Showing 1–9 of 9 results for author: Benda, N

A Review of EMA Public Assessment Reports where Non-Proportional Hazards were Identified

Authors: Florian Klinglmueller, Norbert Benda, Tim Friede, Tobias Fellinger, Harald Heinzl, Andrew Hooker, Franz Koenig, Tim Mathes, Martin Posch, Florian Stampfer, Susanne Urach

Abstract: While well-established methods for time-to-event data are available when the proportional hazards assumption holds, there is no consensus on the best approach under non-proportional hazards. A wide range of parametric and non-parametric methods for testing and estimation in this scenario have been proposed. In this review we identified EMA marketing authorization procedures where non-proportional… ▽ More While well-established methods for time-to-event data are available when the proportional hazards assumption holds, there is no consensus on the best approach under non-proportional hazards. A wide range of parametric and non-parametric methods for testing and estimation in this scenario have been proposed. In this review we identified EMA marketing authorization procedures where non-proportional hazards were raised as a potential issue in the risk-benefit assessment and extract relevant information on trial design and results reported in the corresponding European Assessment Reports (EPARs) available in the database at paediatricdata.eu. We identified 16 Marketing authorization procedures, reporting results on a total of 18 trials. Most procedures covered the authorization of treatments from the oncology domain. For the majority of trials NPH issues were related to a suspected delayed treatment effect, or different treatment effects in known subgroups. Issues related to censoring, or treatment switching were also identified. For most of the trials the primary analysis was performed using conventional methods assuming proportional hazards, even if NPH was anticipated. Differential treatment effects were addressed using stratification and delayed treatment effect considered for sample size planning. Even though, not considered in the primary analysis, some procedures reported extensive sensitivity analyses and model diagnostics evaluating the proportional hazards assumption. For a few procedures methods addressing NPH (e.g.~weighted log-rank tests) were used in the primary analysis. We extracted estimates of the median survival, hazard ratios, and time of survival curve separation. In addition, we digitized the KM curves to reconstruct close to individual patient level data. Extracted outcomes served as the basis for a simulation study of methods for time to event analysis under NPH. △ Less

Submitted 18 June, 2024; originally announced June 2024.

Comments: 16 pages, 5 figures

A neutral comparison of statistical methods for time-to-event analyses under non-proportional hazards

Authors: Florian Klinglmüller, Tobias Fellinger, Franz König, Tim Friede, Andrew C. Hooker, Harald Heinzl, Martina Mittlböck, Jonas Brugger, Maximilian Bardo, Cynthia Huber, Norbert Benda, Martin Posch, Robin Ristl

Abstract: While well-established methods for time-to-event data are available when the proportional hazards assumption holds, there is no consensus on the best inferential approach under non-proportional hazards (NPH). However, a wide range of parametric and non-parametric methods for testing and estimation in this scenario have been proposed. To provide recommendations on the statistical analysis of clinic… ▽ More While well-established methods for time-to-event data are available when the proportional hazards assumption holds, there is no consensus on the best inferential approach under non-proportional hazards (NPH). However, a wide range of parametric and non-parametric methods for testing and estimation in this scenario have been proposed. To provide recommendations on the statistical analysis of clinical trials where non proportional hazards are expected, we conducted a comprehensive simulation study under different scenarios of non-proportional hazards, including delayed onset of treatment effect, crossing hazard curves, subgroups with different treatment effect and changing hazards after disease progression. We assessed type I error rate control, power and confidence interval coverage, where applicable, for a wide range of methods including weighted log-rank tests, the MaxCombo test, summary measures such as the restricted mean survival time (RMST), average hazard ratios, and milestone survival probabilities as well as accelerated failure time regression models. We found a trade-off between interpretability and power when choosing an analysis strategy under NPH scenarios. While analysis methods based on weighted logrank tests typically were favorable in terms of power, they do not provide an easily interpretable treatment effect estimate. Also, depending on the weight function, they test a narrow null hypothesis of equal hazard functions and rejection of this null hypothesis may not allow for a direct conclusion of treatment benefit in terms of the survival function. In contrast, non-parametric procedures based on well interpretable measures as the RMST difference had lower power in most scenarios. Model based methods based on specific survival distributions had larger power, however often gave biased estimates and lower than nominal confidence interval coverage. △ Less

Submitted 9 October, 2023; originally announced October 2023.

Methods for non-proportional hazards in clinical trials: A systematic review

Authors: Maximilian Bardo, Cynthia Huber, Norbert Benda, Jonas Brugger, Tobias Fellinger, Vaidotas Galaune, Judith Heinz, Harald Heinzl, Andrew C. Hooker, Florian Klinglmüller, Franz König, Tim Mathes, Martina Mittlböck, Martin Posch, Robin Ristl, Tim Friede

Abstract: For the analysis of time-to-event data, frequently used methods such as the log-rank test or the Cox proportional hazards model are based on the proportional hazards assumption, which is often debatable. Although a wide range of parametric and non-parametric methods for non-proportional hazards (NPH) has been proposed, there is no consensus on the best approaches. To close this gap, we conducted a… ▽ More For the analysis of time-to-event data, frequently used methods such as the log-rank test or the Cox proportional hazards model are based on the proportional hazards assumption, which is often debatable. Although a wide range of parametric and non-parametric methods for non-proportional hazards (NPH) has been proposed, there is no consensus on the best approaches. To close this gap, we conducted a systematic literature search to identify statistical methods and software appropriate under NPH. Our literature search identified 907 abstracts, out of which we included 211 articles, mostly methodological ones. Review articles and applications were less frequently identified. The articles discuss effect measures, effect estimation and regression approaches, hypothesis tests, and sample size calculation approaches, which are often tailored to specific NPH situations. Using a unified notation, we provide an overview of methods available. Furthermore, we derive some guidance from the identified articles. We summarized the contents from the literature review in a concise way in the main text and provide more detailed explanations in the supplement. △ Less

Submitted 29 January, 2024; v1 submitted 29 June, 2023; originally announced June 2023.

MSC Class: 62Nxx; 62Pxx

Subgroup identification in individual patient data meta-analysis using model-based recursive partitioning

Authors: Cynthia Huber, Norbert Benda, Tim Friede

Abstract: Model-based recursive partitioning (MOB) can be used to identify subgroups with differing treatment effects. The detection rate of treatment-by-covariate interactions and the accuracy of identified subgroups using MOB depend strongly on the sample size. Using data from multiple randomized controlled clinical trials can overcome the problem of too small samples. However, naively pooling data from m… ▽ More Model-based recursive partitioning (MOB) can be used to identify subgroups with differing treatment effects. The detection rate of treatment-by-covariate interactions and the accuracy of identified subgroups using MOB depend strongly on the sample size. Using data from multiple randomized controlled clinical trials can overcome the problem of too small samples. However, naively pooling data from multiple trials may result in the identification of spurious subgroups as differences in study design, subject selection and other sources of between-trial heterogeneity are ignored. In order to account for between-trial heterogeneity in individual participant data (IPD) meta-analysis random-effect models are frequently used. Commonly, heterogeneity in the treatment effect is modelled using random effects whereas heterogeneity in the baseline risks is modelled by either fixed effects or random effects. In this article, we propose metaMOB, a procedure using the generalized mixed-effects model tree (GLMM tree) algorithm for subgroup identification in IPD meta-analysis. Although the application of metaMOB is potentially wider, e.g. randomized experiments with participants in social sciences or preclinical experiments in life sciences, we focus on randomized controlled clinical trials. In a simulation study, metaMOB outperformed GLMM trees assuming a random intercept only and model-based recursive partitioning (MOB), whose algorithm is the basis for GLMM trees, with respect to the false discovery rates, accuracy of identified subgroups and accuracy of estimated treatment effect. The most robust and therefore most promising method is metaMOB with fixed effects for modelling the between-trial heterogeneity in the baseline risks. △ Less

Submitted 22 September, 2020; originally announced September 2020.

Blinded continuous information monitoring of recurrent event endpoints with time trends in clinical trials

Authors: Tobias Mütze, Susanna Salem, Norbert Benda, Heinz Schmidli, Tim Friede

Abstract: Blinded sample size re-estimation and information monitoring based on blinded data has been suggested to mitigate risks due to planning uncertainties regarding nuisance parameters. Motivated by a randomized controlled trial in pediatric multiple sclerosis (MS), a continuous monitoring procedure for overdispersed count data was proposed recently. However, this procedure assumed constant event rates… ▽ More Blinded sample size re-estimation and information monitoring based on blinded data has been suggested to mitigate risks due to planning uncertainties regarding nuisance parameters. Motivated by a randomized controlled trial in pediatric multiple sclerosis (MS), a continuous monitoring procedure for overdispersed count data was proposed recently. However, this procedure assumed constant event rates, an assumption often not met in practice. Here we extend the procedure to accommodate time trends in the event rates considering two blinded approaches: (a) the mixture approach modeling the number of events by a mixture of two negative binomial distributions, and (b) the lumping approach approximating the marginal distribution of the event counts by a negative binomial distribution. Through simulations the operating characteristics of the proposed procedures are investigated under decreasing event rates. We find that the type I error rate is not inflated relevantly by either of the monitoring procedures, with the exception of strong time dependencies where the procedure assuming constant rates exhibits some inflation. Furthermore, the procedure accommodating time trends has generally favorable power properties compared to the procedure based on constant rates which stops often too late. The proposed method is illustrated by the clinical trial in pediatric MS. △ Less

Submitted 6 March, 2019; originally announced March 2019.

Recent advances in methodology for clinical trials in small populations: the InSPiRe project

Authors: T. Friede, M. Posch, S. Zohar, C. Alberti, N. Benda, E. Comets, S. Day, A. Dmitrenko, A. Graf, B. K. Günhan, S. W. Hee, F. Lentz, J. Madan, F. Miller, T. Ondra, M. Pearce, C. Röver, A. Tournazi, S. Unkel, M. Ursino, G. Wassmer, N. Stallard

Abstract: Where there are a limited number of patients, such as in a rare disease, clinical trials in these small populations present several challenges, including statistical issues. This led to an EU FP7 call for proposals in 2013. One of the three projects funded was the Innovative Methodology for Small Populations Research (InSPiRe) project. This paper summarizes the main results of the project, which w… ▽ More Where there are a limited number of patients, such as in a rare disease, clinical trials in these small populations present several challenges, including statistical issues. This led to an EU FP7 call for proposals in 2013. One of the three projects funded was the Innovative Methodology for Small Populations Research (InSPiRe) project. This paper summarizes the main results of the project, which was completed in 2017. The InSPiRe project has led to development of novel statistical methodology for clinical trials in small populations in four areas. We have explored new decision-making methods for small population clinical trials using a Bayesian decision-theoretic framework to compare costs with potential benefits, developed approaches for targeted treatment trials, enabling simultaneous identification of subgroups and confirmation of treatment effect for these patients, worked on early phase clinical trial design and on extrapolation from adult to pediatric studies, developing methods to enable use of pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics data, and also developed improved robust meta-analysis methods for a small number of trials to support the planning, analysis and interpretation of a trial as well as enabling extrapolation between patient groups. In addition to scientific publications, we have contributed to regulatory guidance and produced free software in order to facilitate implementation of the novel methods. △ Less

Submitted 30 October, 2018; originally announced November 2018.

Comments: 9 pages, 3 figures

Journal ref: Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, 13:136, 2018

Optimal Design in Hierarchical Models with application in Multi-center Trials

Authors: Maryna Prus, Norbert Benda, Rainer Schwabe

Abstract: Hierarchical random effect models are used for different purposes in clinical research and other areas. In general, the main focus is on population parameters related to the expected treatment effects or group differences among all units of an upper level (e.g. subjects in many settings). Optimal design for estimation of population parameters are well established for many models. However, optimal… ▽ More Hierarchical random effect models are used for different purposes in clinical research and other areas. In general, the main focus is on population parameters related to the expected treatment effects or group differences among all units of an upper level (e.g. subjects in many settings). Optimal design for estimation of population parameters are well established for many models. However, optimal designs for the prediction for the individual units may be different. Several settings are identiffed in which individual prediction may be of interest. In this paper we determine optimal designs for the individual predictions, e.g. in multi-center trials, and compare them to a conventional balanced design with respect to treatment allocation. Our investigations show, that balanced designs are far from optimal if the treatment effects vary strongly as compared to the residual error and more subjects should be recruited to the active (new) treatment in multi-center trials. Nevertheless, effciency loss may be limited resulting in a moderate sample size increase when individual predictions are foreseen with a balanced allocation. △ Less

Submitted 26 July, 2018; originally announced July 2018.

Journal ref: Journal of Statistical Theory and Practice (2020) 14:24

On estimands and the analysis of adverse events in the presence of varying follow-up times within the benefit assessment of therapies

Authors: Steffen Unkel, Marjan Amiri, Norbert Benda, Jan Beyersmann, Dietrich Knoerzer, Katrin Kupas, Frank Langer, Friedhelm Leverkus, Anja Loos, Claudia Ose, Tanja Proctor, Claudia Schmoor, Carsten Schwenke, Guido Skipka, Kristina Unnebrink, Florian Voss, Tim Friede

Abstract: The analysis of adverse events (AEs) is a key component in the assessment of a drug's safety profile. Inappropriate analysis methods may result in misleading conclusions about a therapy's safety and consequently its benefit-risk ratio. The statistical analysis of AEs is complicated by the fact that the follow-up times can vary between the patients included in a clinical trial. This paper takes as… ▽ More The analysis of adverse events (AEs) is a key component in the assessment of a drug's safety profile. Inappropriate analysis methods may result in misleading conclusions about a therapy's safety and consequently its benefit-risk ratio. The statistical analysis of AEs is complicated by the fact that the follow-up times can vary between the patients included in a clinical trial. This paper takes as its focus the analysis of AE data in the presence of varying follow-up times within the benefit assessment of therapeutic interventions. Instead of approaching this issue directly and solely from an analysis point of view, we first discuss what should be estimated in the context of safety data, leading to the concept of estimands. Although the current discussion on estimands is mainly related to efficacy evaluation, the concept is applicable to safety endpoints as well. Within the framework of estimands, we present statistical methods for analysing AEs with the focus being on the time to the occurrence of the first AE of a specific type. We give recommendations which estimators should be used for the estimands described. Furthermore, we state practical implications of the analysis of AEs in clinical trials and give an overview of examples across different indications. We also provide a review of current practices of health technology assessment (HTA) agencies with respect to the evaluation of safety data. Finally, we describe problems with meta-analyses of AE data and sketch possible solutions. △ Less

Submitted 21 September, 2018; v1 submitted 4 May, 2018; originally announced May 2018.

Systematic reviews in paediatric multiple sclerosis and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease exemplify shortcomings in methods used to evaluate therapies in rare conditions

Authors: Steffen Unkel, Christian Röver, Nigel Stallard, Norbert Benda, Martin Posch, Sarah Zohar, Tim Friede

Abstract: BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard design of clinical research to assess interventions. However, RCTs cannot always be applied for practical or ethical reasons. To investigate the current practices in rare diseases, we review evaluations of therapeutic interventions in paediatric multiple sclerosis (MS) and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD). In particular, we shed… ▽ More BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are the gold standard design of clinical research to assess interventions. However, RCTs cannot always be applied for practical or ethical reasons. To investigate the current practices in rare diseases, we review evaluations of therapeutic interventions in paediatric multiple sclerosis (MS) and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease (CJD). In particular, we shed light on the endpoints used, the study designs implemented and the statistical methodologies applied. METHODS: We conducted literature searches to identify relevant primary studies. Data on study design, objectives, endpoints, patient characteristics, randomization and masking, type of intervention, control, withdrawals and statistical methodology were extracted from the selected studies. The risk of bias and the quality of the studies were assessed. RESULTS: Twelve (seven) primary studies on paediatric MS (CJD) were included in the qualitative synthesis. No double-blind, randomized placebo-controlled trial for evaluating interventions in paediatric MS has been published yet. Evidence from one open-label RCT is available. The observational studies are before-after studies or controlled studies. Three of the seven selected studies on CJD are RCTs, of which two received the maximum mark on the Oxford Quality Scale. Four trials are controlled observational studies. CONCLUSIONS: Evidence from double-blind RCTs on the efficacy of treatments appears to be variable between rare diseases. With regard to paediatric conditions it remains to be seen what impact regulators will have through e.g., paediatric investigation plans. Overall, there is space for improvement by using innovative trial designs and data analysis techniques. △ Less

Submitted 21 February, 2016; originally announced February 2016.

Comments: 11 pages, 2 figures, 3 tables

Journal ref: Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, 11:16, 2016