Search

Inferentially seamless 2/3 designs are increasingly popular in clinical trials. It is important to understand their relative advantages compared with separate phase 2 and phase 3 trials, and to understand the consequences of design choices such as the proportion of patients included in the phase 2 portion of the design. Extending previous work in this area, we perform a simulation study across multiple numbers of arms and efficacy response curves. We consider a design space crossing the choice of a separate versus seamless design with the choice of allocating 0%-100% of available patients in phase 2, with the remainder in phase 3. The seamless designs achieve greater power than their separate trial counterparts. Importantly, the optimal seamless design is more robust than the optimal separate program, meaning that one range of values for the proportion of patients used in phase 2 (30%-50% of the total phase 2/3 sample size) is nearly optimal for a wide range of response scenarios. In contrast, a percentage of patients used in phase 2 for separate trials may be optimal for some alternative scenarios but decidedly inferior for other alternative scenarios. When operationally and scientifically viable, seamless trials provide superior performance compared with separate phase 2 and phase 3 trials. The results also provide guidance for the implementation of these trials in practice., (© 2024 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

We investigate multiple features of response adaptive randomization (RAR) in the context of a multiple arm randomized trial with control, where the primary goal is the identification of the best arm for use in a broader patient population. We maintain constant control allocation and vary the length of time until RAR is started, interim frequency, the underlying quantity used to calculate the randomization probabilities, and a threshold resulting in temporary arm dropping. We evaluate the designs on five metrics measuring benefit to the internal trial population, the future external population, and statistical estimation. Our results indicate these features have minimal interaction within the space explored, with preference for earlier activation of RAR, more frequent interim analyses, randomizing in proportion to the probability each arm is the best, and aggressive thresholding for temporarily dropping arms. The results illustrate useful principles for maximizing the benefit of RAR in practice., (© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.)

New antimicrobial drugs for treatment of complicated urinary tract infection (cUTI) are generally assessed in randomized, double-blind, noninferiority clinical trials. Robust historical data for the active comparator inform on treatment effect estimation, yet typically do not substitute for the active comparator data in the proposed trial. We report design options for a phase 3 trial of cUTI using a Bayesian hierarchical model and historical data from 2 well-executed phase 3 registrational trials of doripenem. The methodology is directly applicable to other phase 3 noninferiority settings. In addition to the research design application, we provide a novel methodology for assessing the robustness of type I error control. The model borrows heavily from the prior data when the current active comparator parameter estimate approximated the historical estimate. In contrast, the model had restricted borrowing when the 2 estimates were very different. The alternative trial design, with or without the inclusion of futility stopping criteria, provides a framework for future cUTI phase 3 trials., (© 2018 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)

Clinical trials rarely, if ever, occur in a vacuum. Generally, large amounts of clinical data are available prior to the start of a study, particularly on the current study's control arm. There is obvious appeal in using (i.e., 'borrowing') this information. With historical data providing information on the control arm, more trial resources can be devoted to the novel treatment while retaining accurate estimates of the current control arm parameters. This can result in more accurate point estimates, increased power, and reduced type I error in clinical trials, provided the historical information is sufficiently similar to the current control data. If this assumption of similarity is not satisfied, however, one can acquire increased mean square error of point estimates due to bias and either reduced power or increased type I error depending on the direction of the bias. In this manuscript, we review several methods for historical borrowing, illustrating how key parameters in each method affect borrowing behavior, and then, we compare these methods on the basis of mean square error, power and type I error. We emphasize two main themes. First, we discuss the idea of 'dynamic' (versus 'static') borrowing. Second, we emphasize the decision process involved in determining whether or not to include historical borrowing in terms of the perceived likelihood that the current control arm is sufficiently similar to the historical data. Our goal is to provide a clear review of the key issues involved in historical borrowing and provide a comparison of several methods useful for practitioners., (Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.)