RAMPART Statistical Analysis Plan Valerie Durkalski NETT Statistical and Data Management Center Department of Biostatistics, Bioinformatics & Epidemiology.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
A Flexible Two Stage Design in Active Control Non-inferiority Trials Gang Chen, Yong-Cheng Wang, and George Chi † Division of Biometrics I, CDER, FDA Qing.
Advertisements

MPS Research UnitCHEBS Workshop - April Anne Whitehead Medical and Pharmaceutical Statistics Research Unit The University of Reading Sample size.
Modified Megestrol The Clinical Trials by : Carolina R. Akib
Inference (CI / Tests) for Comparing 2 Proportions.
RAMPART Investigator Meeting Study Update 01/06/10.
Neurological Emergencies Treatment Trials Network RAMPART Overview Robert Silbergleit.
Sample Size Determination
Quantitative Business Methods for Decision Making Estimation and Testing of Hypotheses.
RANDOMIZED CLINICAL TRIALS. What is a randomized clinical trial?  Scientific investigations: examine and evaluate the safety and efficacy of new drugs.
Power and Non-Inferiority Richard L. Amdur, Ph.D. Chief, Biostatistics & Data Management Core, DC VAMC Assistant Professor, Depts. of Psychiatry & Surgery.
Statistical Analysis. Purpose of Statistical Analysis Determines whether the results found in an experiment are meaningful. Answers the question: –Does.
Basic Statistics in Clinical Research Slides created from article by Augustine Onyeaghala (MSc, PhD, PGDQA, PGDCR, MSQA,
1. Statistics: Learning from Samples about Populations Inference 1: Confidence Intervals What does the 95% CI really mean? Inference 2: Hypothesis Tests.
Sample Size Robert F. Woolson, Ph.D. Department of Biostatistics, Bioinformatics & Epidemiology Joint Curriculum.
Analysis of Clinical Trials with Multiple Outcomes Changchun Xie, PhD Assistant Professor of Biostatistics Division of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics.
BIOE 301 Lecture Seventeen. Guest Speaker Jay Brollier World Camp Malawi.
Week 8 Fundamentals of Hypothesis Testing: One-Sample Tests
8.1 Inference for a Single Proportion
Inference for a Single Population Proportion (p).
CI - 1 Cure Rate Models and Adjuvant Trial Design for ECOG Melanoma Studies in the Past, Present, and Future Joseph Ibrahim, PhD Harvard School of Public.
Biostatistics Case Studies 2015 Youngju Pak, PhD. Biostatistician Session 2: Sample Size & Power for Inequality and Equivalence Studies.
Background to Adaptive Design Nigel Stallard Professor of Medical Statistics Director of Health Sciences Research Institute Warwick Medical School
Budesonide/formoterol as effective as prednisolone plus formoterol in acute exacerbations of COPD A double-blind, randomised, non-inferiority, parallel-group,
Investigator Kickoff Meeting January Protocol Review, Part 1 Robert Silbergleit, MD.
Section Inference for Experiments Objectives: 1.To understand how randomization differs in surveys and experiments when comparing two populations.
Architecture Design of Generic Outcome Adjudication in CTMS Wenle Zhao, PhD Medical University of South Carolina, Charleston, SC, 29425, USA Society for.
Challenges of Non-Inferiority Trial Designs R. Sridhara, Ph.D.
What’s on the horizon? Peter Sandercock ESC Lisbon 23rd May 2012.
Maximum Likelihood Estimator of Proportion Let {s 1,s 2,…,s n } be a set of independent outcomes from a Bernoulli experiment with unknown probability.
Understanding real research 4. Randomised controlled trials.
Biostatistics Class 6 Hypothesis Testing: One-Sample Inference 2/29/2000.
Effectiveness: Overview of Current Approaches and Emerging Trial Designs Doug Taylor, PhD Director of Biostatistics Family Health International.
1 An Interim Monitoring Approach for a Small Sample Size Incidence Density Problem By: Shane Rosanbalm Co-author: Dennis Wallace.
Biostatistics in Practice Peter D. Christenson Biostatistician Session 1: Design and Fundamentals of Inference.
What is a non-inferiority trial, and what particular challenges do such trials present? Andrew Nunn MRC Clinical Trials Unit 20th February 2012.
Essential Question:  How do scientists use statistical analyses to draw meaningful conclusions from experimental results?
Department Author Bayesian Sample Size Determination in the Real World John Stevens AstraZeneca R&D Charnwood Tony O’Hagan University of Sheffield.
How confident are we in the estimation of mean/proportion we have calculated?
Section 10.1 Estimating with Confidence AP Statistics February 11 th, 2011.
Lecture 17 Dustin Lueker.  A way of statistically testing a hypothesis by comparing the data to values predicted by the hypothesis ◦ Data that fall far.
Equivalence Trials: Understanding the Statistical and Clinical Issues Christopher Cannon, M.D. C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. Brigham and Women’s HospitalBeth.
Biostatistics Case Studies 2006 Peter D. Christenson Biostatistician Session 1: Demonstrating Equivalence of Active Treatments:
1. Homework due Wed 2. Project Proposal due Friday
Copyright © 2013, 2009, and 2007, Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 10 Comparing Two Groups Section 10.1 Categorical Response: Comparing Two Proportions.
6.1 - One Sample One Sample  Mean μ, Variance σ 2, Proportion π Two Samples Two Samples  Means, Variances, Proportions μ 1 vs. μ 2.
Compliance Original Study Design Randomised Surgical care Medical care.
Session 6: Other Analysis Issues In this session, we consider various analysis issues that occur in practice: Incomplete Data: –Subjects drop-out, do not.
1 Pulminiq™ Cyclosporine Inhalation Solution Pulmonary Drug Advisory Committee Meeting June 6, 2005 Statistical Evaluation Statistical Evaluation Jyoti.
Copyright © 2015, 2012, and 2009 Pearson Education, Inc. 1 Chapter Hypothesis Testing with Two Samples 8.
What about VIOXX?. Adenomatous Polyp Prevention on Vioxx (APPROVe) Vioxx (rofecoxib) versus Placebo Basic Clinical Trial Objective: Assess whether Vioxx.
If we fail to reject the null when the null is false what type of error was made? Type II.
Introduction to Biostatistics, Harvard Extension School, Fall, 2005 © Scott Evans, Ph.D.1 Sample Size and Power Considerations.
Copyright © 2013, 2009, and 2007, Pearson Education, Inc. Chapter 10 Comparing Two Groups Section 10.3 Other Ways of Comparing Means and Comparing Proportions.
Clinical Trials 2015 Practical Session 2. Exercise I Normally Distributed Response Data H 0 :  = 0 H a :  =  a > 0 n=? α=0.05 (two-sided) β=0.20 
1 Chapter 6 SAMPLE SIZE ISSUES Ref: Lachin, Controlled Clinical Trials 2:93-113, 1981.
Biostatistics Case Studies 2006 Peter D. Christenson Biostatistician Session 1: Demonstrating Equivalence of Active Treatments:
Biostatistics Case Studies 2016 Youngju Pak, PhD. Biostatistician Session 2 Understanding Equivalence and Noninferiority testing.
An Introduction to Clinical Trials and Pharmaceutical Statistics Workshop Robbie Peck University of Bath Student-Led Symposia 16 th Feb 2016.
Biostatistics Support for Medical Student Research (MSR) Projects Allen Kunselman Division of Biostatistics and Bioinformatics Department of Public Health.
European Obesity Academy Assmannshausen 2016 Statistics; power calculation and randomization Johan Bring Statisticon AB.
Analytical Interventional Studies
Testing the Difference Between Proportions
Hypothesis Testing II: The Two-sample Case
Sample Size Estimation
Chapter 8: Inference for Proportions
Valerie Durkalski Medical University of South Carolina
Aiying Chen, Scott Patterson, Fabrice Bailleux and Ehab Bassily
Comparing Populations
Handling Missing Not at Random Data for Safety Endpoint in the Multiple Dose Titration Clinical Pharmacology Trial Li Fan*, Tian Zhao, Patrick Larson Merck.
Medical Statistics Exam Technique and Coaching, Part 2 Richard Kay Statistical Consultant RK Statistics Ltd 22/09/2019.
Presentation transcript:

RAMPART Statistical Analysis Plan Valerie Durkalski NETT Statistical and Data Management Center Department of Biostatistics, Bioinformatics & Epidemiology Medical University of South Carolina This award is funded with support of NINDS, BARDA and the NIH CounterACT program.

Study Design Parallel Arm (IV lorazepam/IM midazolam) Double-Blind Randomized Non-inferiority Study

Question 1 The FDA wants to see more non-inferiority studies conducted by investigators: A. True B. False

Question 1 The FDA wants to see more non-inferiority studies conducted by investigators: A. True B. False

Question 2 The primary goal of a non-inferiority study is to show that the efficacy of the experimental treatment is: A. ‘superior’ to that of the standard treatment (active control). B. ‘the same’ as that of the standard treatment. C. ‘no worse than’ that of the standard treatment. D. All of the above.

Question 2 The primary goal of a non-inferiority study is to show that the efficacy of the experimental treatment is: A. ‘superior’ to that of the standard treatment (active control). B. ‘the same’ as that of the standard treatment. C. ‘no worse than’ that of the standard treatment. D. All of the above.

Question 3 Researchers choose the non-inferiority study design because: A. Proving two treatments are ‘similar’ is simpler than proving two treatments are ‘different’. B. They need a smaller sample size. C. They do not think the efficacy of the new treatment is superior to the active control but the new treatment offers other superior qualities (safer, less cost, etc). D. All of the above.

Question 3 Researchers choose the non-inferiority study design because: A. Proving two treatments are ‘similar’ is simpler than proving two treatments are ‘different’. B. They need a smaller sample size. C. They do not think the efficacy of the new treatment is superior to the active control but the new treatment offers other superior qualities (safer, less cost, etc). D. All of the above.

Primary Objective To determine if the efficacy of IM midazolam is not less than the efficacy of IV lorazepam by more than a pre-specified absolute amount (i.e., the non-inferiority margin). Efficacy = % subjects with termination of seizure prior to ED arrival (p IM and p IV ).

Primary Analysis Test the difference between two independent binomial proportions (Dunnett & Gent, 1977; 1996). Reject the null (H0) if the 1-sided p-value is <  H 0 : p IM - p IV  -  (inferior) H A : p IM - p IV > -  (non-inferior)

Primary Analysis 0 -- Non-inferior Inferior (p IM – p IV )

Non-inferiority Margin Placebo IV Efficacy Scale IM Statistical & Clinical Judgment. Statistical: Retains at least a certain amount (at least 50%) of the superiority of the active control over placebo. = = PHTSE Trial: Fraction of the lower limit 0.38 (95% CI: 0.23, 0.52)  ≤ X(.23) where X=(1 -.5);  =.12.

Sample Size 1:1 Simple Randomization Scheme Assume p IV = 0.70  = One-sided alpha = Power = 80% Inflation factor = 15% (re-enrollers; drop outs)  800 subjects (400 per treatment arm)

Interim Analysis Two tests for futility of the primary efficacy outcome. 1/3 subjects reach primary outcome (N= 230). ~ ending Year 1 of enrollment (month 11).

Analysis Population Modified ITT: All subjects who are randomized; study box open and autoinjector in thigh. Missing Data: termination of seizure as determined by the ED attending physician is missing. 1.determined from the paramedic records; or, 2.determined from the hospital record.

RAMPART Safety Monitoring Plan

DSMB Reports Open and Closed Reports distributed by SDMC. –After first 10 randomized; 40 randomized; every 50 randomized. Open Reports (blinded): –Trial metrics plus safety (AE/SAE) summary tables –Distributed to DSMB, Trial Steering Committee. Closed Reports: –Open Report by treatment arm (A/B) –Detailed safety tables –Planned interim analysis when specified –Distributed to DSMB only.

AE/SAE Monitoring Monthly Reports to MSM and DSMB. By treatment group (A/B) and dose tier. Immediate report of death to MSM and DSMB.