach and the meta-analytic approach using a beta-binomial model with a less noninformative prior than the other approaches. However, when heterogeneous historical trials were mixed, the power was lower, or the TIE rates got inflated.

Conclusions:

To make use of historical control data, if importance is attached to control of the TIE rate, the meta-analytic approach using a normal-normal hierarchical model may be preferable to the power prior approach, whereas if attached to improvement of the power, this preference be reversed. Anyway, the best approach should be chosen by comparing the operational characteristics of the approaches.

Keywords

Bayesian clinical trial design small-scale trial historical control data borrow strength operational characteristics

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Viele

Berry

Neuenschwander

et al. Use of historical control data for assessing treatment effects in clinical trials. Pharm Stat. 2014;13:41–54.

Takeda

Oba

Kakizume

Sakamaki

Taguri

Morita

. Bayesian approach to utilize historical control data in clinical trials. Jpn J Biom 2015;36:25–50.

Pocock

. The combination of randomized and historical controls in clinical trials. J Chron Dis. 1976;29:175–188.

Neuenschwander

Capkun-Niggli

Branson

Spiegelhalter

. Summarizing historical information on controls in clinical trials. Clin Trials. 2010;7:5–18.

Gsteiger

Neuenschwander

Mercier

Schmidli

. Using historical control information for the design and analysis of clinical trials with overdispersed count data. Stat Med. 2013;32:3609–3622.

Hueber

Sands

Lewitzky

et al. Secukinumab, a human anti-IL-17A monoclonal antibody, for moderate to severe Crohn’s disease: unexpected results of a randomized, double-blind placebo-controlled trial. Gut. 2012;61:1693–1700.

Gsponer

Gerber

Bornkamp

Ohlssen

Vandemeulebroecke

Schmidli

. A practical guide to Bayesian group sequential designs. Pharm Stat. 2013;13:71–80.

Schmidli

Gsteiger

Roychoudhury

O’Hagan

Spiegelhalter

Neuenschwander

. Robust meta-analytic-predictive priors in clinical trials with historical control information. Biometrics. 2014;70:1023–1032.

Neuenschwander

Wandel

Roychoudhury

Bailey

. Robust exchangeability designs for early phase clinical trials with multiple strata. Pharm Stat. 2015;15:123–134.

10.

Ibrahim

Chen

. Power prior distributions for regression models. Stat Sci. 2000;15:46–60.

11.

Duan

Smith

. Evaluating water quality using power priors to incorporate historical information. Environmetrics. 2006;17:95–106.

12.

Neuenschwander

Branson

Spiegelhalter

. A note on the power prior. Stat Med. 2009;28:3562–3566.

13.

Hobbs

Carlin

Mandrekar

Sargent

. Hierarchical commensurate and power prior models for adaptive incorporation of historical information in clinical trials. Biometrics. 2011;67:1047–1056.

14.

Van Rosmalen

Dejardin

Van Nordan

Lowenberg

Lesaffre

. Including historical data in the analysis of clinical trials: Is it worth the effort? Stat Methods Med Res. 2017;27:3167–3182.

15.

Gravestock

Held

. Power priors based on multiple historical studies for binary outcomes [published online October 16, 2018]. Biom J. https://doi.org/10.1002/bimj.201700246.

16.

Chen

Ibrahim

. The relationship between the power prior and hierarchical models. Bayesian Anal. 2006;1:551–574.

17.

Gelman

. Prior distributions for variance parameters in hierarchical models. Bayesian Anal. 2006;1:515–534.

18.

Gelman

Carlin

Stern

Rubin

. Bayesian Data Analysis. 3rd ed. London: Chapman & Hall; 2014.

19.

Prefontaine

Sutherland

Macdonald

Cepoiu

. Azathioprine or 6-mercaptopurine for maintenance of remission in Crohn’s disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2009;1: CD000067.

20.

Chen

Bayesian modeling using the MCMC Procedure. SAS Global Forum 2009. Stat Data Anal. 2009;257.

21.

Lambert

Sutton

Burton

Abrams

Jones

. How vague is vague? A simulation study of the impact of the use of vague prior distributions in MCMC using WinBUGS. Stat Med. 2005;24:2401–2428.

Supplementary Material

Please find the following supplemental material available below.

For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.

For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.

0.00 MB

0.22 MB

0.45 MB