Bayesian design using adult data to augment pediatric trials

Abstract

Background It can be difficult to conduct pediatric clinical trials because there is often a low incidence of the disease in children, making accrual slow or infeasible. In addition, low mortality and morbidity in this population make it impractical to achieve adequate power. In this case, the only evidence for treatment efficacy comes from adult trials. Since pediatric care providers are accustomed to relying on evidence from adult studies, it is natural to consider borrowing information from adult trials.

Purpose The goal of this article is to propose a Bayesian approach to the design and analysis of pediatric trials to allow borrowing strength from previous or simultaneous adult trials.

Methods We apply a hierarchical model for which the efficacy parameter from the adult trial and that of the pediatric trail are considered to be draws from a normal distribution. The choice of (the variance of) this distribution is guided by discussion with medical experts. We show that with this information, one can calculate the sample size required for the pediatric trial. We discuss how inference of these studies in pediatric populations depends on the parameter that captures the similarity of the treatment efficacy in adults compared to children.

Results The Bayesian approach can substantially increase the power of a pediatric clinical trial (or equivalently decrease the number of subjects required) by formally leveraging the data from the adult trial.

Limitations Our method relies on obtaining a value for the inter-study variability, ν, which may be difficult to describe to a clinical investigator.

Conclusions The Bayesian approach has the potential of making pediatric clinical trials feasible because it has the effect of borrowing strength from adult trials, thus requiring a smaller pediatric trial to show efficacy of a drug in children. Clinical Trials 2009; 6: 297—304. http://ctj.sagepub.com

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Abdel-Rahman SM , Reed MD , Wells TG , Kearns GL Considerations in the rational design and conduct of phase I/II pediatric clinical trials: avoiding the problems and pitfalls. [Review]. Clin Pharmacol Ther 2007 ; 81: 483-94.

Schreiner MS , Greeley WJ Pediatric clinical trials: shall we take a lead? [comment]. Anesth Analg 2002 ; 94: 1-3.

FDA. Guidance for the Use of Bayesian Statistics in Medical Device Clinical Trials - Draft Guidance for Industry and FDA Staff, 2006, Available at: http://www.fda.gov/cdrh/osb/guidance/1601.html (accessed 26 May 2009)

Liu JP Bridging studies. In Chow SC. (ed.). Encyclopedia of Biopharmaceutical Statistcs, Marcel Dekker , New York, 2003, pp. 134-38.

Liu JP , Hsiao CF , Hsueh H. Bayesian approach to evaluation of bridging studies. J Biopharm Stat 2002; 12: 401-08.

Dixon DO , Simon R. Bayesian subset analysis. Biometrics 1991; 47: 871-81.

Spiegelhalter DJ , Abrams KR , Myle JP Bayesian Approaches to Clinical Trials and Health-care Evaluation Wiley, Chichester, 2004.

Goodman SN , Sladky JT A Bayesian approaches to randomized controlled trials in children utilizing information from adults: the case of Guillain-Barre syndrome. Clin Trials 2005; 2: 305-10.

Lau J. , Schmid CH , Chalmers TC Cumulative meta-analysis of clinical trials builds evidence for exemplary medical care. J Clin Epidemiol 1995; 48: 45-57.

10.

DerSimonian R. Meta-analysis in the design and monitoring of clinical trials. Stat Med 1996; 15: 1237-48.

11.

Ibrahim JG , Chen MH Power prior distributions for regression models. Stat Sci 2000; 15: 46-60.

12.

Chen MH , Ibrahim JG The reltaionship between the power prior and hierarchical models. Bayesian Anal 2006; 1: 551-74.

13.

The BUGS project. Available at: http://www.mrcbsu.cam.ac.uk/bugs/winbugs/contents.shtml (accessed 26 May 2009)

14.

Faraggi D. , Simon RM Large sample Bayesian inference on the parameters of the proportional hazard models. Stat Med 1997; 16: 2573-85.

15.

Thall PF , Simon RM , Shen Y. Approximate Bayesian evaluation of multiple treatment effects. Biometrics 2000; 56: 213-9.

16.

Berry D. Using a Bayesian Approach in Medical Device Development, Available at: ftp://ftp.isds.duke.edu/pub/WorkingPapers/97-21.ps (accessed 26 May 2009)

17.

Brown BW , Herson J. , Atkinson EN , Rozell ME Projection from previous studies: a Bayesian and frequentist compromise . Control Clin Trials 1987; 8: 29-44.

18.

Schoenfeld DA , Bernard GR Statistical evaluation of ventilator free days as an efficacy measure in clinical trials of treatments for acute respiratory distress syndrome. Crit Care Med 2002; 30: 1772-7.

19.

Bernard GR , Vincent J-L. , Laterre P-F. , et al. Efficacy and safety of recombinant human activated protein C for severe sepsis? N Engl J Med 2001; 344: 699-709.

20.

Sennik D. Drotrecogin Alfa Does not Improve Outcome in Children with Sepsis , Reuters Report. 2007.

21.

Schwartz JI , Chan C. -C, Mukhopadhyay S. , et al. Cyclooxygenase-2 inhibition by rofecoxib reverses naturally occurring fever in humans. Clin Pharmacol Ther 1999; 65: 653-60.

22.

Bachert C. , Chuchalin AG , Eisebitt R. , et al. Aspirin compared with acetaminophen in the treatment of feverand other symptoms of upper respiratory tract infection in adults: a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, double-dummy, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, single-dose, 6-hour dose-ranging study. Clin Ther 2005; 27: 993-1003.

23.

Vauzelle-Kervroedan F. , d’Athis P. , Pariente-Khayat A. , et al. Equivalent antipyretic activity of ibuprofen and paracetamol in febrile children. J Pediatr 1997; 131: 683-7.