Cargando…

Including historical data in the analysis of clinical trials: Is it worth the effort?

Data of previous trials with a similar setting are often available in the analysis of clinical trials. Several Bayesian methods have been proposed for including historical data as prior information in the analysis of the current trial, such as the (modified) power prior, the (robust) meta-analytic-p...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: van Rosmalen, Joost, Dejardin, David, van Norden, Yvette, Löwenberg, Bob, Lesaffre, Emmanuel
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: SAGE Publications 2017
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6176344/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28322129
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0962280217694506
_version_ 1783361684634599424
author van Rosmalen, Joost
Dejardin, David
van Norden, Yvette
Löwenberg, Bob
Lesaffre, Emmanuel
author_facet van Rosmalen, Joost
Dejardin, David
van Norden, Yvette
Löwenberg, Bob
Lesaffre, Emmanuel
author_sort van Rosmalen, Joost
collection PubMed
description Data of previous trials with a similar setting are often available in the analysis of clinical trials. Several Bayesian methods have been proposed for including historical data as prior information in the analysis of the current trial, such as the (modified) power prior, the (robust) meta-analytic-predictive prior, the commensurate prior and methods proposed by Pocock and Murray et al. We compared these methods and illustrated their use in a practical setting, including an assessment of the comparability of the current and the historical data. The motivating data set consists of randomised controlled trials for acute myeloid leukaemia. A simulation study was used to compare the methods in terms of bias, precision, power and type I error rate. Methods that estimate parameters for the between-trial heterogeneity generally offer the best trade-off of power, precision and type I error, with the meta-analytic-predictive prior being the most promising method. The results show that it can be feasible to include historical data in the analysis of clinical trials, if an appropriate method is used to estimate the heterogeneity between trials, and the historical data satisfy criteria for comparability.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6176344
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2017
publisher SAGE Publications
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-61763442018-10-15 Including historical data in the analysis of clinical trials: Is it worth the effort? van Rosmalen, Joost Dejardin, David van Norden, Yvette Löwenberg, Bob Lesaffre, Emmanuel Stat Methods Med Res Articles Data of previous trials with a similar setting are often available in the analysis of clinical trials. Several Bayesian methods have been proposed for including historical data as prior information in the analysis of the current trial, such as the (modified) power prior, the (robust) meta-analytic-predictive prior, the commensurate prior and methods proposed by Pocock and Murray et al. We compared these methods and illustrated their use in a practical setting, including an assessment of the comparability of the current and the historical data. The motivating data set consists of randomised controlled trials for acute myeloid leukaemia. A simulation study was used to compare the methods in terms of bias, precision, power and type I error rate. Methods that estimate parameters for the between-trial heterogeneity generally offer the best trade-off of power, precision and type I error, with the meta-analytic-predictive prior being the most promising method. The results show that it can be feasible to include historical data in the analysis of clinical trials, if an appropriate method is used to estimate the heterogeneity between trials, and the historical data satisfy criteria for comparability. SAGE Publications 2017-02-21 2018-10 /pmc/articles/PMC6176344/ /pubmed/28322129 http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0962280217694506 Text en © The Author(s) 2017 http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/ This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 License (http://www.creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) which permits non-commercial use, reproduction and distribution of the work without further permission provided the original work is attributed as specified on the SAGE and Open Access pages (https://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/open-access-at-sage).
spellingShingle Articles
van Rosmalen, Joost
Dejardin, David
van Norden, Yvette
Löwenberg, Bob
Lesaffre, Emmanuel
Including historical data in the analysis of clinical trials: Is it worth the effort?
title Including historical data in the analysis of clinical trials: Is it worth the effort?
title_full Including historical data in the analysis of clinical trials: Is it worth the effort?
title_fullStr Including historical data in the analysis of clinical trials: Is it worth the effort?
title_full_unstemmed Including historical data in the analysis of clinical trials: Is it worth the effort?
title_short Including historical data in the analysis of clinical trials: Is it worth the effort?
title_sort including historical data in the analysis of clinical trials: is it worth the effort?
topic Articles
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6176344/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28322129
http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0962280217694506
work_keys_str_mv AT vanrosmalenjoost includinghistoricaldataintheanalysisofclinicaltrialsisitworththeeffort
AT dejardindavid includinghistoricaldataintheanalysisofclinicaltrialsisitworththeeffort
AT vannordenyvette includinghistoricaldataintheanalysisofclinicaltrialsisitworththeeffort
AT lowenbergbob includinghistoricaldataintheanalysisofclinicaltrialsisitworththeeffort
AT lesaffreemmanuel includinghistoricaldataintheanalysisofclinicaltrialsisitworththeeffort