Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Current Practices in Choosing Estimands and Sensitivity Analyses in Clinical Trials: Results of the ICH E9 Survey

  • Statistics: Original Research
  • Published:
Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Background

An addendum to the International Conference on Harmonisation E9 (ICH E9) guidance document (Statistical Principles for Clinical Trials) is currently under development. The aim of the addendum is to promote harmonized standards on the choice of estimand (a well-defined measure of the treatment effect that is being estimated) in clinical trials and to describe a consensual framework for planning, conducting, and interpreting sensitivity analyses of clinical trial data.

Methods

In order to help understand current practices relating to the choice of estimands and sensitivity analyses for clinical trials, the ICH E9 working group developing the addendum conducted a survey with a primary focus on clinical trials involving drugs, vaccines, and biologics. The survey was distributed electronically between May 19, 2015, and June 11, 2015, to various stakeholder groups within ICH, including industry, regulatory, and academic communities. A total of 1305 respondents participated.

Results

Of the 1305 respondents 547 (42%), 344 (26%) and 283 (22%) were from Europe, USA and Japan respectively. Over half of the respondents work in pharmaceutical companies, and approximately a quarter of respondents noted oncology as the primary therapeutic area they work in. Over half of the respondents (595, 55%) noted the treatment effect being estimated was ‘in the entire target population of patients regardless of whether they will take treatment as instructed’. The most common methods for handling missing data in primary analyses were mixed-models repeated measures (555, 56% respondents) and last observation carried forward (549, 55% respondents). The majority of respondents (816, 83%) noted they conducted sensitivity analyses to estimate treatment effects in different ways compared to the primary analysis by using alternative assumptions (627, 78%) and/or using alternative statistical methods (616, 76%).

Conclusions

The survey results have provided useful information to the ICH E9 working group on current practices on the choice of primary estimands for measuring treatment effects in confirmatory clinical trials, and approaches used to select sensitivity analyses.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. International Conference on Harmonisation. ICH concept paper E9(R1): choosing appropriate estimands and defining sensitivity analyses in clinical trials. http://www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Efficacy/E9/E9__R1__Final_Concept_Paper_October_23_2014.pdf. Published 2014. Accessed March 4, 2016]

  2. Mehrotra DV, Hemmings RJ, Russek-Cohen E. Seeking harmony: estimands and sensitivity analyses for confirmatory clinical trials. Clin Trials. 2016;13(4):456–458.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. National Research Council, Panel on Handling Missing Data in Clinical Trials, Committee on National Statistics, Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education. The Prevention and Treatment of Missing Data in Clinical Trials. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2010.

    Google Scholar 

  4. European Medicines Agency. Guideline on Missing Data in Confirmatory Clinical Trials. http://www.ema.europa.eu/docs/en_GB/document_library/Scientific_guideline/2010/09/WC500096793.pdf. Published 2011. Accessed March 4, 2016.

  5. Siddiqui O, Hung HM, O’Neill R. MMRM vs. LOCF: a comprehensive comparison based on simulation study and 25 NDA datasets. J Biopharm Stat. 2009;19:227–246.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Lachin JM. Fallacies of last observation carried forward analyses. Clin Trials. 2016;13:161–168.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Mallinckrodt CH, Lin Q, Carpenter J, Kenward M, Lipkovich I, Molenberghs G. A structured approach to choosing estimands and estimators in longitudinal clinical trials. Pharmaceut Statist. 2012;11:456–461.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  8. Mallinckrodt CH, Roger J, Chuang-stein C. Missing data: turning guidance into action. Stat Biopharm Res. 2013;5:369–382.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Leuchs A-K, Zinserling J, Brandt A, Wirtz D, Benda N. Choosing appropriate estimands in clinical trials. Therapeutic Innovation & Regulatory Science. 2015;49:584–592.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Amgen Ltd, 240 Cambridge Science Park, Milton Road, Cambridge, CB4 0WD, UK

    C. Fletcher MSc

  2. Clinical Development Expert Group, European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations, Brussels, Belgium

    C. Fletcher MSc

  3. Sumitomo Dainippon Pharma Co Ltd, Tokyo, Japan

    S. Tsuchiya MS

  4. Drug Evaluation Committee, Japan Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Association, Tokyo, Japan

    S. Tsuchiya MS

  5. Merck Research Laboratories, North Wales, PA, USA

    D. V. Mehrotra PhD

Authors
  1. C. Fletcher MSc
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. Tsuchiya MS
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. D. V. Mehrotra PhD
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Consortia

ICH E9(R1) Working Group

Corresponding author

Correspondence to C. Fletcher MSc.

Electronic supplementary material

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Fletcher, C., Tsuchiya, S., Mehrotra, D.V. et al. Current Practices in Choosing Estimands and Sensitivity Analyses in Clinical Trials: Results of the ICH E9 Survey. Ther Innov Regul Sci 51, 69–76 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479016666586

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1177/2168479016666586

Keywords

Search

Navigation