Covariate-Adjusted Putative Placebo Analysis in Active-Controlled Clinical Trials

Even though an active-controlled trial provides no information about placebo, investigators and regulators often wonder how the experimental treatment would compare to placebo should a placebo arm be included in the study. A putative placebo analysis attempts to address this question by combining information from previous studies comparing the active control with placebo. Such an analysis often requires a constancy assumption, namely that the control effect relative to placebo is constant across studies. When the constancy assumption is in doubt, there are ad hoc methods that “discount” the historical data in conservative ways. This article presents a different approach that does not require constancy or involve discounting, but rather attempts to adjust for any imbalances in covariates between the current and historical studies. This covariate-adjusted approach is valid under a conditional constancy assumption which requires only that the control effect be constant within each subpopulation characterized by the observed covariates. Simulation results show that the proposed method performs reasonably well in moderate-sized samples. The method is illustrated with an example concerning benign prostate hyperplasia.

[1]  Steven M Snapinn,et al.  Alternatives for Discounting in the Analysis of Noninferiority Trials , 2004, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.

[2]  David F. Kong,et al.  Statistical Methods for Comparison to Placebo in Active-Control Trials , 2001 .

[3]  D. Rubin,et al.  The central role of the propensity score in observational studies for causal effects , 1983 .

[4]  M. Gail,et al.  Biased estimates of treatment effect in randomized experiments with nonlinear regressions and omitted covariates , 1984 .

[5]  L. Fisher,et al.  Active-control trials: how would a new agent compare with placebo? A method illustrated with clopidogrel, aspirin, and placebo. , 2001, American heart journal.

[6]  Jon A. Wellner,et al.  Weak Convergence and Empirical Processes: With Applications to Statistics , 1996 .

[7]  E. Holmgren,et al.  Establishing equivalence by showing that a specified percentage of the effect of the active control over placebo is maintained. , 1999, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.

[8]  Gary G. Koch,et al.  Nonparametric Analysis of Covariance and Its Role in Noninferiority Clinical Trials , 1999 .

[9]  Yi Tsong,et al.  Some fundamental issues with non‐inferiority testing in active controlled trials , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[10]  H M James Hung,et al.  TACT method for non‐inferiority testing in active controlled trials , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[11]  J. Pearl,et al.  Confounding and Collapsibility in Causal Inference , 1999 .

[12]  D. Rubin INFERENCE AND MISSING DATA , 1975 .

[13]  Walter W. Hauck,et al.  Some Issues in the Design and Analysis of Equivalence Trials , 1999 .

[14]  Kevin Carroll,et al.  Design and analysis of non‐inferiority mortality trials in oncology , 2004, Statistics in medicine.

[15]  D. Kleinbaum,et al.  Applied Regression Analysis and Other Multivariate Methods , 1978 .

[16]  R. D'Agostino,et al.  Non‐inferiority trials: design concepts and issues – the encounters of academic consultants in statistics , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[17]  J. Robins,et al.  Toward a curse of dimensionality appropriate (CODA) asymptotic theory for semi-parametric models. , 1997, Statistics in medicine.

[18]  S. Durrleman,et al.  The use of putative placebo in active control trials: two applications in a regulatory setting , 2003, Statistics in medicine.

[19]  B. Wiens,et al.  Choosing an equivalence limit for noninferiority or equivalence studies. , 2002, Controlled clinical trials.

[20]  Mark Rothmann,et al.  Design and analysis of non‐inferiority mortality trials in oncology , 2002, Statistics in medicine.