Supplementation of a clinical trial by historical control data: is the prospect of dynamic borrowing an illusion?
N W Galwey
Statistics in Medicine 2017 March 15, 36 (6): 899-916
There are strong arguments, ethical, logistical and financial, for supplementing the evidence from a new clinical trial using data from previous trials with similar control treatments. There is a consensus that historical information should be down-weighted or discounted relative to information from the new trial, but the determination of the appropriate degree of discounting is a major difficulty. The degree of discounting can be represented by a bias parameter with specified variance, but a comparison between the historical and new data gives only a poor estimate of this variance. Hence, if no strong assumption is made concerning its value (i.e. if 'dynamic borrowing' is practiced), there may be little or no gain from using the historical data, in either frequentist terms (type I error rate and power) or Bayesian terms (posterior distribution of the treatment effect). It is therefore best to compare the consequences of a range of assumptions. This paper presents a clear, simple graphical tool for doing so on the basis of the mean square error, and illustrates its use with historical data from clinical trials in amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. This approach makes it clear that different assumptions can lead to very different conclusions. External information can sometimes provide strong additional guidance, but different stakeholders may still make very different judgements concerning the appropriate degree of discounting. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
Use of historical control data for assessing treatment effects in clinical trials. Kert Viele, Scott Berry, Beat Neuenschwander, Billy Amzal, Fang Chen, Nathan Enas, Brian Hobbs, Joseph G Ibrahim, Nelson Kinnersley, Stacy Lindborg, Sandrine Micallef, Satrajit Roychoudhury, Laura Thompson Pharmaceutical Statistics 2014, 13 (1): 41-54
Using historical control information for the design and analysis of clinical trials with overdispersed count data. Sandro Gsteiger, Beat Neuenschwander, Francois Mercier, Heinz Schmidli Statistics in Medicine 2013 September 20, 32 (21): 3609-22
Hierarchical commensurate and power prior models for adaptive incorporation of historical information in clinical trials. Brian P Hobbs, Bradley P Carlin, Sumithra J Mandrekar, Daniel J Sargent Biometrics 2011, 67 (3): 1047-56
Alternatives for discounting in the analysis of noninferiority trials. Steven M Snapinn Journal of Biopharmaceutical Statistics 2004, 14 (2): 263-73
Overview of the epidemiology methods and applications: strengths and limitations of observational study designs. Graham A Colditz Critical Reviews in Food Science and Nutrition 2010, 50 Suppl 1: 10-2
Design and analysis of non-inferiority mortality trials in oncology. Mark Rothmann, Ning Li, Gang Chen, George Y H Chi, Robert Temple, Hsiao-Hui Tsou Statistics in Medicine 2003 January 30, 22 (2): 239-64
Adaptive adjustment of the randomization ratio using historical control data. Brian P Hobbs, Bradley P Carlin, Daniel J Sargent Clinical Trials: Journal of the Society for Clinical Trials 2013, 10 (3): 430-40
Commensurate Priors for Incorporating Historical Information in Clinical Trials Using General and Generalized Linear Models. Brian P Hobbs, Daniel J Sargent, Bradley P Carlin Bayesian Analysis 2012 August 28, 7 (3): 639-674
Macromolecular crowding: chemistry and physics meet biology (Ascona, Switzerland, 10-14 June 2012). G Foffi, A Pastore, F Piazza, P A Temussi Physical Biology 2013 August 2, 10 (4): 040301
Limitations of empirical calibration of p-values using observational data. Susan Gruber, Eric Tchetgen Tchetgen Statistics in Medicine 2016 September 30, 35 (22): 3869-82