Guidance on interim analysis methods in clinical trials

被引:17
|
作者
Ciolino, Jody D. [1 ]
Kaizer, Alexander M. [2 ]
Bonner, Lauren Balmert [1 ]
机构
[1] Northwestern Univ, Feinberg Sch Med, Dept Prevent Med Biostat, Chicago, IL 60630 USA
[2] Colorado Sch Publ Hlth, Dept Biostat & Informat, Aurora, CO USA
关键词
Interim analysis; clinical trials; randomized controlled trial; guidance; efficacy; futility; SAMPLE-SIZE REESTIMATION; DECISION-MAKING; SUPERIORITY; FUTILITY; DESIGN; STROKE; POWER; BIAS;
D O I
10.1017/cts.2023.552
中图分类号
R-3 [医学研究方法]; R3 [基础医学];
学科分类号
1001 ;
摘要
Interim analyses in clinical trials can take on a multitude of forms. They are often used to guide Data and Safety Monitoring Board (DSMB) recommendations to study teams regarding recruitment targets for large, later-phase clinical trials. As collaborative biostatisticians working and teaching in multiple fields of research and across a broad array of trial phases, we note the large heterogeneity and confusion surrounding interim analyses in clinical trials. Thus, in this paper, we aim to provide a general overview and guidance on interim analyses for a nonstatistical audience. We explain each of the following types of interim analyses: efficacy, futility, safety, and sample size re-estimation, and we provide the reader with reasoning, examples, and implications for each. We emphasize that while the types of interim analyses employed may differ depending on the nature of the study, we would always recommend prespecification of the interim analytic plan to the extent possible with risk mitigation and trial integrity remaining a priority. Finally, we posit that interim analyses should be used as tools to help the DSMB make informed decisions in the context of the overarching study. They should generally not be deemed binding, and they should not be reviewed in isolation.
引用
收藏
页数:9
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [31] A retrospective analysis of conditional power assumptions in clinical trials with continuous or binary endpoints
    Julia M. Edwards
    Stephen J. Walters
    Steven A. Julious
    Trials, 24
  • [32] Publishing interim results of randomised clinical trials in peer-reviewed journals
    Counsell, Nicholas
    Biri, Despina
    Fraczek, Joanna
    Hackshaw, Allan
    CLINICAL TRIALS, 2017, 14 (01) : 67 - 77
  • [33] Methods for clarifying criteria for study continuation at interim analysis
    Wiener, Laura E.
    Ivanova, Anastasia
    Koch, Gary G.
    PHARMACEUTICAL STATISTICS, 2020, 19 (05) : 720 - 732
  • [34] Interim Analyses During Group Sequential Clinical Trials
    Meurer, William J.
    Tolles, Juliana
    JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION, 2021, 326 (15): : 1524 - 1525
  • [35] Interim analysis for binary outcome trials with a long fixed follow-up time and repeated outcome assessments at pre-specified times
    Parpia, Sameer
    Julian, Jim A.
    Gu, Chushu
    Thabane, Lehana
    Levine, Mark N.
    SPRINGERPLUS, 2014, 3 : 1 - 7
  • [36] Clinical trials with sequential analysis that were early-stopped: How to interpret them?
    Ignacio Garegnani, Luis
    Arancibia, Marcelo
    Madrid, Eva
    Ariel Franco, Juan Victor
    MEDWAVE, 2020, 20 (05):
  • [37] Research and scholarly methods: Pragmatic clinical trials
    Oche, Onyeche
    Wu, Chaorong
    Murry, Logan T.
    Kennelty, Korey A.
    JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CLINICAL PHARMACY, 2022, 5 (01): : 99 - 106
  • [38] Data monitoring committees, interim analysis and early termination in paediatric trials
    Fernandes, Ricardo M.
    van der Lee, Johanna H.
    Offringa, Martin
    ACTA PAEDIATRICA, 2011, 100 (10) : 1386 - 1392
  • [39] Validation of Predictive Analyses for Interim Decisions in Clinical Trials
    Avalos-Pacheco, Alejandra
    Ventz, Steffen
    Arfe, Andrea
    Alexander, Brian M.
    Rahman, Rifaquat
    Wen, Patrick Y.
    Trippa, Lorenzo
    JCO PRECISION ONCOLOGY, 2023, 7
  • [40] Design, data monitoring, and analysis of clinical trials with co-primary endpoints: A review
    Hamasaki, Toshimitsu
    Evans, Scott R.
    Asakura, Koko
    JOURNAL OF BIOPHARMACEUTICAL STATISTICS, 2018, 28 (01) : 28 - 51