Best practice for analysis of shared clinical trial data

BackgroundGreater transparency, including sharing of patient-level data for further research, is an increasingly important topic for organisations who sponsor, fund and conduct clinical trials. This is a major paradigm shift with the aim of maximising the value of patient-level data from clinical trials for the benefit of future patients and society. We consider the analysis of shared clinical trial data in three broad categories: (1) reanalysis - further investigation of the efficacy and safety of the randomized intervention, (2) meta-analysis, and (3) supplemental analysis for a research question that is not directly assessing the randomized intervention.DiscussionIn order to support appropriate interpretation and limit the risk of misleading findings, analysis of shared clinical trial data should have a pre-specified analysis plan. However, it is not generally possible to limit bias and control multiplicity to the extent that is possible in the original trial design, conduct and analysis, and this should be acknowledged and taken into account when interpreting results. We highlight a number of areas where specific considerations arise in planning, conducting, interpreting and reporting analyses of shared clinical trial data. A key issue is that that these analyses essentially share many of the limitations of any post hoc analyses beyond the original specified analyses. The use of individual patient data in meta-analysis can provide increased precision and reduce bias. Supplemental analyses are subject to many of the same issues that arise in broader epidemiological analyses. Specific discussion topics are addressed within each of these areas.SummaryIncreased provision of patient-level data from industry and academic-led clinical trials for secondary research can benefit future patients and society. Responsible data sharing, including transparency of the research objectives, analysis plans and of the results will support appropriate interpretation and help to address the risk of misleading results and avoid unfounded health scares.

[1]  Orestis Efthimiou,et al.  Get real in individual participant data (IPD) meta‐analysis: a review of the methodology , 2015, Research synthesis methods.

[2]  Kath Wright,et al.  PTSD in prison settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis of comorbid mental disorders and problematic behaviours , 2019, PloS one.

[3]  T. Fleming.  Interpretation of Subgroup Analyses in Clinical Trials , 1995 .

[4]  Catrin Tudur Smith,et al.  Combining individual patient data and aggregate data in mixed treatment comparison meta‐analysis: Individual patient data may be beneficial if only for a subset of trials , 2013, Statistics in medicine.

[5]  M. Parmar,et al.  Sharing data from clinical trials: the rationale for a controlled access approach , 2015, Trials.

[6]  Catrin Tudur Smith,et al.  Assessing key assumptions of network meta‐analysis: a review of methods , 2013, Research synthesis methods.

[7]  D. Moher,et al.  CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials , 2010, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[8]  C. Tufanaru,et al.  Restoring Study 329: efficacy and harms of paroxetine and imipramine in treatment of major depression in adolescence , 2015, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[9]  A. Breckenridge,et al.  Open Clinical Trial Data for All? A View from Regulators , 2012, PLoS medicine.

[10]  A. B. Hill.  The Environment and Disease: Association or Causation? , 1965, Proceedings of the Royal Society of Medicine.

[11]  G H Guyatt,et al.  A Consumer's Guide to Subgroup Analyses , 1992, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[12]  M. Epstein,et al.  Guidelines for good pharmacoepidemiology practices (GPP) , 2008 .

[13]  Janice Branson,et al.  Protecting patient privacy when sharing patient-level data from clinical trials , 2016, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[14]  Mike Clarke,et al.  Individual Participant Data (IPD) Meta-analyses of Randomised Controlled Trials: Guidance on Their Use , 2015, PLoS medicine.

[15]  Harold I Feldman,et al.  Individual patient‐ versus group‐level data meta‐regressions for the investigation of treatment effect modifiers: ecological bias rears its ugly head , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[16]  Emily Newman,et al.  PROSPERO International prospective register of systematic reviews , 2017 .

[17]  R. Riley,et al.  Meta-analysis of individual participant data: rationale, conduct, and reporting , 2010, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[18]  D. Altman,et al.  Sharing Individual Participant Data from Clinical Trials: An Opinion Survey Regarding the Establishment of a Central Repository , 2014, PloS one.

[19]  Keith Abrams,et al.  Use of Indirect and Mixed Treatment Comparisons for Technology Assessment , 2012, PharmacoEconomics.

[20]  T. Friede,et al.  EFSPI/PSI working group on data sharing: accessing and working with pharmaceutical clinical trial patient level datasets – a primer for academic researchers , 2016, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[21]  J. Habbema,et al.  Subgroup analyses in therapeutic cardiovascular clinical trials: are most of them misleading? , 2006, American heart journal.

[22]  L. Mbuagbaw,et al.  A tutorial on sensitivity analyses in clinical trials: the what, why, when and how , 2013, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[23]  Richard D Riley,et al.  Preferred Reporting Items for a Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Individual Participant Data: The PRISMA-IPD Statement , 2015 .

[24]  Douglas G. Altman,et al.  Statistical Analysis of Individual Participant Data Meta-Analyses: A Comparison of Methods and Recommendations for Practice , 2012, PloS one.

[25]  W. Sauerbrei,et al.  STRengthening Analytical Thinking for Observational Studies: the STRATOS initiative , 2014, Statistics in medicine.

[26]  Tim P Morris,et al.  Choosing sensitivity analyses for randomised trials: principles , 2014, BMC Medical Research Methodology.

[27]  Catrin Tudur Smith,et al.  Assessing the consistency assumption by exploring treatment by covariate interactions in mixed treatment comparison meta‐analysis: individual patient‐level covariates versus aggregate trial‐level covariates , 2012, Statistics in medicine.

[28]  David C Hoaglin,et al.  Conducting indirect-treatment-comparison and network-meta-analysis studies: report of the ISPOR Task Force on Indirect Treatment Comparisons Good Research Practices: part 2. , 2011, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[29]  Bartha M. Knoppers,et al.  Data sharing, year 1--access to data from industry-sponsored clinical trials. , 2014, The New England journal of medicine.

[30]  A. Sutton,et al.  Assessment of publication bias, selection bias, and unavailable data in meta-analyses using individual participant data: a database survey , 2012, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[31]  A structured framework for assessing sensitivity to missing data assumptions in longitudinal clinical trials , 2013, Pharmaceutical statistics.

[32]  ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline. Statistical principles for clinical trials. International Conference on Harmonisation E9 Expert Working Group. , 1999, Statistics in medicine.

[33]  T. Sozu.  Multiplicity Issues in Clinical Trials , 2015 .

[34]  D. Moher,et al.  CONSORT 2010 Explanation and Elaboration: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials , 2010, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[35]  Sara T Brookes,et al.  Subgroup analyses in randomized trials: risks of subgroup-specific analyses; power and sample size for the interaction test. , 2004, Journal of clinical epidemiology.