Adversity Index for Clinical Trials: An Inclusive Approach for Analysis of Safety Data

Sharayu Paranjpe,Anil Gore

DOI: https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1806.00204

2018-06-01

Applications

Abstract:This paper proposes a new method for analysis of adverse event data in clinical trials. The method is illustrated by application to data on 4 phase III clinical trials, two on breast cancer and two on diabetes mellitus.

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Adverse events in single-arm clinical trials with non-fatal time-to-event efficacy endpoint: from clinical questions to methods for statistical analysis

Elena Tassistro,Davide Paolo Bernasconi,Maria Grazia Valsecchi,Laura Antolini

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-023-02123-z

2024-01-04

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Abstract:In any single-arm trial on novel treatments, assessment of toxicity plays an important role as occurrence of adverse events (AEs) is relevant for application in clinical practice. In the presence of a non-fatal time-to-event(s) efficacy endpoint, the analysis should be broadened to consider AEs occurrence in time.

health care sciences & services
Supplementary Data S2 from Proportional Hazards Violations in Phase III Cancer Clinical Trials: A Potential Source of Trial Misinterpretation

Timothy A. Lin,Zachary R. McCaw,Alex Koong,Christine Lin,Joseph Abi Jaoude,Roshal Patel,Ramez Kouzy,Molly B. El Alam,Alexander D. Sherry,Sonal S. Noticewala,Clifton D. Fuller,Charles R. Thomas,Ryan Sun,J. Jack Lee,Ruitao Lin,Ying Yuan,Yu Shyr,Tomer Meirson,Ethan B. Ludmir

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.27231439

2024-01-01

Abstract:Data Supplement S2: Reconstructed Kaplan-Meier graphs for trials exhibiting discordance between the trial result and RMST or MaxCombo-based analyses with proportional hazards violations (Section A) or without evidence of proportional hazards violations (Section B)
Supplementary Data S1 from Proportional Hazards Violations in Phase III Cancer Clinical Trials: A Potential Source of Trial Misinterpretation

Timothy A. Lin,Zachary R. McCaw,Alex Koong,Christine Lin,Joseph Abi Jaoude,Roshal Patel,Ramez Kouzy,Molly B. El Alam,Alexander D. Sherry,Sonal S. Noticewala,Clifton D. Fuller,Charles R. Thomas,Ryan Sun,J. Jack Lee,Ruitao Lin,Ying Yuan,Yu Shyr,Tomer Meirson,Ethan B. Ludmir

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.27231442

2024-01-01

Abstract:Data Supplement S1: Clinical context of trials from Table 3 with proportional hazards violations and discordant alternative survival assessments that were cited in NCCN guidelines or led to FDA drug approval.
Contribution of Clinical Trial Event Data by Data Source: A Prespecified Analysis of the ADAPTABLE Randomized Clinical Trial

Jennifer A Rymer,Hillary Mulder,Lisa M Wruck,Daniel Muñoz,Sunil Kripalani,Mark B Effron,Kamal Gupta,Eileen Handberg,Sandeep Jain,Saket Girotra,Jeffrey Whittle,Rachel Hess,Catherine P Benziger,Kirk U Knowlton,Lesley H Curtis,Matthew T Roe,Bradley G Hammill,Russell L Rothman,Robert Harrington,Adrian Hernandez,W Schuyler Jones

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1001/jamacardio.2024.2019

2024-09-01

Abstract:Importance: Pragmatic randomized clinical trials (RCTs) often use multiple data sources to examine clinical events, but the relative contribution of data sources to clinical end-point rates is understudied. Objective: To assess the contribution of data sources (electronic health records [EHRs], public/private insurance claims, and/or participant-reported data) to clinical end points among ADAPTABLE participants who had available data. Design, setting, and participants: The ADAPTABLE study was an open-label, pragmatic RCT from April 2016 through June 2019 conducted in research networks within clinical practice. Participants had existing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and available data to analyze. The characteristics of patients by combinations of data source availability were compared to examine the contribution of each of the data sources to end-point ascertainment. Data for this prespecified analysis were examined from January 2022 to June 2023. Exposures: Randomized exposure to 81 mg or 325 mg of aspirin daily. Main outcomes and measures: Number of events for the primary end point (composite of death, hospitalization for myocardial infarction, and hospitalization for stroke) that were contributed by EHR or claims data and then number of events contributed by each additional data source. Results: Of 15 006 participants randomized with at least 1 other source of data available beyond participant-reported data, there were 8756 (58.3%) with participant-reported and EHR data; 4291 (28.6%) with participant-reported, EHR, and claims data; 1412 (9.4%) with EHR-only data; 262 (1.7%) with participant-reported and claims data; 202 (1.3%) with EHR and claims data; and 83 (0.6%) with claims-only data. Participants with EHR-only data were younger (median age, 63.7 years; IQR, 55.8-71.4) compared with the other groups (range, 65.6-71.9 years). Among participants with both EHR and claims data, with or without participant-reported data (n = 4493), for each outcome, most events (92%-100%) were identified in the EHR or in claims data. For all clinical end points, participant-reported data contributed less than 10% of events not otherwise available from claims or EHR data. Conclusions and relevance: In this analysis of a pragmatic RCT, claims and EHR data provided the most clinical end-point data when compared with participant-reported events. These findings provide a framework for collecting end points in pragmatic clinical trials. Further work is needed to understand the data source combinations that most effectively provide clinical end-point data in RCTs.
Supplementary Data S3 from Proportional Hazards Violations in Phase III Cancer Clinical Trials: A Potential Source of Trial Misinterpretation

Timothy A. Lin,Zachary R. McCaw,Alex Koong,Christine Lin,Joseph Abi Jaoude,Roshal Patel,Ramez Kouzy,Molly B. El Alam,Alexander D. Sherry,Sonal S. Noticewala,Clifton D. Fuller,Charles R. Thomas,Ryan Sun,J. Jack Lee,Ruitao Lin,Ying Yuan,Yu Shyr,Tomer Meirson,Ethan B. Ludmir

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.27231436

2024-01-01

Abstract:Data Supplement S3: Framework for implementation of proportional hazards violation assessment and alternative assessments that do not depend upon the assumption of proportional hazards.
BASIC: A Bayesian Adaptive Synthetic-Control Design for Phase II Clinical Trials.

Liyun Jiang,Peter F. Thall,Fangrong Yan,Scott Kopetz,Ying Yuan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/17407745231176445

2023-01-01

Clinical Trials

Abstract:BACKGROUND:Randomized controlled trials are considered the gold standard for evaluating experimental treatments but often require large sample sizes. Single-arm trials require smaller sample sizes but are subject to bias when using historical control data for comparative inferences. This article presents a Bayesian adaptive synthetic-control design that exploits historical control data to create a hybrid of a single-arm trial and a randomized controlled trial.METHODS:The Bayesian adaptive synthetic control design has two stages. In stage 1, a prespecified number of patients are enrolled in a single arm given the experimental treatment. Based on the stage 1 data, applying propensity score matching and Bayesian posterior prediction methods, the usefulness of the historical control data for identifying a pseudo sample of matched synthetic-control patients for making comparative inferences is evaluated. If a sufficient number of synthetic controls can be identified, the single-arm trial is continued. If not, the trial is switched to a randomized controlled trial. The performance of The Bayesian adaptive synthetic control design is evaluated by computer simulation.RESULTS:The Bayesian adaptive synthetic control design achieves power and unbiasedness similar to a randomized controlled trial but on average requires a much smaller sample size, provided that the historical control data patients are sufficiently comparable to the trial patients so that a good number of matched controls can be identified in the historical control data. Compared to a single-arm trial, The Bayesian adaptive synthetic control design yields much higher power and much smaller bias.CONCLUSION:The Bayesian adaptive synthetic-control design provides a useful tool for exploiting historical control data to improve the efficiency of single-arm phase II clinical trials, while addressing the problem of bias when comparing trial results to historical control data. The proposed design achieves power similar to a randomized controlled trial but may require a substantially smaller sample size.
Supplementary Table S3 from Proportional Hazards Violations in Phase III Cancer Clinical Trials: A Potential Source of Trial Misinterpretation

Timothy A. Lin,Zachary R. McCaw,Alex Koong,Christine Lin,Joseph Abi Jaoude,Roshal Patel,Ramez Kouzy,Molly B. El Alam,Alexander D. Sherry,Sonal S. Noticewala,Clifton D. Fuller,Charles R. Thomas,Ryan Sun,J. Jack Lee,Ruitao Lin,Ying Yuan,Yu Shyr,Tomer Meirson,Ethan B. Ludmir

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.27231412

2024-01-01

Abstract:Table S3: List of 341 trials included in the overall analysis. ADT, androgen deprivation therapy; mFOLFOX, folinic acid, fluorouracil, and oxaliplatin; FOLFIRI, folinic acid, fluorouracil, irinotecan; GM-CSF, granulocyte-macrophage colony-stimulating factor; R-DHAP; rituximab, dexamethasone, cytarabine, cisplatin; O-DHAP; ofatumumab, dexamethasone, cytarabine, cisplatin; EDP, etoposide doxorubicin cisplatin; G-CHOP, obintuzumab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin hydrochloride, vincristine, prednisone; RCHOP, rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin hydrochloride, vincristine, prednisone; VR-CAP, rituximab, cyclophosphamide, doxorubicin, and prednisone with bortezomib; AC, Adriamycin with cyclophosphamide; T, paclitaxel; XT, capecitabine plus paclitaxel; GIST, gastrointestinal stromal tumor; IFN, interferon; 5FU, 5-fluorouracil; FA, folinic acid; recMAGE-A3, recombinant MAGE A-3; NGR-Htnf, NGR–human tumor necrosis factor; TACE, trans-arterial chemoembolization; T-DM1, Trastuzumab emtansine; Mf, mitomycin-C and fluoropyrimidine; iceMFP, intraperitoneal cisplatin (100 mg), intravenous mitomycin-C (15 mg/m(2)) on postoperative day 1, followed by oral doxifluridine for 12 months, and six monthly intravenous cisplatin (60 mg/m(2); RFA, radiofrequency ablation.
Using Data Augmentation to Facilitate Conduct of Phase I-Ii Clinical Trials with Delayed Outcomes

Ick Hoon Jin,Suyu Liu,Peter F. Thall,Ying Yuan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/01621459.2014.881740

IF: 4.369

2014-01-01

Journal of the American Statistical Association

Abstract:A practical impediment in adaptive clinical trials is that outcomes must be observed soon enough to apply decision rules to choose treatments for new patients. For example, if outcomes take up to six weeks to evaluate and the accrual rate is one patient per week, on average three new patients will be accrued while waiting to evaluate the outcomes of the previous three patients. The question is how to treat the new patients. This logistical problem persists throughout the trial. Various ad hoc practical solutions are used, none entirely satisfactory. We focus on this problem in phase I-II clinical trials that use binary toxicity and efficacy, defined in terms of event times, to choose doses adaptively for successive cohorts. We propose a general approach to this problem that treats late-onset outcomes as missing data, uses data augmentation to impute missing outcomes from posterior predictive distributions computed from partial follow-up times and complete outcome data, and applies the design's decision rules using the completed data. We illustrate the method with two cancer trials conducted using a phase I-II design based on efficacy-toxicity trade-offs, including a computer stimulation study. Supplementary materials for this article are available online.
Adaptive designs in clinical trials: a systematic review-part I

Mohamed Ben-Eltriki,Aisha Rafiq,Arun Paul,Devashree Prabhu,Michael O. S. Afolabi,Robert Baslhaw,Christine J Neilson,Michelle Driedger,Salaheddin M Mahmud,Thierry Lacaze-Masmonteil,Susan Marlin,Martin Offringa,Nancy Butcher,Anna Heath,Lauren E Kelly

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-024-02272-9

2024-10-05

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Abstract:Adaptive designs (ADs) are intended to make clinical trials more flexible, offering efficiency and potentially cost-saving benefits. Despite a large number of statistical methods in the literature on different adaptations to trials, the characteristics, advantages and limitations of such designs remain unfamiliar to large parts of the clinical and research community. This systematic review provides an overview of the use of ADs in published clinical trials (Part I). A follow-up (Part II) will compare the application of AD in trials in adult and pediatric studies, to provide real-world examples and recommendations for the child health community.

health care sciences & services
A Calibrated Power Prior Approach to Borrow Information from Historical Data with Application to Biosimilar Clinical Trials.

Haitao Pan,Ying Yuan,Jielai Xia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/rssc.12204

2016-01-01

Abstract:SummaryA biosimilar product refers to a follow-on biologic that is intended to be approved for marketing on the basis of biosimilarity to an existing patented biological product (i.e. the reference product). To develop a biosimilar product, it is essential to demonstrate biosimilarity between the follow-on biologic and the reference product, typically through two-arm randomization trials. We propose a Bayesian adaptive design for trials to evaluate biosimilar products. To take advantage of the abundant historical data on the efficacy of the reference product that is typically available at the time that a biosimilar product is developed, we propose the calibrated power prior, which allows our design to borrow information adaptively from the historical data according to the congruence between the historical data and the new data collected from the current trial. We propose a new measure, the Bayesian biosimilarity index, to measure the similarity between the biosimilar product and the reference product. During the trial, we evaluate the Bayesian biosimilarity index in a group sequential fashion on the basis of the accumulating interim data and stop the trial early once there is enough information to conclude or reject the similarity. Extensive simulation studies show that the design proposed has higher power than traditional designs. We applied the design to a biosimilar trial for treating rheumatoid arthritis.
Exploring the Landscape of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor-Induced Adverse Events Through Big Data Mining of Pan-Cancer Clinical Trials

Muhammad Zaki Hidayatullah Fadlullah,Ching-Nung Lin,Samuel Coleman,Arabella Young,Abdul Rafeh Naqash,Siwen Hu-Lieskovan,Aik Choon Tan

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oncolo/oyae012

2024-02-08

The Oncologist

Abstract:Abstract Purpose Immune checkpoint inhibitors (ICIs) have significantly improved the survival of patients with cancer and provided long-term durable benefit. However, ICI-treated patients develop a range of toxicities known as immune-related adverse events (irAEs), which could compromise clinical benefits from these treatments. As the incidence and spectrum of irAEs differs across cancer types and ICI agents, it is imperative to characterize the incidence and spectrum of irAEs in a pan-cancer cohort to aid clinical management. Design We queried >400 000 trials registered at ClinicalTrials.gov and retrieved a comprehensive pan-cancer database of 71 087 ICI-treated participants from 19 cancer types and 7 ICI agents. We performed data harmonization and cleaning of these trial results into 293 harmonized adverse event categories using Medical Dictionary for Regulatory Activities. Results We developed irAExplorer (https://irae.tanlab.org), an interactive database that focuses on adverse events in patients administered with ICIs from big data mining. irAExplorer encompasses 71 087 distinct clinical trial participants from 343 clinical trials across 19 cancer types with well-annotated ICI treatment regimens and harmonized adverse event categories. We demonstrated a few of the irAE analyses through irAExplorer and highlighted some associations between treatment- or cancer-specific irAEs. Conclusion The irAExplorer is a user-friendly resource that offers exploration, validation, and discovery of treatment- or cancer-specific irAEs across pan-cancer cohorts. We envision that irAExplorer can serve as a valuable resource to cross-validate users’ internal datasets to increase the robustness of their findings.

oncology
Integrative Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trial and Observational Study Data to Inform Post-marketing Safety Decision-Making

Li-An Lin,Yafei Zhang,Walter Straus,William Wang

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s43441-021-00349-x

2022-02-09

Abstract:Safety evaluation is a continual and iterative process throughout the drug development life cycle and requires long time horizons and large amounts of data to fully understand the safety profile of a medical product. Although randomized clinical trials (RCT) provide high-quality data for an initial assessment of safety signals, the safety signals may not all have been known at the time of approval because safety data collected from RCT only involve a relatively small number of subjects during a relatively short follow-up period. The increased accumulation of post-marketing real-world data (RWD) presents an opportunity to utilize them for safety decision-making; these include identifying new safety signals, further characterization of safety concerns that are raised in pre-marketing RCT, and further generalization of RCT findings to the broader patient populations not previously studied in RCT. In this paper, we use cardiovascular safety outcome trial for antidiabetic therapies as an illustrative example and discuss how integrative analysis of RCT and observational study data can answer regulatory concerns about cardiovascular risk in a post-marketing setting. A novel statistical analysis strategy is proposed to combine both sources of safety data in a data fusion approach. The proposed approach includes three stages: (1) feasibility analysis that uses an RCT to validate an observational study, applying estimand framework and emulating RCT with RWD; (2) integrative analysis that combines evidence from the RCT and observational study data cooperatively; and (3) sensitivity analysis that examines the consistency of the previous analyses. Two potential utilities of the proposed integrative analysis for the cardiovascular safety outcome trial are discussed.

pharmacology & pharmacy,medical informatics
Supplementary Table S1 from Proportional Hazards Violations in Phase III Cancer Clinical Trials: A Potential Source of Trial Misinterpretation

Timothy A. Lin,Zachary R. McCaw,Alex Koong,Christine Lin,Joseph Abi Jaoude,Roshal Patel,Ramez Kouzy,Molly B. El Alam,Alexander D. Sherry,Sonal S. Noticewala,Clifton D. Fuller,Charles R. Thomas,Ryan Sun,J. Jack Lee,Ruitao Lin,Ying Yuan,Yu Shyr,Tomer Meirson,Ethan B. Ludmir

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1158/1078-0432.27231418

2024-01-01

Abstract:Table S1: Sensitivity analyses of univariable and multivariable logistic regressions using only overall survival (OS) comparisons for trials with co-primary endpoints (PEPs).
Adverse events in the digital age and where to find them

Robert Di Giovanni,Andrew Cochrane,Jeremy Parker,David J. Lewis

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/pds.5532

2022-08-24

Pharmacoepidemiology and Drug Safety

Abstract:Exponential growth of health‐related data collected by digital tools is a reality within pharmaceutical and medical device research and development. Data generated through digital tools may be categorized as relevant to efficacy and/or safety. The enormity of these data requires the adoption of new approaches for processing and evaluation. Recognition of patterns within the safety data is vital for sponsors seeking regulatory approval for their new products. Non‐traditional data sources may contain relevant safety information; early evaluation of these data will help to determine the product safety profile. Advanced technologies have allowed the development of digital tools to screen these data, which in some situations are classified as software as a medical devices and subject to clinical evaluation and post‐marketing surveillance. Artificial intelligence may help to reduce or even eliminate noise from within these data, allowing safety experts to focus on the most pertinent evidence. We propose a data typology and provide considerations on how to define adverse events within different types of data, even where no human reporter exists. Proposals are made for the automation of screening processes. We consider validation aspects to support solutions that are proven to produce reliable results, and to deliver trusted outputs to stakeholders.

pharmacology & pharmacy,public, environmental & occupational health
A data science approach to drug safety: Semantic and visual mining of adverse drug events from clinical trials of pain treatments

Jean-Baptiste Lamy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.artmed.2021.102074

IF: 7.011

2021-05-01

Artificial Intelligence in Medicine

Abstract:Clinical trials are the basis of Evidence-Based Medicine. Trial results are reviewed by experts and consensus panels for producing meta-analyses and clinical practice guidelines. However, reviewing these results is a long and tedious task, hence the meta-analyses and guidelines are not updated each time a new trial is published. Moreover, the independence of experts may be difficult to appraise. On the contrary, in many other domains, including medical risk analysis, the advent of data science, big data and visual analytics allowed moving from expert-based to fact-based knowledge. Since 12 years, many trial results are publicly available online in trial registries. Nevertheless, data science methods have not yet been applied widely to trial data.In this paper, we present a platform for analyzing the safety events reported during clinical trials and published in trial registries. This platform is based on an ontological model including 582 trials on pain treatments, and uses semantic web technologies for querying this dataset at various levels of granularity. It also relies on a 26-dimensional flower glyph for the visualization of the Adverse Drug Events (ADE) rates in 13 categories and 2 levels of seriousness. We illustrate the interest of this platform through several use cases and we were able to find back conclusions that were initially found during meta-analyses. The platform was presented to four experts in drug safety, and is publicly available online, with the ontology of pain treatment ADE.

engineering, biomedical,computer science, artificial intelligence,medical informatics
A safety estimand for late phase clinical trials where the analysis period varies over the subjects

Katarina Hedman,Vera Lisovskaja,Per Nyström

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/17407745241230933

2024-03-02

Clinical Trials

Abstract:Clinical Trials, Ahead of Print. Background/AimsEvaluating safety is as important as evaluating efficacy in a clinical trial, yet the tradition for safety analysis is rudimentary. This article explores more complex methodologies for safety evaluation, with the aim of improving the interpretability, as well as generalizability, of the results.MethodsFor studies where the analysis periods vary over the subjects, using the International Council for Harmonisation estimand framework, we construct a formal estimand that could be used in the setting of safety surveillance that answers the clinical question of 'What is the magnitude of the increase in risk of experiencing an adverse event if the treatment is taken, as prescribed, for a specific period of time?'. Estimation methodologies for this estimand are also discussed.ResultsThe proposed estimand is similar to that found in the efficacy analyses of time to event data (e.g. in outcome studies), with the key difference of utilization of hypothetical intercurrent event strategy for the intercurrent event of treatment discontinuation. This is motivated by what we perceive to be a key difference for the safety objective compared to efficacy objectives, namely a desire for sensitivity (i.e. greater possibility of detecting a negative impact of the drug, if such exists) as opposed to the need to prove a positive effect of the drug in a conservative manner.ConclusionIt is valuable, and possible, to use the International Council for Harmonisation estimand framework not only for efficacy but also for safety evaluation, with the estimand driven by an interpretable, and relevant, clinical question.

medicine, research & experimental
Competing risks and multivariate outcomes in epidemiological and clinical trial research

R. L. Prentice

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10985-024-09629-8

2024-05-09

Lifetime Data Analysis

Abstract:Data analysis methods for the study of treatments or exposures in relation to a clinical outcome in the presence of competing risks have a long history, often with inference targets that are hypothetical, thereby requiring strong assumptions for identifiability with available data. Here data analysis methods are considered that are based on single and higher dimensional marginal hazard rates, quantities that are identifiable under standard independent censoring assumptions. These lead naturally to joint survival function estimators for outcomes of interest, including competing risk outcomes, and provide the basis for addressing a variety of data analysis questions. These methods will be illustrated using simulations and Women's Health Initiative cohort and clinical trial data sets, and additional research needs will be described.

statistics & probability,mathematics, interdisciplinary applications
Discovering Outliers of Potential Drug Toxicities Using a Large-scale Data-driven Approach

Jake Luo,Ron A Cisler

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4137/CIN.S39549

2016-10-26

Abstract:We systematically compared the adverse effects of cancer drugs to detect event outliers across different clinical trials using a data-driven approach. Because many cancer drugs are toxic to patients, better understanding of adverse events of cancer drugs is critical for developing therapies that could minimize the toxic effects. However, due to the large variabilities of adverse events across different cancer drugs, methods to efficiently compare adverse effects across different cancer drugs are lacking. To address this challenge, we present an exploration study that integrates multiple adverse event reports from clinical trials in order to systematically compare adverse events across different cancer drugs. To demonstrate our methods, we first collected data on 186,339 clinical trials from ClinicalTrials.gov and selected 30 common cancer drugs. We identified 1602 cancer trials that studied the selected cancer drugs. Our methods effectively extracted 12,922 distinct adverse events from the clinical trial reports. Using the extracted data, we ranked all 12,922 adverse events based on their prevalence in the clinical trials, such as nausea 82%, fatigue 77%, and vomiting 75.97%. To detect the significant drug outliers that could have a statistically high possibility of causing an event, we used the boxplot method to visualize adverse event outliers across different drugs and applied Grubbs' test to evaluate the significance. Analyses showed that by systematically integrating cross-trial data from multiple clinical trial reports, adverse event outliers associated with cancer drugs can be detected. The method was demonstrated by detecting the following four statistically significant adverse event cases: the association of the drug axitinib with hypertension (Grubbs' test, P < 0.001), the association of the drug imatinib with muscle spasm (P < 0.001), the association of the drug vorinostat with deep vein thrombosis (P < 0.001), and the association of the drug afatinib with paronychia (P < 0.01).
Premarketing Adverse Drug Experiences: Data Management Procedures

Allen Cato

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/009286158702100103

1987-01-01

Drug Information Journal

Abstract:Reporting of adverse events occurring during clinical trials of investigational drugs is a complex and controversial issue. Even the interpretation of the term, "adverse event," cannot be agreed upon by researchers. The ultimate adverse event, death, presents even a greater challenge. This paper presents an actual case of death during a clinical trial to illustrate a methodological approach to deal with such an event.
Survival analysis for AdVerse events with VarYing follow-up times (SAVVY) -- comparison of adverse event risks in randomized controlled trials

Kaspar Rufibach,Regina Stegherr,Claudia Schmoor,Valentine Jehl,Arthur Allignol,Annette Boeckenhoff,Cornelia Dunger-Baldauf,Lewin Eisele,Thomas Künzel,Katrin Kupas,Friedhelm Leverkus,Matthias Trampisch,Yumin Zhao,Tim Friede,Jan Beyersmann

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1080/19466315.2022.2144944

2022-09-20

Abstract:Analyses of adverse events (AEs) are an important aspect of the evaluation of experimental therapies. The SAVVY (Survival analysis for AdVerse events with Varying follow-up times) project aims to improve the analyses of AE data in clinical trials through the use of survival techniques appropriately dealing with varying follow-up times, censoring, and competing events (CE). In an empirical study including seventeen randomized clinical trials the effect of varying follow-up times, censoring, and competing events on comparisons of two treatment arms with respect to AE risks is investigated. The comparisons of relative risks (RR) of standard probability-based estimators to the gold-standard Aalen-Johansen estimator or hazard-based estimators to an estimated hazard ratio (HR) from Cox regression are done descriptively, with graphical displays, and using a random effects meta-analysis on AE level. The influence of different factors on the size of the bias is investigated in a meta-regression. We find that for both, avoiding bias and categorization of evidence with respect to treatment effect on AE risk into categories, the choice of the estimator is key and more important than features of the underlying data such as percentage of censoring, CEs, amount of follow-up, or value of the gold-standard RR. There is an urgent need to improve the guidelines of reporting AEs so that incidence proportions are finally replaced by the Aalen-Johansen estimator - rather than by Kaplan-Meier - with appropriate definition of CEs. For RRs based on hazards, the HR based on Cox regression has better properties than the ratio of incidence densities.

Applications

Adversity Index for Clinical Trials: An Inclusive Approach for Analysis of Safety Data

Adverse events in single-arm clinical trials with non-fatal time-to-event efficacy endpoint: from clinical questions to methods for statistical analysis

Supplementary Data S2 from Proportional Hazards Violations in Phase III Cancer Clinical Trials: A Potential Source of Trial Misinterpretation

Supplementary Data S1 from Proportional Hazards Violations in Phase III Cancer Clinical Trials: A Potential Source of Trial Misinterpretation

Contribution of Clinical Trial Event Data by Data Source: A Prespecified Analysis of the ADAPTABLE Randomized Clinical Trial

Supplementary Data S3 from Proportional Hazards Violations in Phase III Cancer Clinical Trials: A Potential Source of Trial Misinterpretation

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

Supplementary Table S3 from Proportional Hazards Violations in Phase III Cancer Clinical Trials: A Potential Source of Trial Misinterpretation

Using Data Augmentation to Facilitate Conduct of Phase I-Ii Clinical Trials with Delayed Outcomes

Adaptive designs in clinical trials: a systematic review-part I

A Calibrated Power Prior Approach to Borrow Information from Historical Data with Application to Biosimilar Clinical Trials.

Exploring the Landscape of Immune Checkpoint Inhibitor-Induced Adverse Events Through Big Data Mining of Pan-Cancer Clinical Trials

Integrative Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trial and Observational Study Data to Inform Post-marketing Safety Decision-Making

Supplementary Table S1 from Proportional Hazards Violations in Phase III Cancer Clinical Trials: A Potential Source of Trial Misinterpretation

Adverse events in the digital age and where to find them

A data science approach to drug safety: Semantic and visual mining of adverse drug events from clinical trials of pain treatments

A safety estimand for late phase clinical trials where the analysis period varies over the subjects

Competing risks and multivariate outcomes in epidemiological and clinical trial research

Discovering Outliers of Potential Drug Toxicities Using a Large-scale Data-driven Approach

Premarketing Adverse Drug Experiences: Data Management Procedures

Survival analysis for AdVerse events with VarYing follow-up times (SAVVY) -- comparison of adverse event risks in randomized controlled trials