Monday, January 13, 2025

Prognostic enrichment versus predictive enrichment

Prognostic enrichment and predictive enrichment are both strategies used in clinical trials to select patients for inclusion. Both strategies aim to improve trial efficiency but address different aspects of clinical trial design.

Prognostic enrichment
Selects patients who are more likely to experience a disease-related event or condition. This strategy can help reduce the sample size required for event-driven trials.

Predictive enrichment
Selects patients who are more likely to benefit from a treatment or intervention based on a physiological or biological mechanism.




FDA guidance includes some detail examples of using prognostic enrichment strategies or predictive enrichment strategies. 

The differences between prognostic enrichment and predictive enrichment can be summarized as following:

Prognostic Enrichment

Predictive Enrichment

Definition

Selecting patients based on their likelihood of experiencing a specific outcome (e.g., disease progression or event) regardless of treatment.

Selecting patients based on their likelihood of responding to a specific treatment due to a biomarker or characteristic.

Goal

To increase the event rate or outcome frequency in the trial population, improving statistical power.

To identify patients who are more likely to benefit from the investigational treatment.

Focus

Focuses on the natural history of the disease or risk of an outcome.

Focuses on the interaction between the treatment and a specific patient characteristic (e.g., biomarker).

Patient Selection

Patients are selected based on prognostic factors (e.g., disease severity, biomarkers, or risk scores).

Patients are selected based on predictive factors (e.g., presence of a biomarker or genetic mutation).

Outcome

Increases the proportion of patients who experience the outcome of interest.

Increases the likelihood of observing a treatment effect in the selected population.

Example

Enrolling patients with advanced-stage cancer to ensure a higher rate of disease progression.

Enrolling severe patients who may be more likely to develop clinical worsening events

Enrolling only patients with a specific genetic mutation (genetic biomarker) that is targeted by the therapy.

Enrolling only patients in a specific etiology sub-group who are expected to be more responsive to the investigational treatment

Impact on Trial

Reduces sample size and trial duration by enriching for patients with a higher event rate.

Improves treatment effect size by focusing on patients who are more likely to respond.

Statistical Benefit

Increases statistical power by reducing variability in the control group.

Increases effect size by reducing heterogeneity in treatment response.

Risk

May exclude patients who could still benefit from the treatment.

May limit generalizability of trial results to a broader population.

Common Use Cases

Trials where the primary endpoint is time-to-event (e.g., survival, disease progression).

Trials where the treatment mechanism is targeted (e.g., precision medicine, biomarker-driven therapies).


Further Reading: 

Sunday, January 12, 2025

Survivorship Bias and its Occurrences in Clinical Trials

Survivorship bias or survival bias is the logical error of concentrating on entities that passed a selection process while overlooking those that did not. This can lead to incorrect conclusions because of incomplete data. Survivorship bias is a selection bias that occurs when an individual only considers the surviving observation without considering those data points that didn’t “survive” in the event. It can lead to incorrect or misleading conclusions.
 
Most famous example of survivorship bias came from the World War II time. During World War II, the high rate of planes being shot down posed a significant challenge. To address this, a team was tasked with improving the protection and armor of the aircraft to reduce their vulnerability. The team analyzed the planes that returned from missions, documenting the locations of damage and creating a damage map. They observed heavy damage on the wings and tail sections, leading them to reinforce these areas. However, despite these modifications, the rate of plane losses did not significantly decrease.

The breakthrough came when the team realized a critical oversight: they were only examining the planes that had successfully returned, meaning the damage they observed was survivable and not the kind that would cause a plane to be lost. This insight shifted their perspective, highlighting that the most vulnerable areas were likely those that hadn’t been hit on the returning planes—areas where damage would be fatal. By focusing on reinforcing these previously overlooked sections, the team was able to better protect the aircraft and pilots, ultimately saving lives. This story underscores the importance of considering not only the visible data but also the hidden or missing information, as what you don’t know can be just as critical as what you do know.









Survivorship Bias in Clinical Trials. 

Survivorship bias occurs when we focus only on the "survivors", "completers", "responders", or successful outcomes in a dataset while ignoring those that didn’t make it. This can lead to overly optimistic or inaccurate conclusions because the full picture isn’t being considered. In the context of clinical trials, survivorship bias can distort our understanding of a treatment’s effectiveness or safety by excluding data from participants who dropped out, didn’t respond to the treatment, or experienced adverse events.

Survivorship Bias are very common in clinical trials even though the term "survivorship bias" may not be explicitly used and may be described under "selection bias".

How Does Survivorship Bias Manifest in Clinical Trials?
  1. Dropout Rates and Missing Data
    Clinical trials often experience participant dropouts due to side effects, lack of efficacy, or personal reasons. If researchers only analyze data from participants who completed the trial, they may overestimate the treatment’s effectiveness or underestimate its risks. For example, a drug might appear highly effective because only the patients who benefited from it stayed in the trial, while those who didn’t respond or experienced severe side effects left.
  2. Selective Reporting
    Researchers or sponsors may inadvertently (or intentionally) focus on positive outcomes while downplaying or omitting negative results. This can create a skewed perception of a treatment’s success. For instance, if a trial reports only the patients who improved and ignores those who didn’t, the treatment may seem more promising than it actually is.
  3. Long-Term Follow-Up Gaps
    Many clinical trials focus on short-term outcomes, which can miss long-term effects. Patients who experience adverse events or relapse after the trial ends may not be included in the final analysis, leading to an incomplete understanding of the treatment’s safety and efficacy.
  4. Population Selection
    Clinical trials often exclude certain populations, such as older adults, pregnant women, or individuals with comorbidities. While this is sometimes necessary for safety or feasibility, it can create a biased sample that doesn’t reflect the real-world population. The "survivors" in this case are the participants who met the strict inclusion criteria, potentially limiting the generalizability of the results.

Real-World Consequences of Survivorship Bias

Survivorship bias in clinical trials can have serious implications for patients, healthcare providers, and policymakers. For example:

  • Overestimation of Treatment Efficacy: If a drug appears more effective than it truly is, patients may be prescribed a treatment that doesn’t work for them, wasting time and resources.
  • Underestimation of Risks: Ignoring data from participants who dropped out due to side effects can lead to an incomplete understanding of a treatment’s safety profile.
  • Misguided Policy Decisions: Policymakers relying on biased trial results may approve treatments that aren’t as effective or safe as they seem, potentially putting public health at risk.

How Can We Address Survivorship Bias?

  1. Intent-to-Treat Analysis or Treatment Policy Strategy in Estimand Framework
    One of the most effective ways to mitigate survivorship bias is to use an intent-to-treat (ITT) analysis or treatment policy strategy in handling the intercurrent event, which includes all participants who were randomized in the trial, regardless of whether they completed it. This approach provides a more realistic picture of the treatment’s effectiveness in real-world conditions.
  2. Avoid performing the analyses only on completers
  3. Encourage the patients with intercurrent events to remain in the study to minimize the dropouts
  4. Transparency in Reporting
    Researchers should report all outcomes, including dropouts, adverse events, and negative results. Journals and regulatory agencies can encourage this by requiring comprehensive data disclosure.
  5. Long-Term Follow-Up
    Extending the follow-up period can help capture long-term outcomes and provide a more complete understanding of a treatment’s benefits and risks.
  6. Diverse Participant Populations
    Including a broader range of participants, such as older adults and individuals with comorbidities, can improve the generalizability of trial results and reduce bias.
  7. Independent Oversight
    Independent review boards and data monitoring committees can help ensure that trials are conducted and analyzed objectively, minimizing the risk of bias.
Conclusion

Survivorship bias is a subtle but significant issue in clinical trials that can distort our understanding of medical treatments. By focusing only on the "survivors", "completers", "responders", or successful outcomes, we risk overlooking critical data that could impact patient care and public health. Addressing this bias requires a commitment to transparency, rigorous analysis, and inclusive research practices. As we continue to advance medical science, it’s essential to remember that what we see isn’t always the full picture—and that the missing pieces may hold the key to better, safer, and more effective treatments.

By being aware of survivorship bias and taking steps to mitigate it, we can ensure that clinical trials provide the most accurate and reliable evidence possible, ultimately improving outcomes for patients everywhere.

Further Reading: