Search

Phase II clinical trials are a critical aspect of the drug development process. With drug development costs ever increasing, novel designs that can improve the efficiency of phase II trials are extremely valuable.Phase II clinical trials for cancer treatments often measure a binary outcome. The final trial decision is generally to continue or cease development. When this decision is based solely on the result of a hypothesis test, the result may be known with certainty before the planned end of the trial. Unfortunately, there is often no opportunity for early stopping when this occurs.Some existing designs do permit early stopping in this case, accordingly reducing the required sample size and potentially speeding up drug development. However, more improvements can be achieved by stopping early when the final trial decision is very likely, rather than certain, known as stochastic curtailment. While some authors have proposed approaches of this form, these approaches have various limitations.In this work we address these limitations by proposing new design approaches for single-arm phase II binary outcome trials that use stochastic curtailment. We use exact distributions, avoid simulation, consider a wider range of possible designs and permit early stopping for promising treatments. As a result, we are able to obtain trial designs that have considerably reduced sample sizes on average.

Bioequivalence (BE) studies are most often conducted as crossover trials, and therefore establishing their required sample size necessitates specification of the within-person variance. Given that this specification is often difficult in practice, there has been great interest in recent years in the use of adaptive designs for BE trials. However, while numerous methods for this have now been presented, their focus has been solely on two-treatment BE studies. In some instances, it will be desired to incorporate more than a single test and reference formulation into a BE trial. It would therefore be useful to establish methodology for the design of adaptive multi-treatment BE trials, to acquire the benefits in the two-treatment setting in this more complex situation. Here, we achieve this for three-treatment studies by extending previously proposed designs for two-treatment trials. First, we discuss the additional design considerations that arise when multiple comparisons are made. Next, an extensive simulation study is employed to compare the performance of the proposed procedures. With this, we demonstrate that two-stage designs with desirable statistical operating characteristics can be readily identified for three-treatment BE trials. Supplementary materials for this article are available online.

BACKGROUND: The INNODIA consortium has established a pan-European infrastructure using validated centres to prospectively evaluate clinical data from individuals with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes combined with centralised collection of clinical samples to determine rates of decline in beta-cell function and identify novel biomarkers, which could be used for future stratification of phase 2 clinical trials. METHODS: In this context, we have developed a Master Protocol, based on the "backbone" of the INNODIA natural history study, which we believe could improve the delivery of phase 2 studies exploring the use of single or combinations of Investigational Medicinal Products (IMPs), designed to prevent or reverse declines in beta-cell function in individuals with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes. Although many IMPs have demonstrated potential efficacy in phase 2 studies, few subsequent phase 3 studies have confirmed these benefits. Currently, phase 2 drug development for this indication is limited by poor evaluation of drug dosage and lack of mechanistic data to understand variable responses to the IMPs. Identification of biomarkers which might permit more robust stratification of participants at baseline has been slow. DISCUSSION: The Master Protocol provides (1) standardised assessment of efficacy and safety, (2) comparable collection of mechanistic data, (3) the opportunity to include adaptive designs and the use of shared control groups in the evaluation of combination therapies, and (4) benefits of greater understanding of endpoint variation to ensure more robust sample size calculations and future baseline stratification using existing and novel biomarkers.

Background The INNODIA consortium has established a pan-European infrastructure using validated centres to prospectively evaluate clinical data from individuals with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes combined with centralised collection of clinical samples to determine rates of decline in beta-cell function and identify novel biomarkers, which could be used for future stratification of phase 2 clinical trials. Methods In this context, we have developed a Master Protocol, based on the “backbone” of the INNODIA natural history study, which we believe could improve the delivery of phase 2 studies exploring the use of single or combinations of Investigational Medicinal Products (IMPs), designed to prevent or reverse declines in beta-cell function in individuals with newly diagnosed type 1 diabetes. Although many IMPs have demonstrated potential efficacy in phase 2 studies, few subsequent phase 3 studies have confirmed these benefits. Currently, phase 2 drug development for this indication is limited by poor evaluation of drug dosage and lack of mechanistic data to understand variable responses to the IMPs. Identification of biomarkers which might permit more robust stratification of participants at baseline has been slow. Discussion The Master Protocol provides (1) standardised assessment of efficacy and safety, (2) comparable collection of mechanistic data, (3) the opportunity to include adaptive designs and the use of shared control groups in the evaluation of combination therapies, and (4) benefits of greater understanding of endpoint variation to ensure more robust sample size calculations and future baseline stratification using existing and novel biomarkers.

Adaptive designs (ADs) allow pre-planned changes to an ongoing trial without compromising the validity of conclusions and it is essential to distinguish pre-planned from unplanned changes that may also occur. The reporting of ADs in randomised trials is inconsistent and needs improving. Incompletely reported AD randomised trials are difficult to reproduce and are hard to interpret and synthesise. This consequently hampers their ability to inform practice as well as future research and contributes to research waste. Better transparency and adequate reporting will enable the potential benefits of ADs to be realised. This extension to the Consolidated Standards Of Reporting Trials (CONSORT) 2010 statement was developed to enhance the reporting of randomised AD clinical trials. We developed an Adaptive designs CONSORT Extension (ACE) guideline through a two-stage Delphi process with input from multidisciplinary key stakeholders in clinical trials research in the public and private sectors from 21 countries, followed by a consensus meeting. Members of the CONSORT Group were involved during the development process. The paper presents the ACE checklists for AD randomised trial reports and abstracts, as well as an explanation with examples to aid the application of the guideline. The ACE checklist comprises seven new items, nine modified items, six unchanged items for which additional explanatory text clarifies further considerations for ADs, and 20 unchanged items not requiring further explanatory text. The ACE abstract checklist has one new item, one modified item, one unchanged item with additional explanatory text for ADs, and 15 unchanged items not requiring further explanatory text. The intention is to enhance transparency and improve reporting of AD randomised trials to improve the interpretability of their results and reproducibility of their methods, results and inference. We also hope indirectly to facilitate the much-needed knowledge transfer of innovative trial designs to maximise their potential benefits. In order to encourage its wide dissemination this article is freely accessible on the BMJ and Trials journal websites.“To maximise the benefit to society, you need to not just do research but do it well” Douglas G Altman

Additional file 8: Appendix H. Example of a CONSORT flowchart for reporting a MAMS adaptive design.

Additional file 7: Appendix G. Example of a CONSORT flowchart for reporting a response-adaptive randomisation adaptive design with frequent randomisation updates.

Existing multi-outcome designs focus almost entirely on evaluating whether all outcomes show evidence of efficacy or whether at least one outcome shows evidence of efficacy. While a small number of authors have provided multi-outcome designs that evaluate when a general number of outcomes show promise, these designs have been single-stage in nature only. We therefore propose two designs, of group-sequential and drop the loser form, that provide this design characteristic in a multi-stage setting. Previous such multi-outcome multi-stage designs have allowed only for a maximum of two outcomes; our designs thus also extend previous related proposals by permitting any number of outcomes., Comment: 38 pages, 11 figures, 4 tables. Submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy at University of Cambridge

Additional file 6: Appendix F. Example of a CONSORT flowchart for reporting a population enrichment adaptive design (assuming enrichment was not done at an interim analysis).

Additional file 4: Appendix D. Example of a CONSORT flowchart for reporting 2-stage adaptive design (such as inferential seamless) that use combination test methods.

Purpose: Two-stage single-arm trial designs are commonly used in phase II oncology to infer treatment effects for a binary primary outcome (e.g., tumour response). It is imperative that such studies be designed, analysed, and reported effectively. However, there is little available evidence on whether this is the case, particularly for key statistical considerations. We therefore comprehensively review such trials, examining in particular quality of reporting. Methods: Published oncology trials that utilised "Simon's two-stage design" over a 5 year period were identified and reviewed. Articles were evaluated on whether they reported sufficient design details, such as the required sample size, and analysis details, such as a confidence interval (CI). The articles that did not adjust their inference for the incorporation of an interim analysis were re-analysed to evaluate the impact on their reported point estimate and CI. Results: Four hundred and twenty five articles that reported the results of a single treatment arm were included. Of these, 47.5% provided the five components that ensure design reproducibility. Only 1.2% and 2.1% reported an adjusted point estimate or CI, respectively. Just 55.3% of trials provided the final stage rejection bound, indicating many trials did not test the hypothesis the design is constructed to assess. Re-analysis of the trials suggests that reported point estimates underestimated treatment effects and that reported CIs were too narrow. Conclusion: Key design details of two-stage single-arm trials are often unreported. Whilst inference is regularly performed, it is rarely done so in a way that removes the bias introduced by the interim analysis. In order to maximise their value, future studies must improve the way that they are analysed and reported.

Additional file 2: Appendix B. Additional examples of Box 13.

Additional file 1: Appendix A. Main ACE checklist available to download.

Additional file 5: Appendix E. Example of a CONSORT flowchart for reporting a population enrichment adaptive design (assuming enrichment was done at an interim analysis).

Additional file 3: Appendix C. Example 2 of Box 14 (Bayesian RAR).

Additional file 9: Appendix I. Box 22 - Dummy baseline table for the TAPPS trial.

The product of independent beta probabilities escalation (PIPE) design for dual-agent phase I dose-escalation trials is a Bayesian model-free approach for identifying multiple maximum tolerated dose combinations of novel combination therapies. Despite only being published in 2015, the PIPE design has been implemented in at least two oncology trials. However, these trials require patients to have completed follow-up before clinicians can make dose-escalation decisions. For trials of radiotherapy or advanced therapeutics, this may lead to impractically long trial durations due to late-onset treatment-related toxicities. In this paper, we extend the PIPE design to use censored time-to-event (TITE) toxicity outcomes for making dose escalation decisions. We show via comprehensive simulation studies and sensitivity analyses that trial duration can be reduced by up to 35%, particularly when recruitment is faster than expected, without compromising on other operating characteristics.

The ability to accurately estimate the sample size required by a stepped-wedge (SW) cluster randomized trial (CRT) routinely depends upon the specification of several nuisance parameters. If these parameters are misspecified, the trial could be overpowered, leading to increased cost, or underpowered, enhancing the likelihood of a false negative. We address this issue here for cross-sectional SW-CRTs, analyzed with a particular linear-mixed model, by proposing methods for blinded and unblinded sample size reestimation (SSRE). First, blinded estimators for the variance parameters of a SW-CRT analyzed using the Hussey and Hughes model are derived. Following this, procedures for blinded and unblinded SSRE after any time period in a SW-CRT are detailed. The performance of these procedures is then examined and contrasted using two example trial design scenarios. We find that if the two key variance parameters were underspecified by 50%, the SSRE procedures were able to increase power over the conventional SW-CRT design by up to 41%, resulting in an empirical power above the desired level. Thus, though there are practical issues to consider, the performance of the procedures means researchers should consider incorporating SSRE in to future SW-CRTs.

The determination of the sample size required by a crossover trial typically depends on the specification of one or more variance components. Uncertainty about the value of these parameters at the design stage means that there is often a risk a trial may be under- or overpowered. For many study designs, this problem has been addressed by considering adaptive design methodology that allows for the re-estimation of the required sample size during a trial. Here, we propose and compare several approaches for this in multitreatment crossover trials. Specifically, regulators favor reestimation procedures to maintain the blinding of the treatment allocations. We therefore develop blinded estimators for the within and between person variances, following simple or block randomization. We demonstrate that, provided an equal number of patients are allocated to sequences that are balanced for period, the proposed estimators following block randomization are unbiased. We further provide a formula for the bias of the estimators following simple randomization. The performance of these procedures, along with that of an unblinded approach, is then examined utilizing three motivating examples, including one based on a recently completed four-treatment four-period crossover trial. Simulation results show that the performance of the proposed blinded procedures is in many cases similar to that of the unblinded approach, and thus they are an attractive alternative.

Background: Crossover designs are commonly utilised in randomised controlled trials investigating treatments for long-term chronic illnesses. One problem with this design is its inherent repeated measures necessitate the availability of an estimate of the within-person standard deviation (SD) to perform a sample size calculation, which may be rarely available at the design stage of a trial. Interim sample size re-estimation designs can be used to help alleviate this issue by adapting the sample size mid-way through the trial, using accrued information in a statistically robust way. Methods: The AIM HY-INFORM study is part of the Informative Markers in Hypertension (AIM HY) Programme and comprises two crossover trials, each with a planned recruitment of 600 participants. The objective of the study is to test whether blood pressure response to first line antihypertensive treatment depends on ethnicity. An interim analysis is planned to reassess the assumptions of the planned sample size for the study. The aims of this paper are: (1) to provide a formula for sample size re-estimation in both crossover trials; and (2) to present a simulation study of the planned interim analysis to investigate alternative within-person SDs to that assumed. Results: The AIM HY-INFORM protocol sample size calculation fixes the within-person SD to be 8 mmHg, giving > 90% power for a primary treatment effect of 4 mmHg. Using the method developed here and simulating the interim sample size reassessment, if we were to see a larger within-person SD of 9 mmHg at interim, 640 participants for 90% power 90% of the time in the three-period three-treatment design would be required. Similarly, in the four-period four-treatment crossover design, 602 participants would be required. Conclusions: The formulas presented here provide a method for re-estimating the sample size in crossover trials. In the context of the AIM HY-INFORM study, simulating the interim analysis allows us to explore the results of a possible increase in the within-person SD from that assumed. Simulations show that without increasing the planned sample size of 600 participants, we can reasonably still expect to achieve 80% power with a small increase in the within-person SD from that assumed. Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02847338. Registered on 28 July 2016.

Objective: To evaluate a novel approach to measure ß-cell function by frequent testing of C-peptide concentrations in 'dried blood spots' (DBS). Patients: Thirty-two children, aged 7-17 years, recently diagnosed with type 1 diabetes. Design: Mixed-meal-tolerance-test (MMTT) within 6 and again 12 months after diagnosis with paired venous and DBS C-peptide sampling at 0 and 90 minutes. Weekly DBS C-peptide before and after standardized breakfasts collected at home. Results: DBS and plasma C-peptide levels (n=115) correlated strongly (r=0·91; p

Adaptive designs can make clinical trials more flexible by utilising results accumulating in the trial to modify the trial's course in accordance with pre-specified rules. Trials with an adaptive design are often more efficient, informative and ethical than trials with a traditional fixed design since they often make better use of resources such as time and money, and might require fewer participants. Adaptive designs can be applied across all phases of clinical research, from early-phase dose escalation to confirmatory trials. The pace of the uptake of adaptive designs in clinical research, however, has remained well behind that of the statistical literature introducing new methods and highlighting their potential advantages. We speculate that one factor contributing to this is that the full range of adaptations available to trial designs, as well as their goals, advantages and limitations, remains unfamiliar to many parts of the clinical community. Additionally, the term adaptive design has been misleadingly used as an all-encompassing label to refer to certain methods that could be deemed controversial or that have been inadequately implemented.We believe that even if the planning and analysis of a trial is undertaken by an expert statistician, it is essential that the investigators understand the implications of using an adaptive design, for example, what the practical challenges are, what can (and cannot) be inferred from the results of such a trial, and how to report and communicate the results. This tutorial paper provides guidance on key aspects of adaptive designs that are relevant to clinical triallists. We explain the basic rationale behind adaptive designs, clarify ambiguous terminology and summarise the utility and pitfalls of adaptive designs. We discuss practical aspects around funding, ethical approval, treatment supply and communication with stakeholders and trial participants. Our focus, however, is on the interpretation and reporting of results from adaptive design trials, which we consider vital for anyone involved in medical research. We emphasise the general principles of transparency and reproducibility and suggest how best to put them into practice.

INTRODUCTION: The continual reassessment method (CRM) is a model-based design for phase I trials, which aims to find the maximum tolerated dose (MTD) of a new therapy. The CRM has been shown to be more accurate in targeting the MTD than traditional rule-based approaches such as the 3 + 3 design, which is used in most phase I trials. Furthermore, the CRM has been shown to assign more trial participants at or close to the MTD than the 3 + 3 design. However, the CRM's uptake in clinical research has been incredibly slow, putting trial participants, drug development and patients at risk. Barriers to increasing the use of the CRM have been identified, most notably a lack of knowledge amongst clinicians and statisticians on how to apply new designs in practice. No recent tutorial, guidelines, or recommendations for clinicians on conducting dose-finding studies using the CRM are available. Furthermore, practical resources to support clinicians considering the CRM for their trials are scarce. METHODS: To help overcome these barriers, we present a structured framework for designing a dose-finding study using the CRM. We give recommendations for key design parameters and advise on conducting pre-trial simulation work to tailor the design to a specific trial. We provide practical tools to support clinicians and statisticians, including software recommendations, and template text and tables that can be edited and inserted into a trial protocol. We also give guidance on how to conduct and report dose-finding studies using the CRM. RESULTS: An initial set of design recommendations are provided to kick-start the design process. To complement these and the additional resources, we describe two published dose-finding trials that used the CRM. We discuss their designs, how they were conducted and analysed, and compare them to what would have happened under a 3 + 3 design. CONCLUSIONS: The framework and resources we provide are aimed at clinicians and statisticians new to the CRM design. Provision of key resources in this contemporary guidance paper will hopefully improve the uptake of the CRM in phase I dose-finding trials.

Background Crossover designs are commonly utilised in randomised controlled trials investigating treatments for long-term chronic illnesses. One problem with this design is its inherent repeated measures necessitate the availability of an estimate of the within-person standard deviation (SD) to perform a sample size calculation, which may be rarely available at the design stage of a trial. Interim sample size re-estimation designs can be used to help alleviate this issue by adapting the sample size mid-way through the trial, using accrued information in a statistically robust way. Methods The AIM HY-INFORM study is part of the Informative Markers in Hypertension (AIM HY) Programme and comprises two crossover trials, each with a planned recruitment of 600 participants. The objective of the study is to test whether blood pressure response to first line antihypertensive treatment depends on ethnicity. An interim analysis is planned to reassess the assumptions of the planned sample size for the study. The aims of this paper are: (1) to provide a formula for sample size re-estimation in both crossover trials; and (2) to present a simulation study of the planned interim analysis to investigate alternative within-person SDs to that assumed. Results The AIM HY-INFORM protocol sample size calculation fixes the within-person SD to be 8 mmHg, giving > 90% power for a primary treatment effect of 4 mmHg. Using the method developed here and simulating the interim sample size reassessment, if we were to see a larger within-person SD of 9 mmHg at interim, 640 participants for 90% power 90% of the time in the three-period three-treatment design would be required. Similarly, in the four-period four-treatment crossover design, 602 participants would be required. Conclusions The formulas presented here provide a method for re-estimating the sample size in crossover trials. In the context of the AIM HY-INFORM study, simulating the interim analysis allows us to explore the results of a possible increase in the within-person SD from that assumed. Simulations show that without increasing the planned sample size of 600 participants, we can reasonably still expect to achieve 80% power with a small increase in the within-person SD from that assumed. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02847338. Registered on 28 July 2016.