Dataset Information

Improving the analysis of composite endpoints in rare disease trials.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Composite endpoints are recommended in rare diseases to increase power and/or to sufficiently capture complexity. Often, they are in the form of responder indices which contain a mixture of continuous and binary components. Analyses of these outcomes typically treat them as binary, thus only using the dichotomisations of continuous components. The augmented binary method offers a more efficient alternative and is therefore especially useful for rare diseases. Previous work has indicated the method may have poorer statistical properties when the sample size is small. Here we investigate small sample properties and implement small sample corrections.

Methods

We re-sample from a previous trial with sample sizes varying from 30 to 80. We apply the standard binary and augmented binary methods and determine the power, type I error rate, coverage and average confidence interval width for each of the estimators. We implement Firth's adjustment for the binary component models and a small sample variance correction for the generalized estimating equations, applying the small sample adjusted methods to each sub-sample as before for comparison.

Results

For the log-odds treatment effect the power of the augmented binary method is 20-55% compared to 12-20% for the standard binary method. Both methods have approximately nominal type I error rates. The difference in response probabilities exhibit similar power but both unadjusted methods demonstrate type I error rates of 6-8%. The small sample corrected methods have approximately nominal type I error rates. On both scales, the reduction in average confidence interval width when using the adjusted augmented binary method is 17-18%. This is equivalent to requiring a 32% smaller sample size to achieve the same statistical power.

Conclusions

The augmented binary method with small sample corrections provides a substantial improvement for rare disease trials using composite endpoints. We recommend the use of the method for the primary analysis in relevant rare disease trials. We emphasise that the method should be used alongside other efforts in improving the quality of evidence generated from rare disease trials rather than replace them.

SUBMITTER: McMenamin M

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5964664 | biostudies-literature | 2018 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Improving the analysis of composite endpoints in rare disease trials.

McMenamin Martina M Berglind Anna A Wason James M S JMS

Orphanet journal of rare diseases 20180522 1

<h4>Background</h4>Composite endpoints are recommended in rare diseases to increase power and/or to sufficiently capture complexity. Often, they are in the form of responder indices which contain a mixture of continuous and binary components. Analyses of these outcomes typically treat them as binary, thus only using the dichotomisations of continuous components. The augmented binary method offers a more efficient alternative and is therefore especially useful for rare diseases. Previous work has ...[more]

PMID: 29788976

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWhen assessing the efficacy of a treatment in any clinical trial, it is recommended by the International Conference on Harmonisation to select a single meaningful endpoint. However, a single endpoint is often not sufficient to reflect the full clinical benefit of a treatment in multifaceted diseases, which is often the case in rare diseases. Therefore, the use of a combination of several clinically meaningful outcomes is preferred. Many methodologies that allow for combining outcomes in a so-called composite endpoint are however limited in a number of ways, not in the least in the number and type of outcomes that can be combined and in the poor small-sample properties. Moreover, patient reported outcomes, such as quality of life, often cannot be integrated in a composite analysis, in spite of their intrinsic value.ResultsRecently, a class of non-parametric generalized pairwise comparisons tests have been proposed, which members do allow for any number and type of outcomes, including patient reported outcomes. The class enjoys good small-sample properties. Moreover, this very flexible class of methods allows for prioritizing the outcomes by clinical severity, allows for matched designs and for adding a threshold of clinical relevance. Our aim is to introduce the generalized pairwise comparison ideas and concepts for rare disease clinical trial analysis, and demonstrate their benefit in a post-hoc analysis of a small-sample trial in epidermolysis bullosa. More precisely, we will include a patient relevant outcome (Quality of life), in a composite endpoint. This publication is part of the European Joint Programme on Rare Diseases (EJP RD) series on innovative methodologies for rare diseases clinical trials, which is based on the webinars presented within the educational activity of EJP RD. This publication covers the webinar topic on composite endpoints in rare diseases and includes participants' response to a questionnaire on this topic.ConclusionsGeneralized pairwise comparisons is a promising statistical methodology for evaluating any type of composite endpoints in rare disease trials and may allow a better evaluation of therapy efficacy including patients reported outcomes in addition to outcomes related to the diseases signs and symptoms.

Project description:PurposeThere have been concerns that short-term clinical trials for evaluating new treatments in glaucoma would require prohibitively large sample sizes when using visual field endpoints, given that glaucoma is often a slowly progressive disease. This study sought to determine the required sample size for such trials using event-based analyses, and whether it can be reduced using trend-based analyses.DesignLongitudinal, observational study.Participants321 eyes of 240 glaucoma participants followed under routine clinical care using 242 visual field for an average of 10 years.MethodsSample size requirements were derived using computer simulations that reconstructed "real-world" visual fields by combining estimates of point-wise variability according to different threshold levels and rates of change obtained from the clinical glaucoma cohort. A clinical trial lasting 2 years with testing every 3 months was simulated, assuming that the new treatment halted visual field change in various percentages of participants (or "responders"). Treatment efficacy was evaluated by: (a) Difference in incidence of point-wise event-based progression (similar to the commercially available Guided Progression Analysis), and (b) Difference in rate of visual field mean deviation (MD) change between groups using linear mixed models (LMMs).Main outcome measuresSample size to detect a statistically significance difference between groups.ResultsBetween-group trend-based analyses using LMMs reduced sample size requirements by 85-90% across the range of new treatment effects when compared to the conventional point-wise event-based analysis. To detect the effect of a new treatment that halted progression in 30% of the participants under routine clinical care (equal to a 30% reduction in average rate of MD change) with 90% power, for example, 1924 participants would be required per group using event-based analysis, but only 277 participants per group if LMMs were used.ConclusionsThe feasibility of future glaucoma clinical trials can be substantially improved by evaluating differences in the rate of visual field change between groups.

Dataset Information

Improving the analysis of composite endpoints in rare disease trials.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Improving the analysis of composite endpoints in rare disease trials.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets