A single-arm study design with non-inferiority and superiority time-to-event endpoints: a tool for proof-of-concept and de-intensification strategies in breast cancer

De-escalation trials in oncology evaluate therapies that aim to improve the quality of life of patients with low-risk cancer by avoiding overtreatment. Non-inferiority randomized trials are commonly used to investigate de-intensified regimens with similar efficacy to that of standard regimens but with fewer adverse effects (ESMO evidence tier A). In cases where it is not feasible to recruit the number of patients needed for a randomized trial, single-arm prospective studies with a hypothesis of non-inferiority can be conducted as an alternative. Single-arm studies are also commonly used to evaluate novel treatment strategies (ESMO evidence tier B). A single-arm design that includes both non-inferiority and superiority primary objectives will enable the ranking of clinical activity and other parameters such as safety, pharmacokinetics, and pharmacodynamics data. Here, we describe the statistical principles and procedures to support such a strategy. The non-inferiority margin is calculated using the fixed margin method. Sample size and statistical analyses are based on the maximum likelihood method for exponential distributions. We present example analyses in metastatic and adjuvant settings to illustrate the usefulness of our methodology. We also explain its implementation with nonparametric methods. Single-arm designs with non-inferiority and superiority analyses are optimal for proof-of-concept and de-escalation studies in oncology.

The Impact of Excluding Nonrandomized Studies From Systematic Reviews in Rare Diseases: "The Example of Meta-Analyses Evaluating the Efficacy and Safety of Enzyme Replacement Therapy in Patients With Mucopolysaccharidosis"

Nonrandomized studies are usually excluded from systematic reviews. This could lead to loss of a considerable amount of information on rare diseases. In this article, we explore the impact of excluding nonrandomized studies on the generalizability of meta-analyses results on mucopolysaccharidosis (MPS) disease. A comprehensive search of systematic reviews on MPS patients up to May 2020 was carried out (CRD42020191217). The primary endpoint was the rate of patients excluded from systematic reviews if only randomized studies were considered. Secondary outcomes included the differences in patient and study characteristics between randomized and nonrandomized studies, the methods used to combine data from studies with different designs, and the number of patients excluded from systematic reviews if case reports were not considered. More than 50% of the patients analyzed have been recruited in nonrandomized studies. Patient characteristics, duration of follow-up, and the clinical outcomes evaluated differ between the randomized and nonrandomized studies. There are feasible strategies to combine the data from different randomized and nonrandomized designs. The analyses suggest the relevance of including case reports in the systematic reviews, since the smaller the number of patients in the reference population, the larger the selection bias associated to excluding case reports. Our results recommend including nonrandomized studies in the systematic reviews of MPS to increase the representativeness of the results and to avoid a selection bias. The recommendations obtained from this study should be considered when conducting systematic reviews on rare diseases.

Inclusion of non-inferiority analysis in superiority-based clinical trials with single-arm, two-stage Simon's design

INTRODUCTION

Non-inferiority (NI) analysis is not usually considered in the early phases of clinical development. In some negative phase II trials, a post-hoc NI analysis justified additional phase III trials that were successful. However, the risk of false positive achievements was not controlled in these early phase analyses. We propose to preplan NI analyses in superiority-based Simon's two-stage designs to control type I and II error rates.

METHODS

Simulations have been proposed to assess the control of type I and II errors rates with this method. A total of 12,768 two-stage Simon's design trials were constructed based on different assumptions of rejection response probability, desired response probability, type I and II errors, and NI margins. P-value and type II error were calculated with stochastic ordering using Uniformly Minimum Variance Unbiased Estimator. Type I and II errors were simulated using the Monte Carlo method. The agreement between calculated and simulated values was analyzed with Bland-Altman plots.

RESULTS

We observed the same level of agreement between calculated and simulated type I and II errors from both two-stage Simon's superiority designs and designs in which NI analysis was allowed. Different examples has been proposed to explain the utility of this method.

CONCLUSION

Inclusion of NI analysis in superiority-based single-arm clinical trials may be useful for weighing additional factors such as safety, pharmacokinetics, pharmacodynamic, and biomarker data while assessing early efficacy. Implementation of this strategy can be achieved through simple adaptations to existing designs for one-arm phase II clinical trials.

The Value of Case Reports in Systematic Reviews from Rare Diseases. The Example of Enzyme Replacement Therapy (ERT) in Patients with Mucopolysaccharidosis Type II (MPS-II)

BACKGROUND

Case reports are usually excluded from systematic reviews. Patients with rare diseases are more dependent on novel individualized strategies than patients with common diseases. We reviewed and summarized the novelties reported by case reports in mucopolysaccharidosis type II (MPS-II) patients treated with enzyme replacement therapy (ERT).

METHODS

We selected the case reports included in a previous meta-analysis of patients with MPS-II treated with ERT. Later clinical studies evaluating the same topic of those case reports were reported. Our primary aim was to summarize novelties reported in previous case reports. Secondary objectives analyzed the number of novelties evaluated in subsequent clinical studies and the time elapsed between the publication of the case report to the publication of the clinical study.

RESULTS

We identified 11 innovative proposals in case reports that had not been previously considered in clinical studies. Only two (18.2%) were analyzed in subsequent nonrandomized cohort studies. The other nine novelties (81.8%) were analyzed in later case reports (five) or were not included in ulterior studies (four) after more than five years from their first publication.

CONCLUSIONS

Case reports should be included in systematic reviews of rare disease to obtain a comprehensive summary of the state of research and offer valuable information for healthcare practitioners.

Agreement between results of meta-analyses from case reports and clinical studies, regarding efficacy and safety of idursulfase therapy in patients with mucopolysaccharidosis type II (MPS-II). A new tool for evidence-based medicine in rare diseases

Background

A preliminary exploratory study shows solid agreement between the results of case reports and clinical study meta-analyses in mucopolysaccharidosis Type I (MPS-I) adult patients. The aim of the present study is to confirm previous results in another patient population, suffering from mucopolysaccharidosis Type II (MPS-II).

Methods

A systematic review and meta-analysis of case reports published by April 2018 was conducted for MPS-II patients treated with enzyme replacement therapy (ERT). The study is reported in accordance with PRISMA and MOOSE guidelines (PROSPERO database code CRD42018093408). The assessed population and outcomes were the same as previously analyzed in a meta-analysis of MPS-II clinical studies. The primary endpoint was the percent of clinical cases showing improvement in efficacy outcome, or no harm in safety outcome after ERT initiation. A restrictive procedure to aggregate case reports, by selecting standardized and well-defined outcomes, was proposed. Different sensitivity analyses were able to evaluate the robustness of results.

Results

Every outcome classified as “acceptable evidence group” in our case report meta-analysis had been graded as “moderate strength of evidence” in the aforementioned meta-analysis of clinical studies. Sensitivity, specificity, and positive-negative predictive values for results of both meta-analyses reached 100%, and were deemed equivalent.

Conclusions

Aggregating case reports quantitatively, rather than analyzing them qualitatively, may improve conclusions in rare diseases and personalized medicine. Additionally, we propose some methods to evaluate publication bias and heterogeneity of the included studies in a meta-analysis of case reports.

Agreement between the results of meta-analyses from case reports and from clinical studies regarding the efficacy of laronidase therapy in patients with mucopolysaccharidosis type I who initiated enzyme replacement therapy in adult age: An example of case reports meta-analyses as an useful tool for evidence-based medicine in rare diseases

BACKGROUND

Case reports might have a prominent role in the rare diseases field, due to the small number of patients affected by one such disease. A previous systematic review regarding the efficacy of laronidase therapy in patients with mucopolysaccharidosis type I (MPS-I) who initiated enzyme replacement therapy (ERT) in adult age has been published. The review included a meta-analysis of 19 clinical studies and the description of eleven case reports. It was of interest to perform a meta-analysis of those case reports to explore the role of such meta-analyses as a tool for evidence-based medicine in rare diseases.

METHODS

The study included all case reports with standard treatment regimen. Primary analysis was the percentage of case reports showing an improvement in a specific outcome. Only when that percentage was statistically higher than 5%, the improvement was confirmed as such. The outcomes that accomplished this criterion were ranked and compared to the GRADE criteria obtained by those same outcomes in the previous meta-analysis of clinical studies.

RESULTS

There were three outcomes that had a significant improvement: Urine glycosaminoglycans, liver volume and 6-minute walking test. Positive and negative predictive values, sensitivity and specificity for the results of the meta-analysis of case reports as compared to that of clinical studies were 100%, 88.9%, 75% and 100%, respectively. Accordingly, absolute (Rho=0.82, 95%CI: 0.47 to 0.95) and relative agreement (Kappa=0.79, 95%CI: 0.593 to 0.99) between the number of case reports with improvement in a specific outcome and the GRADE evidence score for that outcome were good. Sensitivity analysis showed that agreement between the meta-analysis of case reports and that of the clinical studies were good only when using a strong confirmatory strategy for outcome improvement in case reports.

CONCLUSIONS

We found an agreement between the results of meta-analyses from case reports and from clinical studies in the efficacy of laronidase therapy in patients with MPS-I who initiated ERT in adult age. This agreement suggests that combining case reports quantitatively, rather than analyzing them separately or qualitatively, may improve conclusions in the field of rare diseases.