Pocock boundary

Last updated

The Pocock boundary is a method for determining whether to stop a clinical trial prematurely. The typical clinical trial compares two groups of patients. One group are given a placebo or conventional treatment, while the other group of patients are given the treatment that is being tested. The investigators running the clinical trial will wish to stop the trial early for ethical reasons if the treatment group clearly shows evidence of benefit. In other words, "when early results proved so promising it was no longer fair to keep patients on the older drugs for comparison, without giving them the opportunity to change." [1]

Contents

The concept was introduced by the medical statistician Stuart Pocock in 1977. The many reasons underlying when to stop a clinical trial for benefit were discussed in his editorial from 2005. [2]

Details

The Pocock boundary [3] gives a p-value threshold for each interim analysis which guides the data monitoring committee on whether to stop the trial. The boundary used depends on the number of interim analyses.

List of p-values used at each interim analysis, assuming the overall p-value for the trial is 0.05
Number of planned analysesInterim analysisp-value threshold
210.0294
2 (final)0.0294
310.0221
20.0221
3 (final)0.0221
410.0182
20.0182
30.0182
4 (final)0.0182
510.0158
20.0158
30.0158
40.0158
5 (final)0.0158

The Pocock boundary is simple to use in that the p-value threshold is the same at each interim analysis. The disadvantages are that the number of interim analyses must be fixed at the start and it is not possible under this scheme to add analyses after the trial has started. Another disadvantage is that investigators and readers frequently do not understand how the p-values are reported: for example, if there are five interim analyses planned, but the trial is stopped after the third interim analysis because the p-value was 0.01, then the overall p-value for the trial is still reported as <0.05 and not as 0.01. [4]

See also

Related Research Articles

Evidence-based medicine (EBM) is "the conscientious, explicit and judicious use of current best evidence in making decisions about the care of individual patients." The aim of EBM is to integrate the experience of the clinician, the values of the patient, and the best available scientific information to guide decision-making about clinical management. The term was originally used to describe an approach to teaching the practice of medicine and improving decisions by individual physicians about individual patients.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Placebo</span> Substance or treatment of no therapeutic value

A placebo can be roughly defined as a sham medical treatment. Common placebos include inert tablets, inert injections, sham surgery, and other procedures.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Randomized controlled trial</span> Form of scientific experiment

A randomized controlled trial is a form of scientific experiment used to control factors not under direct experimental control. Examples of RCTs are clinical trials that compare the effects of drugs, surgical techniques, medical devices, diagnostic procedures or other medical treatments.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Clinical trial</span> Phase of clinical research in medicine

Clinical trials are prospective biomedical or behavioral research studies on human participants designed to answer specific questions about biomedical or behavioral interventions, including new treatments and known interventions that warrant further study and comparison. Clinical trials generate data on dosage, safety and efficacy. They are conducted only after they have received health authority/ethics committee approval in the country where approval of the therapy is sought. These authorities are responsible for vetting the risk/benefit ratio of the trial—their approval does not mean the therapy is 'safe' or effective, only that the trial may be conducted.

The incremental cost-effectiveness ratio (ICER) is a statistic used in cost-effectiveness analysis to summarise the cost-effectiveness of a health care intervention. It is defined by the difference in cost between two possible interventions, divided by the difference in their effect. It represents the average incremental cost associated with 1 additional unit of the measure of effect. The ICER can be estimated as:

A serious adverse event (SAE) in human drug trials is defined as any untoward medical occurrence that at any dose

  1. Results in death
  2. Is life-threatening
  3. Requires inpatient hospitalization or causes prolongation of existing hospitalization
  4. Results in persistent or significant disability/incapacity
  5. May have caused a congenital anomaly/birth defect
  6. Requires intervention to prevent permanent impairment or damage

In statistics, sequential analysis or sequential hypothesis testing is statistical analysis where the sample size is not fixed in advance. Instead data are evaluated as they are collected, and further sampling is stopped in accordance with a pre-defined stopping rule as soon as significant results are observed. Thus a conclusion may sometimes be reached at a much earlier stage than would be possible with more classical hypothesis testing or estimation, at consequently lower financial and/or human cost.

A hierarchy of evidence, comprising levels of evidence (LOEs), that is, evidence levels (ELs), is a heuristic used to rank the relative strength of results obtained from experimental research, especially medical research. There is broad agreement on the relative strength of large-scale, epidemiological studies. More than 80 different hierarchies have been proposed for assessing medical evidence. The design of the study and the endpoints measured affect the strength of the evidence. In clinical research, the best evidence for treatment efficacy is mainly from meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). Systematic reviews of completed, high-quality randomized controlled trials – such as those published by the Cochrane Collaboration – rank the same as systematic review of completed high-quality observational studies in regard to the study of side effects. Evidence hierarchies are often applied in evidence-based practices and are integral to evidence-based medicine (EBM).

In medicine an intention-to-treat (ITT) analysis of the results of a randomized controlled trial is based on the initial treatment assignment and not on the treatment eventually received. ITT analysis is intended to avoid various misleading artifacts that can arise in intervention research such as non-random attrition of participants from the study or crossover. ITT is also simpler than other forms of study design and analysis, because it does not require observation of compliance status for units assigned to different treatments or incorporation of compliance into the analysis. Although ITT analysis is widely employed in published clinical trials, it can be incorrectly described and there are some issues with its application. Furthermore, there is no consensus on how to carry out an ITT analysis in the presence of missing outcome data.

In clinical trials and other scientific studies, an interim analysis is an analysis of data that is conducted before data collection has been completed. Clinical trials are unusual in that enrollment of subjects is a continual process staggered in time. If a treatment can be proven to be clearly beneficial or harmful compared to the concurrent control, or to be obviously futile, based on a pre-defined analysis of an incomplete data set while the study is on-going, the investigators may stop the study early.

In medicine, systolic hypertension is defined as an elevated systolic blood pressure (SBP). If the systolic blood pressure is elevated (>140) with a normal (<90) diastolic blood pressure (DBP), it is called isolated systolic hypertension. Eighty percent of people with systolic hypertension are over the age of 65 years old.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Muraglitazar</span> Chemical compound

Muraglitazar is a dual peroxisome proliferator-activated receptor agonist with affinity to PPARα and PPARγ.

Clinical trials are medical research studies conducted on human subjects. The human subjects are assigned to one or more interventions, and the investigators evaluate the effects of those interventions. The progress and results of clinical trials are analyzed statistically.

An N of 1 trial (N=1) is a clinical trial in which a single patient is the entire trial, a single case study. A trial in which random allocation can be used to determine the order in which an experimental and a control intervention are given to a patient is an N of 1 randomized controlled trial. The order of experimental and control interventions can also be fixed by the researcher.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">John Ioannidis</span> American scientist (born 1965)

John P. A. Ioannidis is a Greek-American physician-scientist, writer and Stanford University professor who has made contributions to evidence-based medicine, epidemiology, and clinical research. Ioannidis studies scientific research itself, meta-research primarily in clinical medicine and the social sciences.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Placebo-controlled study</span>

Placebo-controlled studies are a way of testing a medical therapy in which, in addition to a group of subjects that receives the treatment to be evaluated, a separate control group receives a sham "placebo" treatment which is specifically designed to have no real effect. Placebos are most commonly used in blinded trials, where subjects do not know whether they are receiving real or placebo treatment. Often, there is also a further "natural history" group that does not receive any treatment at all.

Comparative effectiveness research (CER) is the direct comparison of existing health care interventions to determine which work best for which patients and which pose the greatest benefits and harms. The core question of comparative effectiveness research is which treatment works best, for whom, and under what circumstances. Engaging various stakeholders in this process, while difficult, makes research more applicable through providing information that improves patient decision making.

The Haybittle–Peto boundary is a rule for deciding when to stop a clinical trial prematurely. It is named for John Haybittle and Richard Peto.


Clinical trials can be promoted and funded by a variety of sponsors, including pharmaceutical companies, government, research charities, foundations, medical organizations, and voluntary groups, such as patients' associations.

<span class="mw-page-title-main">Adaptive design (medicine)</span> Concept in medicine referring to design of clinical trials

In an adaptive design of a clinical trial, the parameters and conduct of the trial for a candidate drug or vaccine may be changed based on an interim analysis. Adaptive design typically involves advanced statistics to interpret a clinical trial endpoint. This is in contrast to traditional single-arm clinical trials or randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that are static in their protocol and do not modify any parameters until the trial is completed. The adaptation process takes place at certain points in the trial, prescribed in the trial protocol. Importantly, this trial protocol is set before the trial begins with the adaptation schedule and processes specified. Adaptions may include modifications to: dosage, sample size, drug undergoing trial, patient selection criteria and/or "cocktail" mix. The PANDA provides not only a summary of different adaptive designs, but also comprehensive information on adaptive design planning, conduct, analysis and reporting.

References

  1. Hall C (5 September 2005). "Heart attacks may be cut by half". Daily Telegraph. p. 1.
  2. Pocock S (2005). "When (not) to stop a clinical trial for benefit" (PDF). JAMA. 294 (17): 2228–2230. doi:10.1001/jama.294.17.2228. PMID   16264167.
  3. Pocock SJ (1977). "Group sequential methods in the design and analysis of clinical trials". Biometrika. 64 (2): 191–9. doi:10.1093/biomet/64.2.191. JSTOR   2335684.
  4. Schulz KF, Grimes DA (2005). "Multiplicity in randomised trials II: subgroup and interim analyses". Lancet. 365 (9471): 1657–1661. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(05)66516-6. PMID   15885299. S2CID   26299736.