Robust Meta-analytic-predictive Priors in Clinical Trials with Historical Control Information
Overview
Authors
Affiliations
Historical information is always relevant for clinical trial design. Additionally, if incorporated in the analysis of a new trial, historical data allow to reduce the number of subjects. This decreases costs and trial duration, facilitates recruitment, and may be more ethical. Yet, under prior-data conflict, a too optimistic use of historical data may be inappropriate. We address this challenge by deriving a Bayesian meta-analytic-predictive prior from historical data, which is then combined with the new data. This prospective approach is equivalent to a meta-analytic-combined analysis of historical and new data if parameters are exchangeable across trials. The prospective Bayesian version requires a good approximation of the meta-analytic-predictive prior, which is not available analytically. We propose two- or three-component mixtures of standard priors, which allow for good approximations and, for the one-parameter exponential family, straightforward posterior calculations. Moreover, since one of the mixture components is usually vague, mixture priors will often be heavy-tailed and therefore robust. Further robustness and a more rapid reaction to prior-data conflicts can be achieved by adding an extra weakly-informative mixture component. Use of historical prior information is particularly attractive for adaptive trials, as the randomization ratio can then be changed in case of prior-data conflict. Both frequentist operating characteristics and posterior summaries for various data scenarios show that these designs have desirable properties. We illustrate the methodology for a phase II proof-of-concept trial with historical controls from four studies. Robust meta-analytic-predictive priors alleviate prior-data conflicts ' they should encourage better and more frequent use of historical data in clinical trials.
Bayesian Hierarchical Modeling for Variance Estimation in Biopharmaceutical Processes.
Schach S, Eilert T, Presser B, Kunzelmann M Bioengineering (Basel). 2025; 12(2).
PMID: 40001712 PMC: 11852408. DOI: 10.3390/bioengineering12020193.
Biomarkers of disease progression in progressive supranuclear palsy for use in clinical trials.
Marotta C, Sinclair B, OBrien T, Vivash L Brain Commun. 2025; 7(1):fcaf022.
PMID: 39882025 PMC: 11775610. DOI: 10.1093/braincomms/fcaf022.
Why and how should we simulate platform trials? Learnings from EU-PEARL.
Meyer E, Mielke T, Bofill Roig M, Freitag M, Jacko P, Krotka P BMC Med Res Methodol. 2025; 25(1):12.
PMID: 39819305 PMC: 11740366. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-024-02453-6.
Bayesian Solutions for Assessing Differential Effects in Biomarker Positive and Negative Subgroups.
Jackson D, Zhang F, Burman C, Sharples L Pharm Stat. 2024; 24(2):e2456.
PMID: 39587432 PMC: 11893291. DOI: 10.1002/pst.2456.
Urru S, Verbeni M, Azzolina D, Baldi I, Berchialla P Ther Innov Regul Sci. 2024; 59(1):20-30.
PMID: 39572512 DOI: 10.1007/s43441-024-00723-5.