Search

We propose a class of phase II clinical trial designs with sequential stopping and adaptive treatment allocation to evaluate treatment efficacy. Our work is based on two-arm (control and experimental treatment) designs with binary endpoints. Our overall goal is to construct more efficient and ethical randomized phase II trials by reducing the average sample sizes and increasing the percentage of patients assigned to the better treatment arms of the trials. The designs combine the Bayesian decision-theoretic sequential approach with adaptive randomization procedures in order to achieve simultaneous goals of improved efficiency and ethics. The design parameters represent the costs of different decisions, for example, the decisions for stopping or continuing the trials. The parameters enable us to incorporate the actual costs of the decisions in practice. The proposed designs allow the clinical trials to stop early for either efficacy or futility. Furthermore, the designs assign more patients to better treatment arms by applying adaptive randomization procedures. We develop an algorithm based on the constrained backward induction and forward simulation to implement the designs. The algorithm overcomes the computational difficulty of the backward induction method, thereby making our approach practicable. The designs result in trials with desirable operating characteristics under the simulated settings. Moreover, the designs are robust with respect to the response rate of the control group. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although the frequentist paradigm has been the predominant approach to clinical trial design since the 1940s, it has several notable limitations. Advancements in computational algorithms and computer hardware have greatly enhanced the alternative Bayesian paradigm. Compared with its frequentist counterpart, the Bayesian framework has several unique advantages, and its incorporation into clinical trial design is occurring more frequently. Using an extensive literature review to assess how Bayesian methods are used in clinical trials, we find them most commonly used for dose finding, efficacy monitoring, toxicity monitoring, diagnosis/decision making, and studying pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics. The additional infrastructure required for implementing Bayesian methods in clinical trials may include specialized software programs to run the study design, simulation and analysis, and web-based applications, all of which are particularly useful for timely data entry and analysis. Trial success requires not only the development of proper tools but also timely and accurate execution of data entry, quality control, adaptive randomization, and Bayesian computation. The relative merit of the Bayesian and frequentist approaches continues to be the subject of debate in statistics. However, more evidence can be found showing the convergence of the two camps, at least at the practical level. Ultimately, better clinical trial methods lead to more efficient designs, lower sample sizes, more accurate conclusions, and better outcomes for patients enrolled in the trials. Bayesian methods offer attractive alternatives for better trials. More Bayesian trials should be designed and conducted to refine the approach and demonstrate their real benefit in action. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]