Exploratory analyses of clinical trial data used for health technology assessments: a retrospective evaluation

Author:

Oddens Björn JORCID,Agaku Israel TORCID,Snyder Ellen SORCID,Malbecq William,Wang William WB,Kaplan Karen M,Koch Gary G,Rockhold Frank WORCID

Abstract

ObjectivesTo examine the validity and statistical limitations of exploratory analyses of clinical trial data commonly requested by agencies responsible for determining which medical products may be financed or reimbursed by a healthcare system.DesignThis was a retrospective review of efficacy and safety analyses conducted for German Health Technology Assessment (HTA) evaluations with a decision date between 2015 and 2020, and an illustrative safety-related exploratory analysis of data from two phase III clinical trials of verubecestat (an anti-amyloid drug whose development was stopped for lack of efficacy) as would be mandated by the German HTA agency.ResultsWe identified 422 HTA evaluations of 404 randomised controlled clinical trials. For 140 trials (34.7%), the evaluation was based on subpopulations of participants in the originating confirmatory trial (175 subpopulations were assessed). In 57% (100 of 175), the subpopulation sample size was 50% or less of the original study population. Detailed analysis of five evaluations based on subpopulations of the original trial is presented. The safety-related exploratory analysis of verubecestat led to 206 statistical analyses for treatments and 812 treatment-by-subgroup interaction tests. Of 31 safety endpoints with an elevated HR (suggesting association with drug treatment), the HR for 81% of these (25 of 31) was not elevated in both trials. Of the 812 treatment-by-subgroup interactions evaluated, 26 had an elevated HR for a subgroup in one trial, but only 1 was elevated in both trials.ConclusionsMany HTA evaluations rely on subpopulation analyses and numerous post hoc statistical hypothesis tests. Subpopulation analysis may lead to loss of statistical power and uncontrolled influences of random imbalances. Multiple testing may introduce spurious findings. Decisions about benefits of medical products should therefore not rely on exploratory analyses of clinical trial data but rather on prospective clinical studies and careful synthesis of all available evidence based on prespecified criteria.

Publisher

BMJ

Subject

General Medicine

Reference27 articles.

1. Friedman LM , DeMets DL , Furberg CD , et al . Fundamentals of clinical trials. 5th Edition. Springer International Publishing, 2015.

2. Clinical Trials: Discerning Hype From Substance

3. Gemeinsamer Bundesausschuss . Anlage II.6: Modul 4 – Medizinischer Nutzen und medizinischer Zusatznutzen, Patientengruppen mit therapeutisch bedeutsamem Zusatznutzen. Available: www.g-ba.de/downloads/17-98-4825/2019-02-21_Anl2_6_Modul4.pdf [Accessed Jun 2021].

4. NICE health technology evaluations: the manual. Available: https://www.nice.org.uk/process/pmg36/resources/nice-health-technology-evaluations-the-manual-pdf-72286779244741 [Accessed Mar 2022].

5. Choices in methods for economic evaluation – HAS. Available: https://www.has-sante.fr/jcms/p_3216041/en/methodological-guidance-2020-choices-in-methods-for-economic-evaluation [Accessed Mar 2022].

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3