Extent of Safety Database in Pediatric Drug Development: Types of Assessment, Analytical Precision, and Pathway for Extrapolation through On-Target Effects

Pediatric patients should have access to medicines that have been appropriately evaluated for safety and efficacy. Given this goal of revised labelling, the adequacy of the pediatric clinical development plan and resulting safety database must inform a favorable benefit-risk assessment for the intended use of the medicinal product. While extrapolation from adults can be used to support efficacy of drugs in children, there may be a reluctance to use the same approach in safety assessments, wiping out potential gains in trial efficiency through a reduction of sample size. To address this reluctance, we explore safety review in pediatric trials, including factors affecting these data, specific types of safety assessments, and precision on the estimation of event rates for specific adverse events (AEs) that can be achieved. In addition, we discuss the assessments which can provide a benchmark for the use of extrapolation of safety that focuses on on-target effects. Finally, we explore a unified approach for understanding precision using Bayesian approaches as the most appropriate methodology to describe/ascertain risk in probabilistic terms for the estimate of the event rate of specific AEs

A win ratio approach for comparing crossing survival curves in clinical trials

Many clinical trials include time-to-event or survival data as an outcome. To compare two survival distributions, the log-rank test is often used to produce a P-value for a statistical test of the null hypothesis that the two survival curves are identical. However, such a P-value does not provide the magnitude of the difference between the curves regarding the treatment effect. As a result, the P-value is often accompanied by an estimate of the hazard ratio from the proportional hazards model or Cox model as a measurement of treatment difference. However, one of the most important assumptions for Cox model is that the hazard functions for the two treatment groups are proportional. When the hazard curves cross, the Cox model could lead to misleading results and the log-rank test could also perform poorly. To address the problem of crossing curves in survival analysis, we propose the use of the win ratio method put forward by Pocock et al. as an estimand for analysing such data. The subjects in the test and control treatment groups are formed into all possible pairs. For each pair, the test treatment subject is labelled a winner or a loser if it is known who had the event of interest such as death. The win ratio is the total number of winners divided by the total number of losers and its standard error can be estimated using Bebu and Lachin method. Using real trial datasets and Monte Carlo simulations, this study investigates the power and type I error and compares the win ratio method with the log-rank test and Cox model under various scenarios of crossing survival curves with different censoring rates and distribution parameters. The results show that the win ratio method has similar power as the log-rank test and Cox model to detect the treatment difference when the assumption of proportional hazards holds true, and that the win ratio method outperforms log-rank test and Cox model in terms of power to detect the treatment difference when the survival curves cross

The stratified win statistics (win ratio, win odds, and net benefit)

The win odds and the net benefit are related directly to each other and indirectly, through ties, to the win ratio. These three win statistics test the same null hypothesis of equal win probabilities between two groups. They provide similar p-values and powers, because the Z-values of their statistical tests are approximately equal. Thus, they can complement one another to show the strength of a treatment effect. In this article, we show that the estimated variances of the win statistics are also directly related regardless of ties or indirectly related through ties. Since its introduction in 2018, the stratified win ratio has been applied in designs and analyses of clinical trials, including Phase III and Phase IV studies. This article generalizes the stratified method to the win odds and the net benefit. As a result, the relations of the three win statistics and the approximate equivalence of their statistical tests also hold for the stratified win statistics

The inverse-probability-of-censoring weighting (IPCW) adjusted win ratio statistic: an unbiased estimator in the presence of independent censoring

The win ratio method has received much attention in methodological research, ad hoc analyses, and designs of prospective studies. As the primary analysis, it supported the approval of tafamidis for the treatment of cardiomyopathy to reduce cardiovascular mortality and cardiovascular-related hospitalization. However, its dependence on censoring is a potential shortcoming. In this article, we propose the inverse-probability-of-censoring weighting (IPCW) adjusted win ratio statistic (i.e., the IPCW-adjusted win ratio statistic) to overcome censoring issues. We consider independent censoring, common censoring across endpoints, and right censoring. We develop an asymptotic variance estimator for the logarithm of the IPCW-adjusted win ratio statistic and evaluate it via simulation. Our simulation studies show that, as the amount of censoring increases, the unadjusted win proportions may decrease greatly. Consequently, the bias of the unadjusted win ratio estimate may increase greatly, producing either an overestimate or an underestimate. We demonstrate theoretically and through simulation that the IPCW-adjusted win ratio statistic gives an unbiased estimate of treatment effect

Use of Alternative Designs and Data Sources for Pediatric Trials

Children are considered a vulnerable group and as such are granted additional protection as research subjects. Research projects using children as research subjects are justifiable if the answer to the scientific question of the study cannot be obtained by enrolling adult subjects (cf. scientific necessity). Thus, there is an ethical obligation to explore innovative analytical strategies that seek balance between the feasibility of conducting a trial and maximizing the utilization of data on efficacy and safety. On this note, there is enthusiasm for implementing some less popular but efficient alternative designs for confirmatory pediatric trials. Within the pediatric extrapolation paradigm, examples of such designs, other than purely based on pharmacokinetic/pharmacodynamic data, are described in this article along with their advantages and disadvantages. This article will also discuss how to incorporate alternative data sources in the analysis of pediatric clinical trials. A discussion of existing approaches and a road-map to their utilization will be provided. Real case examples on the use of the approaches are provided

Win statistics (win ratio, win odds, and net benefit) can complement one another to show the strength of the treatment effect on time‐to‐event outcomes

Conventional analyses of a composite of multiple time-to-event outcomes use the time to the first event. However, the first event may not be the most important outcome. To address this limitation, generalized pairwise comparisons and win statistics (win ratio, win odds, and net benefit) have become popular and have been applied to clinical trial practice. However, win ratio, win odds, and net benefit have typically been used separately. In this article, we examine the use of these three win statistics jointly for time-to-event outcomes. First, we explain the relation of point estimates and variances among the three win statistics, and the relation between the net benefit and the Mann–Whitney U statistic. Then we explain that the three win statistics are based on the same win proportions, and they test the same null hypothesis of equal win probabilities in two groups. We show theoretically that the Z-values of the corresponding statistical tests are approximately equal; therefore, the three win statistics provide very similar p-values and statistical powers. Finally, using simulation studies and data from a clinical trial, we demonstrate that, when there is no (or little) censoring, the three win statistics can complement one another to show the strength of the treatment effect. However, when the amount of censoring is not small, and without adjustment for censoring, the win odds and the net benefit may have an advantage for interpreting the treatment effect; with adjustment (e.g., IPCW adjustment) for censoring, the three win statistics can complement one another to show the strength of the treatment effect. For calculations we use the R package WINS, available on the CRAN (Comprehensive R Archive Network)