The author considers studies with multiple dependent primary endpoints. Testing hypotheses with multiple primary endpoints may require unmanageably large populations. Composite endpoints consisting of several binary events may be used to reduce a trial to a manageable size. The primary difficulties with composite endpoints are that different endpoints may have different clinical importance and that higher-frequency variables may overwhelm effects of smaller, but equally important, primary outcomes. To compensate for these inconsistencies, we weight each type of event, and the total number of weighted events is counted. To reflect the mutual dependency of primary endpoints and to make the weighting method effective in small clinical trials, we use the Bayesian approach. We assume a multinomial distribution of multiple endpoints with Dirichlet priors and apply the Bayesian test of noninferiority to the calculation of weighting parameters. We use composite endpoints to test hypotheses of superiority in single-arm and two-arm clinical trials. The composite endpoints have a beta distribution. We illustrate this technique with an example. The results provide a statistical procedure for creating composite endpoints. Published 2013. This article is a US Government work and is in the public domain in the USA.

Baseline adjustment is an important consideration in thorough QT studies for nonantiarrhythmic drugs. For crossover studies with period-specific baseline days, we propose an analysis of covariance model with change from time-matched baseline as response, time-matched baseline for the current treatment, day-averaged baseline for the current treatment, time-matched baseline averaged across treatments, and day-averaged baseline averaged across treatments as covariates. This model adjusts for within-subject diurnal effects for each treatment and is more efficient than commonly used models for treatment comparisons. We illustrate the benefit using real clinical trial data. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

In drug development, non-inferiority tests are often employed to determine the difference between two independent binomial proportions. Many test statistics for non-inferiority are based on the frequentist framework. However, research on non-inferiority in the Bayesian framework is limited. In this paper, we suggest a new Bayesian index τ = P(π₁ > π₂ − Δ₀ | X₁,X₂), where X₁ and X₂ denote binomial random variables for trials n₁ and n₂, and parameters π₁ and π₂, respectively, and the non-inferiority margin is Δ₀ > 0. We show two calculation methods for τ, an approximate method that uses normal approximation and an exact method that uses an exact posterior PDF. We compare the approximate probability with the exact probability for τ. Finally, we present the results of actual clinical trials to show the utility of index τ. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The need to use rigorous, transparent, clearly interpretable, and scientifically justified methodology for preventing and dealing with missing data in clinical trials has been a focus of much attention from regulators, practitioners, and academicians over the past years. New guidelines and recommendations emphasize the importance of minimizing the amount of missing data and carefully selecting primary analysis methods on the basis of assumptions regarding the missingness mechanism suitable for the study at hand, as well as the need to stress-test the results of the primary analysis under different sets of assumptions through a range of sensitivity analyses. Some methods that could be effectively used for dealing with missing data have not yet gained widespread usage, partly because of their underlying complexity and partly because of lack of relatively easy approaches to their implementation. In this paper, we explore several strategies for missing data on the basis of pattern mixture models that embody clear and realistic clinical assumptions. Pattern mixture models provide a statistically reasonable yet transparent framework for translating clinical assumptions into statistical analyses. Implementation details for some specific strategies are provided in an Appendix (available online as Supporting Information), whereas the general principles of the approach discussed in this paper can be used to implement various other analyses with different sets of assumptions regarding missing data. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Drug combinations in preclinical tumor xenograft studies are often assessed using fixed doses. Assessing the joint action of drug combinations with fixed doses has not been well developed in the literature. Here, an interaction index is proposed for fixed-dose drug combinations in a subcutaneous tumor xenograft model. Furthermore, a bootstrap percentile interval of the interaction index is also developed. The joint action of two drugs can be assessed on the basis of confidence limits of the interaction index. Tumor xenograft data from actual two-drug combination studies are analyzed to illustrate the proposed method. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Many methods are available for computing a confidence interval for the binomial parameter, and these methods differ in their operating characteristics. It has been suggested in the literature that the use of the exact likelihood ratio (LR) confidence interval for the binomial proportion should be considered. This paper provides an evaluation of the operating characteristics of the two-sided exact LR and exact score confidence intervals for the binomial proportion and compares these results to those for three other methods that also strictly maintain nominal coverage: Clopper-Pearson, Blaker, and Casella. In addition, the operating characteristics of the two-sided exact LR method and exact score method are compared with those of the corresponding asymptotic methods to investigate the adequacy of the asymptotic approximation. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

A version of the nonparametric bootstrap, which resamples the entire subjects from original data, called the case bootstrap, has been increasingly used for estimating uncertainty of parameters in mixed-effects models. It is usually applied to obtain more robust estimates of the parameters and more realistic confidence intervals (CIs). Alternative bootstrap methods, such as residual bootstrap and parametric bootstrap that resample both random effects and residuals, have been proposed to better take into account the hierarchical structure of multi-level and longitudinal data. However, few studies have been performed to compare these different approaches. In this study, we used simulation to evaluate bootstrap methods proposed for linear mixed-effect models. We also compared the results obtained by maximum likelihood (ML) and restricted maximum likelihood (REML). Our simulation studies evidenced the good performance of the case bootstrap as well as the bootstraps of both random effects and residuals. On the other hand, the bootstrap methods that resample only the residuals and the bootstraps combining case and residuals performed poorly. REML and ML provided similar bootstrap estimates of uncertainty, but there was slightly more bias and poorer coverage rate for variance parameters with ML in the sparse design. We applied the proposed methods to a real dataset from a study investigating the natural evolution of Parkinson's disease and were able to confirm that the methods provide plausible estimates of uncertainty. Given that most real-life datasets tend to exhibit heterogeneity in sampling schedules, the residual bootstraps would be expected to perform better than the case bootstrap. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

The internal pilot study design allows for modifying the sample size during an ongoing study based on a blinded estimate of the variance thus maintaining the trial integrity. Various blinded sample size re-estimation procedures have been proposed in the literature. We compare the blinded sample size re-estimation procedures based on the one-sample variance of the pooled data with a blinded procedure using the randomization block information with respect to bias and variance of the variance estimators, and the distribution of the resulting sample sizes, power, and actual type I error rate. For reference, sample size re-estimation based on the unblinded variance is also included in the comparison. It is shown that using an unbiased variance estimator (such as the one using the randomization block information) for sample size re-estimation does not guarantee that the desired power is achieved. Moreover, in situations that are common in clinical trials, the variance estimator that employs the randomization block length shows a higher variability than the simple one-sample estimator and in turn the sample size resulting from the related re-estimation procedure. This higher variability can lead to a lower power as was demonstrated in the setting of noninferiority trials. In summary, the one-sample estimator obtained from the pooled data is extremely simple to apply, shows good performance, and is therefore recommended for application. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

A large-sample problem of illustrating noninferiority of an experimental treatment over a referent treatment for binary outcomes is considered. The methods of illustrating noninferiority involve constructing the lower two-sided confidence bound for the difference between binomial proportions corresponding to the experimental and referent treatments and comparing it with the negative value of the noninferiority margin. The three considered methods, Anbar, Falk–Koch, and Reduced Falk–Koch, handle the comparison in an asymmetric way, that is, only the referent proportion out of the two, experimental and referent, is directly involved in the expression for the variance of the difference between two sample proportions. Five continuity corrections (including zero) are considered with respect to each approach. The key properties of the corresponding methods are evaluated via simulations. First, the uncorrected two-sided confidence intervals can, potentially, have smaller coverage probability than the nominal level even for moderately large sample sizes, for example, 150 per group. Next, the 15 testing methods are discussed in terms of their Type I error rate and power. In the settings with a relatively small referent proportion (about 0.4 or smaller), the Anbar approach with Yates’ continuity correction is recommended for balanced designs and the Falk–Koch method with Yates’ correction is recommended for unbalanced designs. For relatively moderate (about 0.6) and large (about 0.8 or greater) referent proportion, the uncorrected Reduced Falk–Koch method is recommended, although in this case, all methods tend to be over-conservative. These results are expected to be used in the design stage of a noninferiority study when asymmetric comparisons are envisioned. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Linear mixed-effects models (LMEMs) of concentration–double-delta QTc intervals (QTc intervals corrected for placebo and baseline effects) assume that the concentration measurement error is negligible, which is an incorrect assumption. Previous studies have shown in linear models that independent variable error can attenuate the slope estimate with a corresponding increase in the intercept. Monte Carlo simulation was used to examine the impact of assay measurement error (AME) on the parameter estimates of an LMEM and nonlinear MEM (NMEM) concentration–ddQTc interval model from a ‘typical’ thorough QT study. For the LMEM, the type I error rate was unaffected by assay measurement error. Significant slope attenuation ( > 10%) occurred when the AME exceeded > 40% independent of the sample size. Increasing AME also decreased the between-subject variance of the slope, increased the residual variance, and had no effect on the between-subject variance of the intercept. For a typical analytical assay having an assay measurement error of less than 15%, the relative bias in the estimates of the model parameters and variance components was less than 15% in all cases. The NMEM appeared to be more robust to AME error as most parameters were unaffected by measurement error. Monte Carlo simulation was then used to determine whether the simulation–extrapolation method of parameter bias correction could be applied to cases of large AME in LMEMs. For analytical assays with large AME ( > 30%), the simulation–extrapolation method could correct biased model parameter estimates to near-unbiased levels. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

For the traditional clinical trials, inclusion and exclusion criteria are usually based on some clinical endpoints; the genetic or genomic variability of the trial participants are not totally utilized in the criteria. After completion of the human genome project, the disease targets at the molecular level can be identified and can be utilized for the treatment of diseases. However, the accuracy of diagnostic devices for identification of such molecular targets is usually not perfect. Some of the patients enrolled in targeted clinical trials with a positive result for the molecular target might not have the specific molecular targets. As a result, the treatment effect may be underestimated in the patient population truly with the molecular target. To resolve this issue, under the exponential distribution, we develop inferential procedures for the treatment effects of the targeted drug based on the censored endpoints in the patients truly with the molecular targets. Under an enrichment design, we propose using the expectation–maximization algorithm in conjunction with the bootstrap technique to incorporate the inaccuracy of the diagnostic device for detection of the molecular targets on the inference of the treatment effects. A simulation study was conducted to empirically investigate the performance of the proposed methods. Simulation results demonstrate that under the exponential distribution, the proposed estimator is nearly unbiased with adequate precision, and the confidence interval can provide adequate coverage probability. In addition, the proposed testing procedure can adequately control the size with sufficient power. On the other hand, when the proportional hazard assumption is violated, additional simulation studies show that the type I error rate is not controlled at the nominal level and is an increasing function of the positive predictive value. A numerical example illustrates the proposed procedures. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Interpreting data and communicating effectively through graphs and tables are requisite skills for statisticians and non-statisticians in the pharmaceutical industry. However, the quality of visual displays of data in the medical and pharmaceutical literature and at scientific conferences is severely lacking. We describe an interactive, workshop-driven, 2-day short course that we constructed for pharmaceutical research personnel to learn these skills. The examples in the course and the workshop datasets source from our professional experiences, the scientific literature, and the mass media. During the course, the participants are exposed to and gain hands-on experience with the principles of visual and graphical perception, design, and construction of both graphic and tabular displays of quantitative and qualitative information. After completing the course, with a critical eye, the participants are able to construct, revise, critique, and interpret graphic and tabular displays according to an extensive set of guidelines. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.