Literature DB >> 24448444

Level of evidence for promising subgroup findings in an overall non-significant trial.

Julien Tanniou1, Ingeborg van der Tweel2, Steven Teerenstra3, Kit Cb Roes4.   

Abstract

In drug development and drug licensing, it sometimes occurs that a new drug does not demonstrate effectiveness for the full study population, but there appears to be benefit in a relevant, pre-defined subgroup. This raises the question, how strong the evidence from such a subgroup is, and which confirmatory testing strategies are the most appropriate ones. Hence, we considered the type I error and the power of a subgroup result in a trial with non-significant overall results and of suitable replication strategies. In the case of a single trial, the inflation of the overall type I error is substantial and can be up to twice as large, especially in relatively small subgroups. This also increases to the risk of starting a replication trial that should not be done, if such a second trial is not already available. The overall type I error is almost controlled by using an appropriate replication strategy. This confirms the required cautious interpretation of promising subgroups, even in the case that overall trial results were perceived to be close to significance.
© The Author(s) 2014.

Keywords:  clinical trials; non-significant trial; subgroup analysis; type I error

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24448444     DOI: 10.1177/0962280213519705

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Stat Methods Med Res        ISSN: 0962-2802            Impact factor:   3.021


  4 in total

1.  How subgroup analyses can miss the trees for the forest plots: A simulation study.

Authors:  Michael Webster-Clark; John A Baron; Michele Jonsson Funk; Daniel Westreich
Journal:  J Clin Epidemiol       Date:  2020-06-19       Impact factor: 6.437

2.  Treatment of the Primary Tumor in Metastatic Hormone-sensitive Prostate Cancer: Not Yet Ready for Prime Time as the Standard of Care.

Authors:  Weranja K B Ranasinghe; Chad A Reichard; Brian F Chapin
Journal:  Eur Urol       Date:  2019-06-25       Impact factor: 20.096

3.  Inability of positive phase II clinical trials of investigational treatments to subsequently predict positive phase III clinical trials in glioblastoma.

Authors:  Jacob J Mandel; Shlomit Yust-Katz; Akash J Patel; David Cachia; Diane Liu; Minjeong Park; Ying Yuan; Thomas A Kent; John F de Groot
Journal:  Neuro Oncol       Date:  2018-01-10       Impact factor: 12.300

Review 4.  Subgroup analyses in confirmatory clinical trials: time to be specific about their purposes.

Authors:  Julien Tanniou; Ingeborg van der Tweel; Steven Teerenstra; Kit C B Roes
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2016-02-18       Impact factor: 4.615

  4 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.