Does the low prevalence affect the sample size of interventional clinical trials of rare diseases? An analysis of data from the aggregate analysis of clinicaltrials.gov

Abstract : AbstractBackgroundClinical trials are typically designed using the classical frequentist framework to constrain type I and II error rates. Sample sizes required in such designs typically range from hundreds to thousands of patients which can be challenging for rare diseases. It has been shown that rare disease trials have smaller sample sizes than non-rare disease trials. Indeed some orphan drugs were approved by the European Medicines Agency based on studies with as few as 12 patients. However, some studies supporting marketing authorisation included several hundred patients. In this work, we explore the relationship between disease prevalence and other factors and the size of interventional phase 2 and 3 rare disease trials conducted in the US and/or EU. We downloaded all clinical trials from Aggregate Analysis of ClinialTrials.gov (AACT) and identified rare disease trials by cross-referencing MeSH terms in AACT with the list from Orphadata. We examined the effects of prevalence and phase of study in a multiple linear regression model adjusting for other statistically significant trial characteristics.ResultsOf 186941 ClinicalTrials.gov trials only 1567 (0.8%) studied a single rare condition with prevalence information from Orphadata. There were 19 (1.2%) trials studying disease with prevalence <1/1,000,000, 126 (8.0%) trials with 1–9/1,000,000, 791 (50.5%) trials with 1–9/100,000 and 631 (40.3%) trials with 1–5/10,000. Of the 1567 trials, 1160 (74%) were phase 2 trials. The fitted mean sample size for the rarest disease (prevalence <1/1,000,000) in phase 2 trials was the lowest (mean, 15.7; 95% CI, 8.7–28.1) but were similar across all the other prevalence classes; mean, 26.2 (16.1–42.6), 33.8 (22.1–51.7) and 35.6 (23.3–54.3) for prevalence 1–9/1,000,000, 1–9/100,000 and 1–5/10,000, respectively. Fitted mean size of phase 3 trials of rarer diseases, <1/1,000,000 (19.2, 6.9–53.2) and 1–9/1,000,000 (33.1, 18.6–58.9), were similar to those in phase 2 but were statistically significant lower than the slightly less rare diseases, 1–9/100,000 (75.3, 48.2–117.6) and 1-5/10,000 (77.7, 49.6–121.8), trials.ConclusionsWe found that prevalence was associated with the size of phase 3 trials with trials of rarer diseases noticeably smaller than the less rare diseases trials where phase 3 rarer disease (prevalence <1/100,000) trials were more similar in size to those for phase 2 but were larger than those for phase 2 in the less rare disease (prevalence ≥1/100,000) trials.
Type de document :
Article dans une revue
Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, 2016, 12 (1), pp.44. 〈10.1186/s13023-017-0597-1〉
Liste complète des métadonnées

http://www.hal.inserm.fr/inserm-01481651
Contributeur : Bmc Bmc <>
Soumis le : jeudi 2 mars 2017 - 18:04:04
Dernière modification le : mercredi 21 mars 2018 - 18:57:52
Document(s) archivé(s) le : mercredi 31 mai 2017 - 18:20:30

Fichier

13023_2017_Article_597.pdf
Publication financée par une institution

Identifiants

Collections

Citation

Siew Wan Hee, Adrian Willis, Catrin Tudur Smith, Simon Day, Frank Miller, et al.. Does the low prevalence affect the sample size of interventional clinical trials of rare diseases? An analysis of data from the aggregate analysis of clinicaltrials.gov. Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases, 2016, 12 (1), pp.44. 〈10.1186/s13023-017-0597-1〉. 〈inserm-01481651〉

Partager

Métriques

Consultations de la notice

126

Téléchargements de fichiers

138