Journal Article

Subgroup analyses in confirmatory clinical trials: time to be specific about their purposes

Roes, Kit C. B., van der Tweel, Ingeborg, Teerenstra, Steven, Tanniou, Julien

2016

Overview

Background It is well recognized that treatment effects may not be homogeneous across the study population. Subgroup analyses constitute a fundamental step in the assessment of evidence from confirmatory (Phase III) clinical trials, where conclusions for the overall study population might not hold. Subgroup analyses can have different and distinct purposes, requiring specific design and analysis solutions. It is relevant to evaluate methodological developments in subgroup analyses against these purposes to guide health care professionals and regulators as well as to identify gaps in current methodology. Methods We defined four purposes for subgroup analyses: (1) Investigate the consistency of treatment effects across subgroups of clinical importance, (2) Explore the treatment effect across different subgroups within an overall non-significant trial, (3) Evaluate safety profiles limited to one or a few subgroup(s), (4) Establish efficacy in the targeted subgroup when included in a confirmatory testing strategy of a single trial. We reviewed the methodology in line with this “purpose-based” framework. The review covered papers published between January 2005 and April 2015 and aimed to classify them in none, one or more of the aforementioned purposes. Results In total 1857 potentially eligible papers were identified. Forty-eight papers were selected and 20 additional relevant papers were identified from their references, leading to 68 papers in total. Nineteen were dedicated to purpose 1, 16 to purpose 4, one to purpose 2 and none to purpose 3. Seven papers were dedicated to more than one purpose, the 25 remaining could not be classified unambiguously. Purposes of the methods were often not specifically indicated, methods for subgroup analysis for safety purposes were almost absent and a multitude of diverse methods were developed for purpose (1). Conclusions It is important that researchers developing methodology for subgroup analysis explicitly clarify the objectives of their methods in terms that can be understood from a patient’s, health care provider’s and/or regulator’s perspective. A clear operational definition for consistency of treatment effects across subgroups is lacking, but is needed to improve the usability of subgroup analyses in this setting. Finally, methods to particularly explore benefit-risk systematically across subgroups need more research.

• Publisher: BioMed Central,BioMed Central Ltd,Springer Nature B.V,BMC
• Subject: Analysis / Biomedical Research - methods / Biomedical Research - statistics & numerical data / Clinical trials / Clinical Trials as Topic - methods / Clinical Trials as Topic - statistics & numerical data / Evidence-Based Medicine - methods / Evidence-Based Medicine - statistics & numerical data / Health Sciences / Humans / Medical care / Medicine / Medicine & Public Health / Outcome Assessment (Health Care) - methods / Outcome Assessment (Health Care) - statistics & numerical data / Reproducibility of Results / Research Article / Research Design / Statistical Theory and Methods / Statistics for Life Sciences / Study design / Subgroup analysis / Subgroups / Theory of Medicine/Bioethics / United States