Cargando…

Meta-analysis of randomized phase II trials to inform subsequent phase III decisions

BACKGROUND: If multiple Phase II randomized trials exist then meta-analysis is favorable to increase statistical power and summarize the existing evidence about an intervention's effect in order to help inform Phase III decisions. We consider some statistical issues for meta-analysis of Phase I...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Burke, Danielle L, Billingham, Lucinda J, Girling, Alan J, Riley, Richard D
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2014
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4162965/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25187348
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-346
_version_ 1782334735058468864
author Burke, Danielle L
Billingham, Lucinda J
Girling, Alan J
Riley, Richard D
author_facet Burke, Danielle L
Billingham, Lucinda J
Girling, Alan J
Riley, Richard D
author_sort Burke, Danielle L
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: If multiple Phase II randomized trials exist then meta-analysis is favorable to increase statistical power and summarize the existing evidence about an intervention's effect in order to help inform Phase III decisions. We consider some statistical issues for meta-analysis of Phase II trials for this purpose, as motivated by a real example involving nine Phase II trials of bolus thrombolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction with binary outcomes. METHODS: We propose that a Bayesian random effects logistic regression model is most suitable as it models the binomial distribution of the data, helps avoid continuity corrections, accounts for between-trial heterogeneity, and incorporates parameter uncertainty when making inferences. The model also allows predictions that inform Phase III decisions, and we show how to derive: (i) the probability that the intervention will be truly beneficial in a new trial, and (ii) the probability that, in a new trial with a given sample size, the 95% credible interval for the odds ratio will be entirely in favor of the intervention. As Phase II trials are potentially optimistic due to bias in design and reporting, we also discuss how skeptical prior distributions can reduce this optimism to make more realistic predictions. RESULTS: In the example, the model identifies heterogeneity in intervention effect missed by an I-squared of 0%. Prediction intervals accounting for this heterogeneity are shown to support subsequent Phase III trials. The probability of success in Phase III trials increases as the sample size increases, up to 0.82 for intracranial hemorrhage and 0.79 for reinfarction outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The choice of meta-analysis methods can influence the decision about whether a trial should proceed to Phase III and thus need to be clearly documented and investigated whenever a Phase II meta-analysis is performed. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1745-6215-15-346) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4162965
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2014
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-41629652014-09-14 Meta-analysis of randomized phase II trials to inform subsequent phase III decisions Burke, Danielle L Billingham, Lucinda J Girling, Alan J Riley, Richard D Trials Research BACKGROUND: If multiple Phase II randomized trials exist then meta-analysis is favorable to increase statistical power and summarize the existing evidence about an intervention's effect in order to help inform Phase III decisions. We consider some statistical issues for meta-analysis of Phase II trials for this purpose, as motivated by a real example involving nine Phase II trials of bolus thrombolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction with binary outcomes. METHODS: We propose that a Bayesian random effects logistic regression model is most suitable as it models the binomial distribution of the data, helps avoid continuity corrections, accounts for between-trial heterogeneity, and incorporates parameter uncertainty when making inferences. The model also allows predictions that inform Phase III decisions, and we show how to derive: (i) the probability that the intervention will be truly beneficial in a new trial, and (ii) the probability that, in a new trial with a given sample size, the 95% credible interval for the odds ratio will be entirely in favor of the intervention. As Phase II trials are potentially optimistic due to bias in design and reporting, we also discuss how skeptical prior distributions can reduce this optimism to make more realistic predictions. RESULTS: In the example, the model identifies heterogeneity in intervention effect missed by an I-squared of 0%. Prediction intervals accounting for this heterogeneity are shown to support subsequent Phase III trials. The probability of success in Phase III trials increases as the sample size increases, up to 0.82 for intracranial hemorrhage and 0.79 for reinfarction outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: The choice of meta-analysis methods can influence the decision about whether a trial should proceed to Phase III and thus need to be clearly documented and investigated whenever a Phase II meta-analysis is performed. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1745-6215-15-346) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2014-09-03 /pmc/articles/PMC4162965/ /pubmed/25187348 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-346 Text en © Burke et al.; licensee BioMed Central Ltd. 2014 This article is published under license to BioMed Central Ltd. This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Burke, Danielle L
Billingham, Lucinda J
Girling, Alan J
Riley, Richard D
Meta-analysis of randomized phase II trials to inform subsequent phase III decisions
title Meta-analysis of randomized phase II trials to inform subsequent phase III decisions
title_full Meta-analysis of randomized phase II trials to inform subsequent phase III decisions
title_fullStr Meta-analysis of randomized phase II trials to inform subsequent phase III decisions
title_full_unstemmed Meta-analysis of randomized phase II trials to inform subsequent phase III decisions
title_short Meta-analysis of randomized phase II trials to inform subsequent phase III decisions
title_sort meta-analysis of randomized phase ii trials to inform subsequent phase iii decisions
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4162965/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25187348
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1745-6215-15-346
work_keys_str_mv AT burkedaniellel metaanalysisofrandomizedphaseiitrialstoinformsubsequentphaseiiidecisions
AT billinghamlucindaj metaanalysisofrandomizedphaseiitrialstoinformsubsequentphaseiiidecisions
AT girlingalanj metaanalysisofrandomizedphaseiitrialstoinformsubsequentphaseiiidecisions
AT rileyrichardd metaanalysisofrandomizedphaseiitrialstoinformsubsequentphaseiiidecisions