Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Evaluating Poolability of Continuous and Binary Endpoints Across Centers Roseann White Clin/Reg Felllow Abbott Vascular – Cardiac Therapies.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Evaluating Poolability of Continuous and Binary Endpoints Across Centers Roseann White Clin/Reg Felllow Abbott Vascular – Cardiac Therapies."— Presentation transcript:

1 Evaluating Poolability of Continuous and Binary Endpoints Across Centers Roseann White Clin/Reg Felllow Abbott Vascular – Cardiac Therapies

2 Evaluating Poolability 09/29/2006 2Company Confidential © 2006 Abbott Background MA in Statistics from UC Berkeley 2 nd Generation statistician (My mother specialized in econometrics, i.e. statistics for economics) 15 years as professional statistician in the Biotechnology industry providing statistical support for research, analytical method development, diagnostics, clinical, and manufacturing Favorite Quote: Statisticians speak for the data when the data cant speak for themselves

3 Evaluating Poolability 09/29/2006 3Company Confidential © 2006 Abbott Evaluating Poolability across Centers Key Issues Current Methods Proposed alternative method Potential Bayesian approach

4 Evaluating Poolability 09/29/2006 4Company Confidential © 2006 Abbott Key Issues Centers are not chosen at random –Sponsors try to include centers that will represent the patient population across the geography –Often there are no centers or centers that receive very few of the type of patients needed Clinical Trials tend to initiate more centers than they potentially need –Accelerate enrollment –Involve Key Opinion leaders –Provide visibility to product In device trials, its often difficult to blind the clinician to the product being used.

5 Evaluating Poolability 09/29/2006 5Company Confidential © 2006 Abbott Key Issues Assessing poolability is rarely discussed prospectively from both a clinical as well as statistical perspective –No definition of what a clinical meaningful difference among sites –When assessing poolability for centers with a small number of patients, should they be combined Based on size of center? Based on what geographical region the center is located? Based on standard practices?

6 Evaluating Poolability 09/29/2006 6Company Confidential © 2006 Abbott Current Methodology Centers that have less than a pre-specified number of patients are combined into a center The interaction effect between center and treatment is tested: If the p-value is greater than a pre-specified value, then there is evidence of the lack of poolability of the sites

7 Evaluating Poolability 09/29/2006 7Company Confidential © 2006 Abbott Challenges to the current methodology Reflexive – does not take into consideration whether a clinically meaningful interaction would be detected Combination of all the smaller sites may dilute regional differences What p-value does one choose? –<0.05 to only pick up extreme differences. i.e. increase specificity and decrease sensitivity –>0.05 so to increase the sensitivity but decrease the specificity

8 Evaluating Poolability 09/29/2006 8Company Confidential © 2006 Abbott Proposed alternative Process Prospectively define what a clinical meaningful interaction Determine sample size necessary to detect difference Site 1Site 2 Measure

9 Evaluating Poolability 09/29/2006 9Company Confidential © 2006 Abbott Proposed Alternative Process (cont) Combine smaller centers (where enrollment is too low to detect differences) with larger similar centers where simliar is pre- specified –Geographical similar (same country or region) –Same patient population (urban vs. rural) –Same standard practices (con-committment medication use) If center groupings are still too small – use bootstrap method of resampling to get the appropriate number from each site

10 Evaluating Poolability 09/29/2006 10Company Confidential © 2006 Abbott Example – Binary Endpoint Primary endpoint – non-inferiority in oputcome rate –Assumptions T1=9%, T2=9%, margin=5% –N=1400 Clinical Meaningful interaction between treatment groups: –If the difference between the treatment group varies more than twice the non-inferiority margin Minimum grouping size=150;

11 Evaluating Poolability 09/29/2006 11Company Confidential © 2006 Abbott Bootstrap Use bootstrap when –Actual possible group size is lower than needed –Actual possible group size is greater than needed Simulation results Limitations –For Binary outcomes, grouping sizes less than 50 can lead to misleading results NActual Grouping Size Needed Grouping Size % p<0.05 1000251500.15 501500.09 1001500.054

12 Evaluating Poolability 09/29/2006 12Company Confidential © 2006 Abbott Does Bayesian play a role in determining poolability? Modify the approach presented by Jen-Pei Liu, et. al. in A Bayesian noninferiority approach to evaluation of bridging studies J Biopharm Stat. 2004 May;14(2):291-300. Step 1: Develop a prior based on the treatment difference based on largest center grouping Step 2: Use the data from the next largest center grouping and prior distribution to obtain the mean and variability of the posterior distribution Step 3: Evaluate the posterior probability that difference is greater or equal to some clinically acceptable limit Step 4: If the posterior probability is sufficiently large, say 80%, then conclude the similarity between the two center groupings. Step 5: Repeat the same process with next center grouping.

13 Evaluating Poolability 09/29/2006 13Company Confidential © 2006 Abbott Conclusion Pre-specify clinical meaningful difference up front Group smaller sites by commonalities not size If group size is smaller or much larger than needed – potential solution is using bootstrap but need more investigation Explore bayesian approach to evaluating poolability.


Download ppt "Evaluating Poolability of Continuous and Binary Endpoints Across Centers Roseann White Clin/Reg Felllow Abbott Vascular – Cardiac Therapies."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google