ABSTRACT
Background When a randomized controlled trial fails to demonstrate statistically significant efficacy against the primary endpoint, a potentially costly new trial would need to be conducted to receive licensure. Incorporating data from previous trials might allow for the conduct of more efficient follow-up trials to demonstrate efficacy, speeding the availability of effective vaccines.
Methods Based on the outcomes from a failed trial of a maternal vaccine against respiratory syncytial virus (RSV), we simulated data for a new Bayesian group-sequential trial. The data were analyzed either ignoring data from the previous trial (i.e., weakly informative prior distributions) or using prior distributions that incorporate the historical data into the analysis. We evaluated scenarios where the efficacy in the new trial was the same, greater than, or less than the efficacy in the original trial. For each scenario, we evaluated the statistical power and type I error rate for estimating the vaccine effect following interim analyses.
Results If a stringent threshold is used to control the type I error rate, the analyses that incorporated historical data had a small advantage over trials that did not. If control of type I error is less important (e.g., in a post-licensure evaluation), the incorporation of historical data can provide a substantial boost in efficiency.
Conclusions Due to the need to control the type I error rate in trials used to license a vaccine, the incorporation of historical data provides little additional benefit in terms of stopping the trial early. However, these statistical approaches could be promising in evaluations that use real-world evidence following licensure.
Competing Interest Statement
DMW has received consulting fees from Pfizer, Merck, GSK, and Affinivax for work unrelated to this manuscript, and research grants from Pfizer and Merck for work unrelated to this manuscript. JL has received consulting fees from Pfizer for work unrelated to this manuscript. VEP is a member of the WHO Immunization and Vaccine-related Implementation Research Advisory Committee (IVIR-AC). The other authors declare no conflicts.
Funding Statement
This work is funded by grants from the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation and partially funded by grants from the NIH/NIAID (R01AI137093) and Yale Clinical and Translational Science Award (UL1 TR001863). This content is solely the responsibility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the National Institutes of Health.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
The Chan Zuckerberg Initiative, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, the Sergey Brin Family Foundation, California Institute of Technology, Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Fred Hutchinson Cancer Center, Imperial College London, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, Stanford University, University of Washington, and Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam.