A method for testing a prespecified subgroup in clinical trials

In clinical trials, investigators are often interested in the effect of a given study treatment on a subgroup of patients with certain clinical or biological attributes in addition to its effect on the overall study population. Such a subgroup analysis would become even more important to the study sponsor if an efficacy claim can be made for the subgroup when the test for the overall study population fails at a prespecified alpha level. In practice, such a claim is often dependent on prespecification of the subgroup and certain implicit or explicit requirements placed on the study results due to ethical or regulatory concerns. By carefully considering these requirements, we propose a general statistical methodology for testing both the overall and subgroup hypotheses, which has optimal power and strongly controls the familywise Type I error rate.

[1]  R. Simon,et al.  Evaluating the Efficiency of Targeted Designs for Randomized Clinical Trials , 2004, Clinical Cancer Research.

[2]  Thomas R Fleming,et al.  Surrogate endpoints and FDA's accelerated approval process. , 2005, Health affairs.

[3]  J. Powers,et al.  FDA evaluation of antimicrobials: subgroup analysis. , 2005, Chest.

[4]  W. McGuire,et al.  Human breast cancer: correlation of relapse and survival with amplification of the HER-2/neu oncogene. , 1987, Science.

[5]  G. Hortobagyi.  Trastuzumab in the treatment of breast cancer. , 2005, The New England journal of medicine.

[6]  C D Naylor,et al.  Subgroups, treatment effects, and baseline risks: some lessons from major cardiovascular trials. , 2000, American heart journal.

[7]  T. Fleming,et al.  Use of chemotherapy plus a monoclonal antibody against HER2 for metastatic breast cancer that overexpresses HER2. , 2001, The New England journal of medicine.

[8]  R. Wunderink,et al.  Linezolid vs vancomycin: analysis of two double-blind studies of patients with methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nosocomial pneumonia. , 2003, Chest.

[9]  R. Simon,et al.  An agenda for Clinical Trials: clinical trials in the genomic era , 2004, Clinical trials.

[10]  J Ean,et al.  Efficacy and safety of recombinant human activated protein C for severe sepsis. , 2001, The New England journal of medicine.

[11]  J. Cuzick,et al.  Anastrozole alone or in combination with tamoxifen versus tamoxifen alone for adjuvant treatment of postmenopausal women with early‐stage breast cancer , 2003, Cancer.

[12]  Christina Wolfson,et al.  Randomised trial of home-based psychosocial nursing intervention for patients recovering from myocardial infarction , 1997, The Lancet.

[13]  S. Glück.  Anastrozole Is Superior to Tamoxifen as First-Line Therapy in Hormone Receptor Positive Advanced Breast Carcinoma Results of Two Randomized Trials Designed for Combined Analysis , 2001 .

[14]  A. Buzdar.  Data from the Arimidex, Tamoxifen, Alone or in Combination (ATAC) Trial , 2004, Clinical Cancer Research.

[15]  Jon Cohen.  Vaccine Results Lose Significance Under Scrutiny , 2003, Science.

[16]  K. Gabriel,et al.  On closed testing procedures with special reference to ordered analysis of variance , 1976 .

[17]  H. Burstein,et al.  The distinctive nature of HER2-positive breast cancers. , 2005, The New England journal of medicine.

[18]  S. Pocock,et al.  Subgroup analysis, covariate adjustment and baseline comparisons in clinical trial reporting: current practiceand problems , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[19]  J. Powers,et al.  Linezolid and vancomycin for methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus nosocomial pneumonia: the subtleties of subgroup analyses. , 2004, Chest.

[20]  M. Proschan,et al.  Designed extension of studies based on conditional power. , 1995 .

[21]  Steven Sun,et al.  Long-term survival advantage for women treated with pegylated liposomal doxorubicin compared with topotecan in a phase 3 randomized study of recurrent and refractory epithelial ovarian cancer. , 2004, Gynecologic oncology.

[22]  G. Chi,et al.  On Sample Size and Inference for Two‐Stage Adaptive Designs , 2001, Biometrics.

[23]  Robert L. Frye,et al.  Comparison of coronary bypass surgery with angioplasty in patients with multivessel disease. , 1996, The New England journal of medicine.

[24]  S. P. Wright,et al.  Adjusted P-values for simultaneous inference , 1992 .

[25]  John A. Lewis,et al.  Subgroup Analyses in Randomized Clinical Trials: Statistical and Regulatory Issues , 2005, Journal of biopharmaceutical statistics.

[26]  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.

[27]  M. Simoons.  Myocardial revascularization--bypass surgery or angioplasty? , 1996, The New England journal of medicine.

[28]  R. Simon,et al.  On the efficiency of targeted clinical trials , 2005, Statistics in medicine.