Skip to main content
Key Specialties
Cardiology Diabetology Endocrinology Gastroenterology Geriatrics and Gerontology Gynecology and Obstetrics Hematology Infectious Disease Internal Medicine Nephrology Neurology Oncology Pediatrics Respiratory Medicine Rheumatology Surgery
Congress Coverage
2024 ACC Congress 2023 ESMO Congress 2023 EASD Congress 2023 ERS Congress 2023 ESC Congress
Clinical Collections
Advances in Alzheimer’s

At a glance: The STEP trials

A round-up of the STEP phase 3 clinical trials evaluating semaglutide for weight loss in people with overweight or obesity.
ADVANCED SEARCH
Log in
Top
Trials
Published in: Trials 1/2016

Open Access 01-12-2016 | Research

Advantages of Bayesian monitoring methods in deciding whether and when to stop a clinical trial: an example of a neonatal cooling trial

Authors: Claudia Pedroza, Jon E. Tyson, Abhik Das, Abbot Laptook, Edward F. Bell, Seetha Shankaran, for the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network

Published in: Trials | Issue 1/2016

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Decisions to stop randomized trials are often based on traditional P value thresholds and are often unconvincing to clinicians. To familiarize clinical investigators with the application and advantages of Bayesian monitoring methods, we illustrate the steps of Bayesian interim analysis using a recent major trial that was stopped based on frequentist analysis of safety and futility.

Methods

We conducted Bayesian reanalysis of a factorial trial in newborn infants with hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy that was designed to investigate whether outcomes would be improved by deeper (32 °C) or longer cooling (120 h), as compared with those achieved by standard whole body cooling (33.5 °C for 72 h). Using prior trial data, we developed neutral and enthusiastic prior probabilities for the effect on predischarge mortality, defined stopping guidelines for a clinically meaningful effect, and derived posterior probabilities for predischarge mortality.

Results

Bayesian relative risk estimates for predischarge mortality were closer to 1.0 than were frequentist estimates. Posterior probabilities suggested increased predischarge mortality (relative risk > 1.0) for the three intervention groups; two crossed the Bayesian futility threshold.

Conclusions

Bayesian analysis incorporating previous trial results and different pre-existing opinions can help interpret accruing data and facilitate informed stopping decisions that are likely to be meaningful and convincing to clinicians, meta-analysts, and guideline developers.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT01192776. Registered on 31 August 2010.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
Pocock SJ. Interim analyses for randomized clinical trials: the group sequential approach. Biometrics. 1982;38:153–62.CrossRefPubMed
2.
O’Brien PC, Fleming TR. A multiple testing procedure for clinical trials. Biometrics. 1979;35:549–56.CrossRefPubMed
3.
Guyatt GH, Briel M, Glasziou P, Bassler D, Montori VM. Problems of stopping trials early. BMJ. 2012;344, e3863.CrossRefPubMed
4.
5.
Hughes MD, Freedman LS, Pocock SJ. The impact of stopping rules on heterogeneity of results in overviews of clinical trials. Biometrics. 1992;48:41–53.CrossRefPubMed
6.
Grant AM, Altman DG, Babiker AB, Campbell MK, Clemens FJ, Darbyshire JH, et al. Issues in data monitoring and interim analysis of trials. Health Technol Assess. 2005;9:1–238. iii–iv.CrossRef
7.
Pocock SJ. Current controversies in data monitoring for clinical trials. Clin Trials. 2006;3:513–21.CrossRefPubMed
8.
Fernandes RM, van der Lee JH, Offringa M. Data monitoring committees, interim analysis and early termination in paediatric trials. Acta Paediatr. 2011;100:1386–92.CrossRefPubMed
9.
10.
Bassler D, Montori VM, Briel M, Glasziou P, Guyatt G. Early stopping of randomized clinical trials for overt efficacy is problematic. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:241–6.CrossRefPubMed
11.
Mukherjee SD, Goffin JR, Taylor V, Anderson KK, Pond GR. Early stopping rules in oncology: considerations for clinicians. Eur J Cancer. 2011;47:2381–6.CrossRefPubMed
12.
Zannad F, Gattis Stough W, McMurray JJV, Remme WJ, Pitt B, Borer JS, et al. When to stop a clinical trial early for benefit: lessons learned and future approaches. Circ Heart Fail. 2012;5:294–302.CrossRefPubMed
13.
Parmar MKB, Spiegelhalter DJ, Freedman LS. The CHART trials: Bayesian design and monitoring in practice. Stat Med. 1994;13:1297–312.CrossRefPubMed
14.
Spiegelhalter DJ, Freedman LS, Parmar MK. Applying Bayesian ideas in drug development and clinical trials. Stat Med. 1993;12:1501–11. discussion 1513–7.CrossRefPubMed
15.
Spiegelhalter DJ, Freedman LS, Parmar MK. Bayesian approaches to randomized trials. J R Stat Soc Ser A. 1994;157:357–416.CrossRef
16.
Fayers PM, Ashby D, Parmar MK. Tutorial in biostatistics Bayesian data monitoring in clinical trials. Stat Med. 1997;16:1413–30.CrossRefPubMed
17.
Robert E, Kass JBG. [Investigating therapies of potentially great benefit: ECMO]: comment: a Bayesian perspective. Statist Sci. 1989;4:310–17.CrossRef
18.
Berry DA. A case for Bayesianism in clinical trials. Stat Med. 1993;12:1377–93. discussion 1395–404.CrossRefPubMed
19.
Carlin BP, Sargent DJ. Robust Bayesian approaches for clinical trial monitoring. Stat Med. 1996;15:1093–106.CrossRefPubMed
20.
Dmitrienko A, Wang M-D. Bayesian predictive approach to interim monitoring in clinical trials. Stat Med. 2006;25:2178–95.CrossRefPubMed
21.
Saville BR, Connor JT, Ayers GD, Alvarez J. The utility of Bayesian predictive probabilities for interim monitoring of clinical trials. Clin Trials. 2014;11:485–93.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
22.
Thall PF, Simon R. Practical Bayesian guidelines for Phase IIB clinical trials. Biometrics. 1994;50:337–49.CrossRefPubMed
23.
Thall PF, Wooten LH, Tannir NM. Monitoring event times in early phase clinical trials: some practical issues. Clin Trials. 2005;2:467–78.CrossRefPubMed
24.
Thall PF, Simon R. A Bayesian approach to establishing sample size and monitoring criteria for Phase II clinical trials. Control Clin Trials. 1994;15:463–81.CrossRefPubMed
25.
26.
27.
Harrell FE, Shih YC. Using full probability models to compute probabilities of actual interest to decision makers. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2001;17:17–26.CrossRefPubMed
28.
Lambert PC, Sutton AJ, Burton PR, Abrams KR, Jones DR. How vague is vague? A simulation study of the impact of the use of vague prior distributions in MCMC using WinBUGS. Stat Med. 2005;24:2401–28.CrossRefPubMed
29.
Greenland S. Bayesian perspectives for epidemiological research. II Regression analysis. Int J Epidemiol. 2007;36:195–202.CrossRefPubMed
30.
Spiegelhalter DJ, Abrams KR, Myles JP. Bayesian approaches to clinical trials and health care evaluation. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2004.
31.
Pibouleau L, Chevret S. Bayesian statistical method was underused despite its advantages in the assessment of implantable medical devices. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:270–9.CrossRefPubMed
32.
Winkler RL. Why Bayesian analysis hasn’t caught on in healthcare decision making. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2001;17:56–66.CrossRefPubMed
33.
Sheingold SH. Can Bayesian methods make data and analyses more relevant to decision makers? A perspective from Medicare. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2001;17:114–22.CrossRefPubMed
34.
Shankaran S, Laptook AR, Pappas A, McDonald SA, Das A, Tyson JE, et al. Effect of depth and duration of cooling on deaths in the NICU among neonates with hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2014;312:2629–39.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
35.
Jacobs SE, Berg M, Hunt R, Tarnow-Mordi WO, Inder TE, Davis PG. Cooling for newborns with hypoxic ischaemic encephalopathy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;1:CD003311.PubMed
36.
Papile L-A, Baley JE, Benitz W, Cummings J, Carlo WA, Eichenwald E, et al. Hypothermia and neonatal encephalopathy. Pediatrics. 2014;133:1146–50.CrossRefPubMed
37.
Shankaran S, Laptook AR, Ehrenkranz RA, Tyson JE, McDonald SA, Donovan EF, et al. Whole-body hypothermia for neonates with hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:1574–84.CrossRefPubMed
38.
Carroll M, Beek O. Protection against hippocampal CA1 cell loss by post-ischemic hypothermia is dependent on delay of initiation and duration. Metab Brain Dis. 1992;7:45–50.CrossRefPubMed
39.
Colbourne F, Corbett D. Delayed postischemic hypothermia: a six month survival study using behavioral and histological assessments of neuroprotection. J Neurosci Off J Soc Neurosci. 1995;15:7250–60.
40.
Iwata O, Thornton JS, Sellwood MW, Iwata S, Sakata Y, Noone MA, et al. Depth of delayed cooling alters neuroprotection pattern after hypoxia-ischemia. Ann Neurol. 2005;58:75–87.CrossRefPubMed
41.
Perlman JM. Summary proceedings from the neurology group on hypoxic-ischemic encephalopathy. Pediatrics. 2006;117:S28–33.CrossRefPubMed
42.
Compagnoni G, Bottura C, Cavallaro G, Cristofori G, Lista G, Mosca F. Safety of deep hypothermia in treating neonatal asphyxia. Neonatology. 2008;93:230–5.CrossRefPubMed
43.
Pocock S, Wang D, Wilhelmsen L, Hennekens CH. The data monitoring experience in the Candesartan in Heart Failure Assessment of Reduction in Mortality and Morbidity (CHARM) program. Am Heart J. 2005;149:939–43.CrossRefPubMed
44.
Fleming TR, Neaton JD, Goldman A, DeMets DL, Launer C, Korvick J, et al. Insights from monitoring the CPCRA didanosine/zalcitabine trial. Terry Beirn Community Programs for Clinical Research on AIDS. J Acquir Immune Defic Syndr Hum Retrovirol. 1995;10 Suppl 2:S9–18.PubMed
45.
Food and Drug Administration. Guidance for the use of Bayesian statistics in medical device clinical trials. J Biopharm Stat. 2010; 5:2010.
46.
Dixon DO, Freedman RS, Herson J, Hughes M, Kim K, Silverman MH, et al. Guidelines for data and safety monitoring for clinical trials not requiring traditional data monitoring committees. Clin Trials. 2006;3:314–9.CrossRefPubMed
47.
48.
Simon R, Freedman LS. Bayesian design and analysis of two × two factorial clinical trials. Biometrics. 1997;53:456–64.CrossRefPubMed
49.
Sinclair JC, Haughton DE, Bracken MB, Horbar JD, Soll RF. Cochrane neonatal systematic reviews: a survey of the evidence for neonatal therapies. Clin Perinatol. 2003;30:285–304.CrossRefPubMed
50.
Simon R. Bayesian subset analysis: application to studying treatment-by-gender interactions. Stat Med. 2002;21:2909–16.CrossRefPubMed
51.
Granger CB, Alexander JH, McMurray JJV, Lopes RD, Hylek EM, Hanna M, et al. Apixaban versus warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2011;365:981–92.CrossRefPubMed
52.
Lagerqvist B, Fröbert O, Olivecrona GK, Gudnason T, Maeng M, Alström P, et al. Outcomes 1 year after thrombus aspiration for myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:1111–20.CrossRefPubMed
53.
Mauri L, Kereiakes DJ, Yeh RW, Driscoll-Shempp P, Cutlip DE, Steg PG, et al. Twelve or 30 months of dual antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stents. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:2155–66.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
54.
Ikeda Y, Shimada K, Teramoto T, Uchiyama S, Yamazaki T, Oikawa S, et al. Low-dose aspirin for primary prevention of cardiovascular events in Japanese patients 60 years or older with atherosclerotic risk factors: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2014;312:2510–20.CrossRefPubMed
55.
White HD, Held C, Stewart R, Tarka E, Brown R, Davies RY, et al. Darapladib for preventing ischemic events in stable coronary heart disease. N Engl J Med. 2014;370:1702–11.CrossRefPubMed
56.
Gelman A, Carlin JB, Stern HS, Dunson DB, Vehtari A, Rubin DB. Bayesian data analysis. 3rd ed. Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC; 2014.
57.
Lunn DJ, Thomas A, Best N, Spiegelhalter D. WinBUGS—a Bayesian modelling framework: concepts, structure, and extensibility. Stat Comput. 2000;10:325–37.CrossRef
58.
Greenland S. Putting background information about relative risks into conjugate prior distributions. Biometrics. 2001;57:663–70.CrossRefPubMed
59.
Pedroza C, Han W, Truong VTT, Green C, Tyson JE. Performance of informative priors skeptical of large treatment effects in clinical trials: a simulation study. Stat Methods Med Res. 2015; doi:10.1177/0962280215620828. [Epub ahead of print]
60.
61.
Tyson JE, Pedroza C, Wallace D, D’Angio C, Bell EF, Das A. Stopping guidelines for an effectiveness trial: what should the protocol specify? Trials. 2016;17:240.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
62.
Metadata
Title
Advantages of Bayesian monitoring methods in deciding whether and when to stop a clinical trial: an example of a neonatal cooling trial
Authors
Claudia Pedroza
Jon E. Tyson
Abhik Das
Abbot Laptook
Edward F. Bell
Seetha Shankaran
for the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Neonatal Research Network
Publication date
01-12-2016
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Trials / Issue 1/2016
Electronic ISSN: 1745-6215
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13063-016-1480-4

Other articles of this Issue 1/2016

Trials 1/2016 Go to the issue

Research

Patients’ willingness to participate in clinical trials and their views on aspects of cancer research: results of a prospective patient survey

Study protocol

Impact of advance care planning on the care of patients with heart failure: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

Research

Effects of indexes of consciousness (IoC1 and IoC2) monitoring on remifentanil dosage in modified radical mastectomy: a randomized trial

Erratum

Erratum to: CASPER plus (CollAborative care in screen-positive EldeRs with major depressive disorder): study protocol for a randomised controlled trial

Research

The citation of relevant systematic reviews and randomised trials in published reports of trial protocols

Research

Three nested randomized controlled trials of peer-only or multiple stakeholder group feedback within Delphi surveys during core outcome and information set development