1 / 26

2/27/03 Outline

2/27/03 Outline. Part I: Misc. Statistical Issues Multiple comparisons in clinical trials Multiple endpoints Subgroups Adverse experience categorization Multivariate adjustment Part II: Multi-center trials and working with industry (Cummings left over). Multiple comparisons.

callie
Télécharger la présentation

2/27/03 Outline

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 2/27/03 Outline • Part I: Misc. Statistical Issues • Multiple comparisons in clinical trials • Multiple endpoints • Subgroups • Adverse experience categorization • Multivariate adjustment • Part II: Multi-center trials and working with industry (Cummings left over)

  2. Multiple comparisons • The general problem • Each statistical test has a 5% chance of Type I error • We are wrong 1 time out of 20 • Easy to come up with spurious results • Take a worthless drug (placebo 2) compare to placebo 1 • 1 study: P(type I error)= 5% • 2 studies: P(1 or 2 type I errors)= almost 10% • 20 studies: P(at least one significant)=64% • Publication bias

  3. Multiple comparisons: solutions? • Bonferroni • Divide overall p-value by number of tests • Unacceptable losses of power • Use common sense/Bayesian • Does result make sense? • Biologic plausibility • Is result supported by previous data? • Was analysis defined apriori? • Examples of problem in clinical trials

  4. Multiple comparisons in RCT’s are pervasive • Monitoring of trials: look at results as they accumulate • Lots of statistical machinery • Multiple endpoints in a trial • Primary endpoint: “all fractures” but also found significant reductions in hip fractures • Primary endpoint: fractures, significant reductions in breast cancer • Safety • Subgroup analyses • Multivariate analysis (adjustment) for BL covariates

  5. No Adjustment for Multiple Comparisons? • Rothman, 1990 • Adjustments for multiple comparisons lead to type II errors • A policy of not making adjustments is preferable • “ Scientists should not be so reluctant to explore leads that may turn out to be wrong that they penalize themselves for missing possibly important findings”

  6. Multiple Endpoints: Making a Mountain Out of a Molehill • Multiple Outcomes of Raloxifene Evaluation (MORE) trial • Main outcome: vertebral fractures • Secondary outcome: non-vertebral fractures • Main osteoporotic subtypes: hip, wrist • Overall, no effect of raloxifene on NV fractures • Looked at 14 subtypes of fractures • One significant: ankle. Wanted to title paper: “Raloxifene reduces ankle fractures”

  7. Multiple Endpoints in PEPI: Strict Bonferonni Rule • Post-menopausal Estrogen/Progesterone Intervention PEPI (website) • 4 treatment groups, several primary outcomes: all continuous • Adjust all p-values to account for multiple comparisons • Multiple primary endpoints (4) • Within each endpoint, adjust for 4 treatments

  8. Multiple endpoints • Often many ways to slice the outcome pie • Different subgroups of endpoints • Fractures: all, leg, arm, rib, etc. (MORE) • Multiple comparisons problems • Some solutions • Very explicit predefinition of endpoints • Limit number of endpoints • FDA: single endpoint only

  9. Subgroups • After primary analysis, want to look at subgroups • Does effectiveness vary by subgroup • If drug effective, is it more effective in some populations? • If results overall show no effect, does drug work in subgroup of participants? • Are adverse effects concentrated in some subgroups?

  10. Example: Efficacy of alendronate • FIT II: Women with BMD T-score < -1.6 (osteopenic--only 1/3 osteoporotic) • Women without existing vertebral fractures (2) • Overall results: 14% reduction, p=.07 • Wimpy

  11. RR for clinical fracture of alendronate(FIT II, Cummings, JAMA 1999) 1.5 P=0.07 0.86 (0.73 - 1.01) 1 B Relative Risk B B 0 Overall

  12. RR for clinical fracture of alendronate by baseline BMD groups 1.14 (0.82 - 1.60) 1.03 B 1.5 (0.77 - 1.39) B 0.86 (0.73 - 1.01) B B 1 B Relative Risk B B B B B B B 0.64 (0.50 - 0.82) 0 Overall T < -2.5 T > -2.0 -2.5 < T < -2.0 Baseline Femoral Neck BMD, by T-score

  13. What to Do With an Unexpected Subgroup Finding • Is this a real finding? (not really specified apriori) • Has this been previously observed? • Increase prior probability • Ways to verify • Examine for other similar subgrouping variables (BMD at hip, spine, radius) • Examine for other similar endpoints (hip fractures, etc.) • Most important: look at other trials, if possible and available • Examine biologic plausibility

  14. Effect of alendronate on hip fx depends on baseline hip BMD Baseline BMD T-score -1.6 – -2.5 1.84 (0.7, 5.4) 0.44 (0.18, 0.97) < - 2.5 Overall 0.79 (0.43, 1.44) 0.1 1 10 Relative Hazard (± 95% CI)

  15. Fosamax International Trial (FOSIT) • 1908 women, 34 countries • Lumbar spine BMD T-score < -2 • Alendronate (10 mg) vs. placebo • One year follow-up • BMD main endpoint • 47% reduction in all clinical fractures (p<.05)

  16. FOSIT: Relative risk alendronate vs. placebo within BMD subgroups Baseline hip BMD T NRR* 95% CI Overall 1908 0.53 (0.3,0.9) > -2 955 1.2 (0.5, 2.9) -2 to –2..5 279 0.32 (0.07,1.5) < -2.5 674 0.26 (0.1,0.7)

  17. Subgroup analysis in HERS • Overall no effect of HRT or perhaps harm in year 1 • Is there a subgroup who benefit? • Is there subgroup with significant harm? • Look at relative hazard (RH) within subgroups defined by baseline variables • Medication use at baseline • Prior disease • Health habits • Compare RH in those with and without risk factor • RH in those using beta blockers compared to those not using • RH > 1 ==> harm • Get p-value for significance of difference of RH in those w and without

  18. HERS: 4 years of HRT increased then decreased CHD Events Year E + P Placebo RH p-value 1 57 38 1.5 .04 2 47 48 1.0 1.0 3 35 41 0.9 .6 4 + 5 33 49 0.7 .07 > 5 ??? P for trend = 0.009

  19. Subgroups: the final frontier in HERS Relative hazard (E vs. placebo) Subgroup Within Among Subgroup N (%) Subgroup Others p* history of smoking 1712 (62) 1.01 3.39 .01 current smoker 360 (13) 0.55 1.92 .03 digitalis use 275 (10) 4.98 1.26 .04 >= 3 live births 1616 (58) 1.09 2.72 .04 lives alone 775 (28) 2.97 1.14 .05 prior mi by chart review 1409 (51) 2.14 0.93 .05 beta-blocker use 899 (33) 2.89 1.15 .06 age >= 70 at randomization 1019 (37) 2.65 1.14 .06 * Statistical significance of interaction

  20. Lots of subgroups were analyzed in HERS • history of smoking (at rv) 1712 (62) 1.01 3.39 0.30 .01 • current smoker (at rv) 360 (13) 0.55 1.92 0.29 .03 • digitalis use (at rv) 275 (10) 4.98 1.26 3.96 .04 • >= 3 live births 1616 (58) 1.09 2.72 0.40 .04 • lives alone (at rv) 775 (28) 2.97 1.14 2.60 .05 • prior mi by chart review (cr) 1409 (51) 2.14 0.93 2.30 .05 • beta-blocker use (at rv) 899 (33) 2.89 1.15 2.51 .06 • age >= 70 at randomization 1019 (37) 2.65 1.14 2.32 .06 • prior mi in most distant tertile 447 (16) 2.64 0.93 2.82 .07 • walk 10m or in exercise program (at rv) 1770 (64) 2.35 1.11 2.12 .08 • prior ptca by chart review (cr) 1189 (43) 0.92 1.98 0.46 .08 • prior mi within 2 years 420 (15) 3.20 1.28 2.50 .11 • tg > median (at rv) 1377 (50) 2.02 1.05 1.93 .12 • rales in the lungs (at rv) 80 ( 3) 0.43 1.65 0.26 .13 • digitalis or ace-inhibitor use (at rv) 653 (24) 2.33 1.24 1.88 .16 • previous ert for >= 12 months 302 (11) 4.19 1.41 2.98 .18 • serious medical conditions 1028 (37) 1.05 1.81 0.58 .21 • age >= 53 at lmp 578 (21) 3.19 1.38 2.31 .23 • hdl > median (at rv) 1315 (48) 1.18 1.95 0.61 .24 • lp(a) > median (at rv) 1378 (50) 1.26 2.08 0.60 .25 • use of non-statin llm (at rv) 420 (15) 0.89 1.69 0.52 .25 • married (at rv) 1588 (57) 1.26 1.98 0.64 .29 • lvef <= 40% 178 ( 6) 2.16 1.01 2.13 .31 • prior mi within 4 years 765 (28) 2.07 1.32 1.57 .32 • previous ert use for >= 1 year 327 (12) 2.86 1.41 2.03 .32 • prior mi within 1 year 194 ( 7) 2.88 1.43 2.02 .33 • chest pain (at rv) 982 (36) 1.25 1.88 0.67 .33 • dbp >= 90 mmhg (at rv) 149 ( 5) 0.91 1.62 0.56 .35 • prior ptca within 1 year 206 ( 7) 3.94 1.46 2.71 .38 • prior mi within 3 years 612 (22) 2.05 1.37 1.50 .40 • prior ptca within 4 years 838 (30) 1.15 1.70 0.68 .40 • use of any llm (at rv) 1296 (47) 1.23 1.76 0.70 .40 • diuretic use (at rv) 775 (28) 1.89 1.33 1.42 .41 • signs and symptoms of chf (at rv) 118 ( 4) 0.94 1.60 0.58 .42 • ace inhibitor use (at rv) 483 (17) 2.05 1.40 1.46 .44 • total cholesterol > median (at rv) 1377 (50) 1.32 1.80 0.74 .47 • l-thyroxine use (at rv) 414 (15) 2.29 1.43 1.60 .47 • poor/fair self-rated health (at rv) 665 (24) 1.30 1.72 0.76 .51 • heart murmur (at rv) 540 (20) 1.89 1.42 1.34 .53 • sbp >= 140 mmhg (at rv) 1051 (38) 1.37 1.72 0.80 .59 • prior ptca within 3 years 695 (25) 1.27 1.61 0.78 .62 • s3 heart sounds (at rv) 19 ( 1) 2.74 1.50 1.82 .63 • htn by physical exam (at rv) 557 (20) 1.32 1.62 0.81 .64 • >= 2 severely obstructed main vessels 1312 (47) 1.53 1.26 1.22 .69 • statin use (at rv) 1004 (36) 1.34 1.59 0.84 .71 • have you ever been pregnant 2564 (93) 1.55 1.15 1.35 .72 • calcium-channel blocker (at rv) 1511 (55) 1.61 1.38 1.17 .73 • previous hrt for >= least 12 months 132 ( 5) 1.24 1.60 0.78 .77 • ldl > median (at rv) 1373 (50) 1.44 1.63 0.89 .77 • prior ptca within 2 years 475 (17) 1.35 1.56 0.87 .81 • baseline left bundle branch block 212 ( 8) 1.31 1.55 0.85 .82 • white 2451 (89) 1.48 1.62 0.92 .88 • ever told you had diabetes 634 (23) 1.48 1.53 0.97 .94 • aspirin use (at rv) 2183 (79) 1.51 1.56 0.97 .95 • any alcohol consumption (at rv) 1081 (39) 1.54 1.57 0.98 .97 • gallstones or gallbladder dis. 633 (23) 1.55 1.52 1.02 .97 • baseline atrial fibrillation/flutter 33 ( 1) - 1.50 - - Total subgroups examined: 102 Total subgroups with p< .05: 6

  21. Subgroups: conclusions • Subgroups are full of statistical problems • Multiple comparisons may lead to erroneous conclusions • Limited power in for subgroup analyses • Subgroups based on baseline variables are less bad • Subgroups based on post-randomization variables are more problematic

  22. Safety assessment • Often many categories (FIT: 200 or more) • Some are rare • Ex: Risedronate and lung cancer • How to control for spurious findings? • P-values almost meaningless

  23. Categorization of Adverse Experiences • AE’s collected as “open text” • Need to categorize and compare by treatment • Options: • Many categories: few events per treatment, low power • Few categories: heterogenuous, may miss important effects • No correct solution • MeDRA coding • ~15,000 standard clinical terms (“specific terms”) • Various levels of grouping • May be non-sensical in some situations

  24. Categorization of Adverse Experiences:Sellmeyer solution

  25. Multivariable adjustment • Sometimes adjust for baseline variables • Especially those that are maldistributed • If algorithm for adjustment not pre-defined, adds subjective element to “objective” RCT • Given ineffective treatment, with enough fiddling with adjustments, can come up with significant effect (Paul Meier) • Conclusions: Many argue that should NEVER do adjustments in RCT’s • If do adjustment, severely limit plans

  26. Statistical issues: Summary • ITT (from 1/30 lecture): • All participants remain on medication • All participants are followed until end of study • Pre-planned analysis • Multiple comparisons are ubiquitous • Monitoring • Subgroup analyses • Safety analyses • Where possible, minimize subjectivity and adhoc-ness • Use judgement

More Related