Abstract:Clinical Trials, Ahead of Print. Background:Randomized controlled trials offer the best design for eliminating bias in estimating treatment effects but can be slow and costly in rare disease research. Additionally, an equal randomization approach may not be optimal in studies in which prior evidence of superiority of one or more treatments exist. Supplementing prospectively enrolled, concurrent controls with historical controls can reduce recruitment requirements and provide patients a higher likelihood of enrolling in a new and possibly superior treatment arm. Appropriate methods need to be employed to ensure comparability of concurrent and historical controls to minimize bias and variability in the treatment effect estimates and reduce the chances of drawing incorrect conclusions regarding treatment benefit.Methods:MILES was a phase III placebo-controlled trial employing 1:1 randomization that led to US Food and Drug Administration approval of sirolimus for treating patients with lymphangioleiomyomatosis. We re-analyzed the MILES trial data to learn whether substituting concurrent controls with controls from a historical registry could have accelerated subject enrollment while leading to similar study conclusions. We used propensity score matching to identify exchangeable historical controls from a registry balancing the baseline characteristics of the two control groups. This allowed more new patients to be assigned to the sirolimus arm. We used trial data and simulations to estimate key outcomes under an array of alternative designs.Results:Borrowing information from historical controls would have allowed the trial to enroll fewer concurrent controls while leading to the same conclusion reached in the trial. Simulations showed similar statistical performance for borrowing as for the actual trial design without producing type I error inflation and preserving power for the same study size when concurrent and historical controls are comparable.Conclusion:Substituting concurrent controls with propensity score–matched historical controls can allow more prospectively enrolled patients to be assigned to the active treatment and enable the trial to be conducted with smaller overall sample size, while maintaining covariate balance and study power and minimizing bias in response estimation. This approach does not fully eliminate the concern that introducing non-randomized historical controls in a trial may lead to bias in estimating treatment effects, and should be carefully considered on a case-by-case basis. Borrowing historical controls is best suited when conducting randomized controlled trials with conventional designs is challenging, as in rare disease research. High-quality data on covariates and outcomes must be available for candidate historical controls to ensure the validity of these designs. Additional precautions are needed to maintain blinding of the treatment assignment and to ensure comparability in the assessment of treatment safety.MILES ClinicalTrials.gov Number: NCT00414648.

Dynamic borrowing of historical controls adjusting for covariates in vaccine efficacy clinical trials

Dynamic borrowing from historical controls via the synthetic prior with covariates in randomized clinical trials

Adaptive Hybrid Control Design for Comparative Clinical Trials with Historical Control Data

BASIC: A Bayesian Adaptive Synthetic-Control Design for Phase II Clinical Trials.

Digital twins and Bayesian dynamic borrowing: Two recent approaches for incorporating historical control data

A scaled kernel density estimation prior for dynamic borrowing of historical information with application to clinical trial design

Efficient nonparametric inference on the effects of stochastic interventions under two-phase sampling, with applications to vaccine efficacy trials

Elastic Meta-Analytic-predictive Prior for Dynamically Borrowing Information from Historical Data with Application to Biosimilar Clinical Trials.

Robust incorporation of historical information with known type I error rate inflation

Deep historical borrowing framework to prospectively and simultaneously synthesize control information in confirmatory clinical trials with multiple endpoints

Covariate adjustment in Bayesian adaptive randomized controlled trials

Bayesian Prognostic Covariate Adjustment With Additive Mixture Priors

Incorporating Historical Information to Improve Phase I Clinical Trials

A Bayesian Group Sequential Design for Randomized Biosimilar Clinical Trials with Adaptive Information Borrowing from Historical Data

Potential Bias Models With Bayesian Shrinkage Priors for Dynamic Borrowing of Multiple Historical Control Data

An Empirical Likelihood Approach to Nonparametric Covariate Adjustment in Randomized Clinical Trials

Quantifying Efficiency Gains of Innovative Designs of Two-Arm Vaccine Trials for COVID-19 Using an Epidemic Simulation Model

Accelerate Vaccine Development Using Seamless Phase 2/3 Trial Designs

Dynamic use of historical controls in clinical trials for rare disease research: A re-evaluation of the MILES trial

Two assumptions of the prior event rate ratio approach for controlling confounding can be evaluated by self-controlled case series and dynamic random intercept modelling

Assessing efficacy in important subgroups in confirmatory trials: An example using Bayesian dynamic borrowing