Current Practices in Choosing Estimands and Sensitivity Analyses in Clinical Trials: Results of the ICH E9 Survey

被引:8
|
作者
Fletcher, C. [1 ,2 ]
Tsuchiya, S. [3 ,4 ]
Mehrotra, D. V. [5 ]
机构
[1] Amgen Ltd, 240 Cambridge Sci Pk,Milton Rd, Cambridge CB4 0WD, England
[2] European Federat Pharmaceut Ind & Assoc, Clin Dev Expert Grp, Brussels, Belgium
[3] Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Co Ltd, Tokyo, Japan
[4] Japan Pharmaceut Mfg Assoc, Drug Evaluat Comm, Tokyo, Japan
[5] Merck Res Labs, N Wales, PA USA
关键词
estimand; sensitivity analysis; ICH E9; missing data;
D O I
10.1177/2168479016666586
中图分类号
R-058 [];
学科分类号
摘要
Background: An addendum to the International Conference on Harmonisation E9 (ICH E9) guidance document (Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials) is currently under development. The aim of the addendum is to promote harmonized standards on the choice of estimand (a well-defined measure of the treatment effect that is being estimated) in clinical trials and to describe a consensual framework for planning, conducting, and interpreting sensitivity analyses of clinical trial data. Methods: In order to help understand current practices relating to the choice of estimands and sensitivity analyses for clinical trials, the ICH E9 working group developing the addendum conducted a survey with a primary focus on clinical trials involving drugs, vaccines, and biologics. The survey was distributed electronically between May 19, 2015, and June II, 2015, to various stakeholder groups within ICH, including industry, regulatory, and academic communities. A total of 1305 respondents participated. Results: Of the 1305 respondents 547 (42%), 344 (26%) and 283 (22%) were from Europe, USA and Japan respectively. Over half of the respondents work in pharmaceutical companies, and approximately a quarter of respondents noted oncology as the primary therapeutic area they work in. Over half of the respondents (595, 55%) noted the treatment effect being estimated was 'in the entire target population of patients regardless of whether they will take treatment as instructed'. The most common methods for handling missing data in primary analyses were mixed-models repeated measures (555, 56% respondents) and last observation carried forward (549, 55% respondents). The majority of respondents (816, 83%) noted they conducted sensitivity analyses to estimate treatment effects in different ways compared to the primary analysis by using alternative assumptions (627, 78%) and/or using alternative statistical methods (616, 76%). Conclusions: The survey results have provided useful information to the ICH E9 working group on current practices on the choice of primary estimands for measuring treatment effects in confirmatory clinical trials, and approaches used to select sensitivity analyses.
引用
收藏
页码:69 / 76
页数:8
相关论文
共 42 条
  • [1] Current Practices in Choosing Estimands and Sensitivity Analyses in Clinical Trials: Results of the ICH E9 Survey
    C. Fletcher
    S. Tsuchiya
    D. V. Mehrotra
    Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science, 2017, 51 : 69 - 76
  • [2] Choosing Estimands in Clinical Trials: Putting the ICH E9(R1) Into Practice
    Bohdana Ratitch
    James Bell
    Craig Mallinckrodt
    Jonathan W. Bartlett
    Niti Goel
    Geert Molenberghs
    Michael O’Kelly
    Pritibha Singh
    Ilya Lipkovich
    Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science, 2020, 54 : 324 - 341
  • [3] Choosing Estimands in Clinical Trials: Putting the ICH E9(R1) Into Practice
    Ratitch, Bohdana
    Bell, James
    Mallinckrodt, Craig
    Bartlett, Jonathan W.
    Goel, Niti
    Molenberghs, Geert
    O'Kelly, Michael
    Singh, Pritibha
    Lipkovich, Ilya
    THERAPEUTIC INNOVATION & REGULATORY SCIENCE, 2020, 54 (02) : 324 - 341
  • [4] Defining Efficacy Estimands in Clinical Trials: Examples Illustrating ICH E9(R1) Guidelines
    Bohdana Ratitch
    Niti Goel
    Craig Mallinckrodt
    James Bell
    Jonathan W. Bartlett
    Geert Molenberghs
    Pritibha Singh
    Ilya Lipkovich
    Michael O’Kelly
    Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science, 2020, 54 : 370 - 384
  • [5] Aligning Estimators With Estimands in Clinical Trials: Putting the ICH E9(R1) Guidelines Into Practice
    Mallinckrodt, C. H.
    Bell, J.
    Liu, G.
    Ratitch, B.
    O'Kelly, M.
    Lipkovich, I
    Singh, P.
    Xu, L.
    Molenberghs, G.
    THERAPEUTIC INNOVATION & REGULATORY SCIENCE, 2020, 54 (02) : 353 - 364
  • [6] Aligning Estimators With Estimands in Clinical Trials: Putting the ICH E9(R1) Guidelines Into Practice
    C. H. Mallinckrodt
    J. Bell
    G. Liu
    B. Ratitch
    M. O’Kelly
    I. Lipkovich
    P. Singh
    L. Xu
    G. Molenberghs
    Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science, 2020, 54 : 353 - 364
  • [7] Defining Efficacy Estimands in Clinical Trials: Examples Illustrating ICH E9(R1) Guidelines
    Ratitch, Bohdana
    Goel, Niti
    Mallinckrodt, Craig
    Bell, James
    Bartlett, Jonathan W.
    Molenberghs, Geert
    Singh, Pritibha
    Lipkovich, Ilya
    O'Kelly, Michael
    THERAPEUTIC INNOVATION & REGULATORY SCIENCE, 2020, 54 (02) : 370 - 384
  • [8] ASSESSING THE RISK OF BIAS IN CLINICAL TRIALS FOR HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS: SHOULD EXISTING TOOLS REFLECT THE ICH E9(R1) ADDENDUM ON ESTIMANDS AND SENSITIVITY ANALYSES?
    Poythress, J.
    Morga, A.
    VALUE IN HEALTH, 2023, 26 (12) : S329 - S329
  • [9] The estimands framework: a primer on the ICH E9(R1) addendum
    Kahan, Brennan C.
    Hindley, Joanna
    Edwards, Mark
    Cro, Suzie
    Morris, Tim P.
    BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2024, 384
  • [10] ICH E9 guideline 'Statistical principles for clinical trials': a case study
    Phillips, A
    Haudiquet, V
    STATISTICS IN MEDICINE, 2003, 22 (01) : 1 - 11