In this article, I review the key elements of the proposed International Council for Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Pharmaceuticals for Human Use E9 Addendum, present a constructive critique, and provide recommendations of how it can be improved. To highlight ideas, I present a case study involving a confirmatory trial for a chronic pain medication.
MehrotraDV.A note on the draft ICH guidelines on estimands and sensitivity analysis. Clin Trials. Epub ahead of print 12 April 2019. DOI: 10.1177/1740774519844259.
7.
Permutt T. Defining treatment effects: a regulatory perspective. Clin Trials. Epub ahead of print 2019 Feb 14. DOI: 10.1177/1740774519830358.
8.
HernanMAScharfsteinD.Cautions as regulators move to end exclusive reliance on intention to treat. Ann Intern Med2018; 168(7): 515–516.
9.
HuberPWHowardP.Unlocking the code of health: bridging the gap between precision medicine and FDA regulation. Technical report, Manhattan Institute, 2015.
10.
LipkovichIAdamsDHMallinckrodtC, et al. Evaluating dose response from flexible dose clinical trials. BMC Psychiatry2008; 8: 3.
11.
RabinowitzJLevineSZBarkaiO, et al. Dropout rates in randomized clinical trials of antipsychotics: a meta-analysis comparing first- and second-generation drugs and an examination of the role of trial design features. Schizophr Bull2009; 35(4): 775–788.
12.
MartinJLPerezVSacristanM, et al. Meta-analysis of drop-out rates in randomised clinical trials, comparing typical and atypical antipsychotics in the treatment of schizophrenia. Eur Psychiatry2006; 21(1): 11–20.
13.
HernanMARobinsJM.Per-protocol analyses of pragmatic trials. N Engl J Med2017; 377(14): 1391–1398.
14.
FrangakisCERubinDB.Principal stratification in causal inference. Biometrics2002; 58(1): 21–29.
15.
JoBVinokurAD.Sensitivity analysis and bounding of causal effects with alternative identifying assumptions. J Educ Behav Stat2011; 36(1): 415–440.
16.
MehrotraDVLiXGilbertPB.A comparison of eight methods for the dual-endpoint evaluation of efficacy in a proof-of-concept HIV vaccine trial. Biometrics2006; 62(3): 893–900.
17.
ShepherdBEGilbertPBMehrotraDV.Eliciting a counterfactual sensitivity parameter. Am Stat2007; 61(1): 56–63.
18.
US Department of Health and Human Services. Enrichment strategies for clinical trials to support approval of human drugs and biological products. Silver Spring: FDA, 2012.
19.
ScharfsteinDMcDermottADiazI, et al. Global sensitivity analysis for repeated measures studies with informative drop-out: a semi-parametric approach. Biometrics2018; 74(1): 207–219.
20.
ScharfsteinDOMcDermottA.Global sensitivity analysis of clinical trials with missing patient-reported outcomes. Stat Methods Med Res2019; 28(5): 1439–1456.
21.
PermuttT.Sensitivity analysis for missing data in regulatory submissions. Stat Med2016; 35(17): 2876–2879.
22.
DworkinRHTurkDCPeirce-SandnerS, et al. Research design considerations for confirmatory chronic pain clinical trials: IMMPACT recommendations. Pain2010; 149(2): 177–193.
23.
FarrarJTDworkinRHMaxMB.Use of the cumulative proportion of responders analysis graph to present pain data over a range of cut-off points: making clinical trial data more understandable. J Pain Symptom Manag2006; 31(4): 369–377.
24.
PermuttTLiF.Trimmed means for symptom trials with dropouts. Pharm Stat2017; 16(1): 20–28.
