Search

In several clinical areas, traditional clinical trials often use a responder outcome, a composite endpoint that involves dichotomising a continuous measure. An augmented binary method that improves power whilst retaining the original responder endpoint has previously been proposed. The method leverages information from the the undichotomised component to improve power. We extend this method for basket trials, which are gaining popularity in many clinical areas. For clinical areas where response outcomes are used, we propose the new Augmented Binary method for BAsket trials (ABBA) enhances efficiency by borrowing information on the treatment effect between subtrials. The method is developed within a latent variable framework using a Bayesian hierarchical modelling approach. We investigate the properties of the proposed methodology by analysing point estimates and credible intervals in various simulation scenarios, comparing them to the standard analysis for basket trials that assumes binary outcome. Our method results in a reduction of 95% high density interval of the posterior distribution of the log odds ratio and an increase in power when the treatment effect is consistent across subtrials. We illustrate our approach using real data from two clinical trials in rheumatology., Comment: 20 pages, 6 tables, 2 figures

Under a generalised estimating equation analysis approach, approximate design theory is used to determine Bayesian D-optimal designs. For two examples, considering simple exchangeable and exponential decay correlation structures, we compare the efficiency of identified optimal designs to balanced stepped-wedge designs and corresponding stepped-wedge designs determined by optimising using a normal approximation approach. The dependence of the Bayesian D-optimal designs on the assumed correlation structure is explored; for the considered settings, smaller decay in the correlation between outcomes across time periods, along with larger values of the intra-cluster correlation, leads to designs closer to a balanced design being optimal. Unlike for normal data, it is shown that the optimal design need not be centro-symmetric in the binary outcome case. The efficiency of the Bayesian D-optimal design relative to a balanced design can be large, but situations are demonstrated in which the advantages are small. Similarly, the optimal design from a normal approximation approach is often not much less efficient than the Bayesian D-optimal design. Bayesian D-optimal designs can be readily identified for stepped-wedge cluster randomised trials with binary outcome data. In certain circumstances, principally ones with strong time period effects, they will indicate that a design unlikely to have been identified by previous methods may be substantially more efficient. However, they require a larger number of assumptions than existing optimal designs, and in many situations existing theory under a normal approximation will provide an easier means of identifying an efficient design for binary outcome data.

Randomized controlled clinical trials provide the gold standard for evidence generation in relation to the efficacy of a new treatment in medical research. Relevant information from previous studies may be desirable to incorporate in the design and analysis of a new trial, with the Bayesian paradigm providing a coherent framework to formally incorporate prior knowledge. Many established methods involve the use of a discounting factor, sometimes related to a measure of `similarity' between historical and the new trials. However, it is often the case that the sample size is highly nonlinear in those discounting factors. This hinders communication with subject-matter experts to elicit sensible values for borrowing strength at the trial design stage. Focusing on a commensurate predictive prior method that can incorporate historical data from multiple sources, we highlight a particular issue of nonmonotonicity and explain why this causes issues with interpretability of the discounting factors (hereafter referred to as `weights'). We propose a solution for this, from which an analytical sample size formula is derived. We then propose a linearization technique such that the sample size changes uniformly over the weights. Our approach leads to interpretable weights that represent the probability that historical data are (ir)relevant to the new trial, and could therefore facilitate easier elicitation of expert opinion on their values. Keywords: Bayesian sample size determination; Commensurate priors; Historical borrowing; Prior aggregation; Uniform shrinkage., Comment: A submitted paper with 33 pages (inclusive of references, 4 figures and 5 tables)

Adaptive designs(AD) are a broad class of trial designs that allow preplanned modifications based on patient data providing improved efficiency and flexibility. However, a delay in observing the primary outcome variable can harm this added efficiency. In this paper, we aim to ascertain the size of such outcome delay that results in the realised efficiency gains of ADs becoming negligible compared to classical fixed sample RCTs. We measure the impact of delay by developing formulae for the no. of overruns in 2 arm GSDs with normal data, assuming different recruitment models. The efficiency of a GSD is usually measured in terms of the expected sample size (ESS), with GSDs generally reducing the ESS compared to a standard RCT. Our formulae measures the efficiency gain from a GSD in terms of ESS reduction that is lost due to delay. We assess whether careful choice of design (e.g., altering the spacing of the IAs) can help recover the benefits of GSDs in presence of delay. We also analyse the efficiency of GSDs with respect to time to complete the trial. Comparing the expected efficiency gains, with and without consideration of delay, it is evident GSDs suffer considerable losses due to delay. Even a small delay can have a significant impact on the trial's efficiency. In contrast, even in the presence of substantial delay, a GSD will have a smaller expected time to trial completion in comparison to a simple RCT. Although the no. of stages have little influence on the efficiency losses, the timing of IAs can impact the efficiency of a GSDs with delay. Particularly, for unequally spaced IAs, pushing IAs towards latter end of the trial can be harmful for the design with delay.

Introduction: Even in effectively conducted randomised trials, the probability of a successful study remains relatively low. With recent advances in the next-generation sequencing technologies, there is a rapidly growing number of high-dimensional data, including genetic, molecular and phenotypic information, that have improved our understanding of driver genes, drug targets, and drug mechanisms of action. The leveraging of high-dimensional data holds promise for increased success of clinical trials. Methods: We provide an overview of methods for utilising high-dimensional data in clinical trials. We also investigate the use of these methods in practice through a review of recently published randomised clinical trials that utilise high-dimensional genetic data. The review includes articles that were published between 2019 and 2021, identified through the PubMed database. Results: Out of 174 screened articles, 100 (57.5%) were randomised clinical trials that collected high-dimensional data. The most common clinical area was oncology (30%), followed by chronic diseases (28%), nutrition and ageing (18%) and cardiovascular diseases (7%). The most common types of data analysed were gene expression data (70%), followed by DNA data (21%). The most common method of analysis (36.3%) was univariable analysis. Articles that described multivariable analyses used standard statistical methods. Most of the clinical trials had two arms. Discussion: New methodological approaches are required for more efficient analysis of the increasing amount of high-dimensional data collected in randomised clinical trials. We highlight the limitations and barriers to the current use of high-dimensional data in trials, and suggest potential avenues for improvement and future work., Comment: 17 pages, 3 figures, 2 tables

Modern data analysis frequently involves large-scale hypothesis testing, which naturally gives rise to the problem of maintaining control of a suitable type I error rate, such as the false discovery rate (FDR). In many biomedical and technological applications, an additional complexity is that hypotheses are tested in an online manner, one-by-one over time. However, traditional procedures that control the FDR, such as the Benjamini-Hochberg procedure, assume that all p-values are available to be tested at a single time point. To address these challenges, a new field of methodology has developed over the past 15 years showing how to control error rates for online multiple hypothesis testing. In this framework, hypotheses arrive in a stream, and at each time point the analyst decides whether to reject the current hypothesis based both on the evidence against it, and on the previous rejection decisions. In this paper, we present a comprehensive exposition of the literature on online error rate control, with a review of key theory as well as a focus on applied examples. We also provide simulation results comparing different online testing algorithms and an up-to-date overview of the many methodological extensions that have been proposed., Comment: Updated in response to reviewer comments

Basket trials are increasingly used for the simultaneous evaluation of a new treatment in various patient subgroups under one overarching protocol. We propose a Bayesian approach to sample size determination in basket trials that permit borrowing of information between commensurate subsets. Specifically, we consider a randomised basket trial design where patients are randomly assigned to the new treatment or a control within each trial subset (`subtrial' for short). Closed-form sample size formulae are derived to ensure each subtrial has a specified chance of correctly deciding whether the new treatment is superior to or not better than the control by some clinically relevant difference. Given pre-specified levels of pairwise (in)commensurability, the subtrial sample sizes are solved simultaneously. The proposed Bayesian approach resembles the frequentist formulation of the problem in yielding comparable sample sizes for circumstances of no borrowing. When borrowing is enabled between commensurate subtrials, a considerably smaller trial sample size is required compared to the widely implemented approach of no borrowing. We illustrate the use of our sample size formulae with two examples based on real basket trials. A comprehensive simulation study further shows that the proposed methodology can maintain the true positive and false positive rates at desired levels., Comment: A submitted paper with 18 pages (inclusive of 3 figures and 1 table) and 9 pages of Supplementary Materials

Platform trials evaluate multiple experimental treatments under a single master protocol, where new treatment arms are added to the trial over time. Given the multiple treatment comparisons, there is the potential for inflation of the overall type I error rate, which is complicated by the fact that the hypotheses are tested at different times and are not all necessarily pre-specified. Online error control methodology provides a possible solution to the problem of multiplicity for platform trials where a relatively large number of hypotheses are expected to be tested over time. In the online testing framework, hypotheses are tested in a sequential manner, where at each time-step an analyst decides whether to reject the current null hypothesis without knowledge of future tests but based solely on past decisions. Methodology has recently been developed for online control of the false discovery rate as well as the familywise error rate (FWER). In this paper, we describe how to apply online error control to the platform trial setting, present extensive simulation results, and give some recommendations for the use of this new methodology in practice. We show that the algorithms for online error rate control can have a substantially lower FWER than uncorrected testing, while still achieving noticeable gains in power when compared with the use of a Bonferroni procedure. We also illustrate how online error control would have impacted a currently ongoing platform trial., Comment: 26 pages, 13 figures

We propose a Cross-validated ADaptive ENrichment design (CADEN) in which a trial population is enriched with a subpopulation of patients who are predicted to benefit from the treatment more than an average patient (the sensitive group). This subpopulation is found using a risk score constructed from the baseline (potentially high-dimensional) information about patients. The design incorporates an early stopping rule for futility. Simulation studies are used to assess the properties of CADEN against the original (non-enrichment) cross-validated risk scores (CVRS) design that constructs a risk score at the end of the trial. We show that when there exists a sensitive group of patients, CADEN achieves a higher power and a reduction in the expected sample size, in comparison to the CVRS design. We illustrate the application of the design in two real clinical trials. We conclude that the new design offers improved statistical efficiency in comparison to the existing non-enrichment method, as well as increased benefit to patients. The method has been implemented in an R package caden., Comment: 1 figure

This paper develops Bayesian sample size formulae for experiments comparing two groups. We assume the experimental data will be analysed in the Bayesian framework, where pre-experimental information from multiple sources can be represented into robust priors. In particular, such robust priors account for preliminary belief about the pairwise commensurability between parameters that underpin the historical and new experiments, to permit flexible borrowing of information. Averaged over the probability space of the new experimental data, appropriate sample sizes are found according to criteria that control certain aspects of the posterior distribution, such as the coverage probability or length of a defined density region. Our Bayesian methodology can be applied to circumstances where the common variance in the new experiment is known or unknown. Exact solutions are available based on most of the criteria considered for Bayesian sample size determination, while a search procedure is described in cases for which there are no closed-form expressions. We illustrate the application of our Bayesian sample size formulae in the setting of designing a clinical trial. Hypothetical data examples, motivated by a rare-disease trial with elicitation of expert prior opinion, and a comprehensive performance evaluation of the proposed methodology are presented., Comment: A submitted paper formatted with the double spacing, including 34 pages, 4 figures, 1 table

Adapting the final sample size of a trial to the evidence accruing during the trial is a natural way to address planning uncertainty. Designs with adaptive sample size need to account for their optional stopping to guarantee strict type-I error-rate control. A variety of different methods to maintain type-I error-rate control after unplanned changes of the initial sample size have been proposed in the literature. This makes interim analyses for the purpose of sample size recalculation feasible in a regulatory context. Since the sample size is usually determined via an argument based on the power of the trial, an interim analysis raises the question of how the final sample size should be determined conditional on the accrued information. Conditional power is a concept often put forward in this context. Since it depends on the unknown effect size, we take a strict estimation perspective and compare assumed conditional power, observed conditional power, and predictive power with respect to their properties as estimators of the unknown conditional power. We then demonstrate that pre-planning an interim analysis using methodology for unplanned interim analyses is ineffective and naturally leads to the concept of optimal two-stage designs. We conclude that unplanned design adaptations should only be conducted as reaction to trial-external new evidence, operational needs to violate the originally chosen design, or post hoc changes in the objective criterion. Finally, we show that commonly discussed sample size recalculation rules can lead to paradoxical outcomes and propose two alternative ways of reacting to newly emerging trial-external evidence.

The existing cross-validated risk scores (CVRS) design has been proposed for developing and testing the efficacy of a treatment in a high-efficacy patient group (the sensitive group) using high-dimensional data (such as genetic data). The design is based on computing a risk score for each patient and dividing them into clusters using a non-parametric clustering procedure. In some settings it is desirable to consider the trade-off between two outcomes, such as efficacy and toxicity, or cost and effectiveness. With this motivation, we extend the CVRS design (CVRS2) to consider two outcomes. The design employs bivariate risk scores that are divided into clusters. We assess the properties of the CVRS2 using simulated data and illustrate its application on a randomised psychiatry trial. We show that CVRS2 is able to reliably identify the sensitive group (the group for which the new treatment provides benefit on both outcomes) in the simulated data. We apply the CVRS2 design to a psychology clinical trial that had offender status and substance use status as two outcomes and collected a large number of baseline covariates. The CVRS2 design yields a significant treatment effect for both outcomes, while the CVRS approach identified a significant effect for the offender status only after pre-filtering the covariates., Comment: 30 pages, 3 figures, 3 tables

Sample size derivation is a crucial element of the planning phase of any confirmatory trial. A sample size is typically derived based on constraints on the maximal acceptable type I error rate and a minimal desired power. Here, power depends on the unknown true effect size. In practice, power is typically calculated either for the smallest relevant effect size or a likely point alternative. The former might be problematic if the minimal relevant effect is close to the null, thus requiring an excessively large sample size. The latter is dubious since it does not account for the a priori uncertainty about the likely alternative effect size. A Bayesian perspective on the sample size derivation for a frequentist trial naturally emerges as a way of reconciling arguments about the relative a priori plausibility of alternative effect sizes with ideas based on the relevance of effect sizes. Many suggestions as to how such `hybrid' approaches could be implemented in practice have been put forward in the literature. However, key quantities such as assurance, probability of success, or expected power are often defined in subtly different ways in the literature. Starting from the traditional and entirely frequentist approach to sample size derivation, we derive consistent definitions for the most commonly used `hybrid' quantities and highlight connections, before discussing and demonstrating their use in the context of sample size derivation for clinical trials.

The COVID-19 pandemic has led to an unprecedented response in terms of clinical research activity. An important part of this research has been focused on randomized controlled clinical trials to evaluate potential therapies for COVID-19. The results from this research need to be obtained as rapidly as possible. This presents a number of challenges associated with considerable uncertainty over the natural history of the disease and the number and characteristics of patients affected, and the emergence of new potential therapies. These challenges make adaptive designs for clinical trials a particularly attractive option. Such designs allow a trial to be modified on the basis of interim analysis data or stopped as soon as sufficiently strong evidence has been observed to answer the research question, without compromising the trial's scientific validity or integrity. In this paper we describe some of the adaptive design approaches that are available and discuss particular issues and challenges associated with their use in the pandemic setting. Our discussion is illustrated by details of four ongoing COVID-19 trials that have used adaptive designs.

High-dimensional biomarkers such as genomics are increasingly being measured in randomized clinical trials. Consequently, there is a growing interest in developing methods that improve the power to detect biomarker-treatment interactions. We adapt recently proposed two-stage interaction detecting procedures in the setting of randomized clinical trials. We also propose a new stage 1 multivariate screening strategy using ridge regression to account for correlations among biomarkers. For this multivariate screening, we prove the asymptotic between-stage independence, required for family-wise error rate control, under biomarker-treatment independence. Simulation results show that in various scenarios, the ridge regression screening procedure can provide substantially greater power than the traditional one-biomarker-at-a-time screening procedure in highly correlated data. We also exemplify our approach in two real clinical trial data applications., Comment: Accepted version, to be published in Biometrics

When simultaneously testing multiple hypotheses, the usual approach in the context of confirmatory clinical trials is to control the familywise error rate (FWER), which bounds the probability of making at least one false rejection. In many trial settings, these hypotheses will additionally have a hierarchical structure that reflects the relative importance and links between different clinical objectives. The graphical approach of Bretz et al. (2009) is a flexible and easily communicable way of controlling the FWER while respecting complex trial objectives and multiple structured hypotheses. However, the FWER can be a very stringent criterion that leads to procedures with low power, and may not be appropriate in exploratory trial settings. This motivates controlling generalised error rates, particularly when the number of hypotheses tested is no longer small. We consider the generalised familywise error rate (k-FWER), which is the probability of making k or more false rejections, as well as the tail probability of the false discovery proportion (FDP), which is the probability that the proportion of false rejections is greater than some threshold. We also consider asymptotic control of the false discovery rate (FDR), which is the expectation of the FDP. In this paper, we show how to control these generalised error rates when using the graphical approach and its extensions. We demonstrate the utility of the resulting graphical procedures on three clinical trial case studies., Comment: Accepted for publication in Statistics in Medicine

Mixed outcome endpoints that combine multiple continuous and discrete components to form co-primary, multiple primary or composite endpoints are often employed as primary outcome measures in clinical trials. There are many advantages to joint modelling the individual outcomes using a latent variable framework, however in order to make use of the model in practice we require techniques for sample size estimation. In this paper we show how the latent variable model can be applied to the three types of joint endpoints and propose appropriate hypotheses, power and sample size estimation methods for each. We illustrate the techniques using a numerical example based on the four dimensional endpoint in the MUSE trial and find that the sample size required for the co-primary endpoint is larger than that required for the individual endpoint with the smallest effect size. Conversely, the sample size required for the multiple primary endpoint is reduced from that required for the individual outcome with the largest effect size. We show that the analytical technique agrees with the empirical power from simulation studies. We further illustrate the reduction in required sample size that may be achieved in trials of mixed outcome composite endpoints through a simulation study and find that the sample size primarily depends on the components driving response and the correlation structure and much less so on the treatment effect structure in the individual endpoints., Comment: 36 pages, 8 figures, 7 tables

External pilot trials of complex interventions are used to help determine if and how a confirmatory trial should be undertaken, providing estimates of parameters such as recruitment, retention and adherence rates. The decision to progress to the confirmatory trial is typically made by comparing these estimates to pre-specified thresholds known as progression criteria, although the statistical properties of such decision rules are rarely assessed. Such assessment is complicated by several methodological challenges, including the simultaneous evaluation of multiple endpoints, complex multi-level models, small sample sizes, and uncertainty in nuisance parameters. In response to these challenges, we describe a Bayesian approach to the design and analysis of external pilot trials. We show how progression decisions can be made by minimising the expected value of a loss function, defined over the whole parameter space to allow for preferences and trade-offs between multiple parameters to be articulated and used in the decision making process. The assessment of preferences is kept feasible by using a piecewise constant parameterisation of the loss function, the parameters of which are chosen at the design stage to lead to desirable operating characteristics. We describe a flexible, yet computationally intensive, nested Monte Carlo algorithm for estimating operating characteristics. The method is used to revisit the design of an external pilot trial of a complex intervention designed to increase the physical activity of care home residents.

Basket trials have emerged as a new class of efficient approaches in oncology to evaluate a new treatment in several patient subgroups simultaneously. In this paper, we extend the key ideas to disease areas outside of oncology, developing a robust Bayesian methodology for randomised, placebo-controlled basket trials with a continuous endpoint to enable borrowing of information across subtrials with similar treatment effects. After adjusting for covariates, information from a complementary subtrial can be represented into a commensurate prior for the parameter that underpins the subtrial under consideration. We propose using distributional discrepancy to characterise the commensurability between subtrials for appropriate borrowing of information through a spike-and-slab prior, which is placed on the prior precision factor. When the basket trial has at least three subtrials, commensurate priors for point-to-point borrowing are combined into a marginal predictive prior, according to the weights transformed from the pairwise discrepancy measures. In this way, only information from subtrial(s) with the most commensurate treatment effect is leveraged. The marginal predictive prior is updated to a robust posterior by the contemporary subtrial data to inform decision making. Operating characteristics of the proposed methodology are evaluated through simulations motivated by a real basket trial in chronic diseases. The proposed methodology has advantages compared to other selected Bayesian analysis models, for (i) identifying the most commensurate source of information, and (ii) gauging the degree of borrowing from specific subtrials. Numerical results also suggest that our methodology can improve the precision of estimates and, potentially, the statistical power for hypothesis testing., Comment: A submitted paper with 15 pages, 2 figures and 2 tables

Multi-arm designs provide an effective means of evaluating several treatments within the same clinical trial. Given the large number of treatments now available for testing in many disease areas, it has been argued that their utilisation should increase. However, for any given clinical trial there are numerous possible multi-arm designs that could be used, and choosing between them can be a difficult task. This task is complicated further by a lack of available easy-to-use software for designing multi-arm trials. To aid the wider implementation of multi-arm clinical trial designs, we have developed a web application for sample size calculation when using a variety of popular multiple comparison corrections. Furthermore, the application supports sample size calculation to control several varieties of power, as well as the determination of optimised arm-wise allocation ratios. It is built using the Shiny package in the R programming language, is free to access on any device with an internet browser, and requires no programming knowledge to use. The application provides the core information required by statisticians and clinicians to review the operating characteristics of a chosen multi-arm clinical trial design. We hope that it will assist with the future utilisation of such designs in practice.

Composite endpoints that combine multiple outcomes on different scales are common in clinical trials, particularly in chronic conditions. In many of these cases, patients will have to cross a predefined responder threshold in each of the outcomes to be classed as a responder overall. One instance of this occurs in systemic lupus erythematosus (SLE), where the responder endpoint combines two continuous, one ordinal and one binary measure. The overall binary responder endpoint is typically analysed using logistic regression, resulting in a substantial loss of information. We propose a latent variable model for the SLE endpoint, which assumes that the discrete outcomes are manifestations of latent continuous measures and can proceed to jointly model the components of the composite. We perform a simulation study and find the method to offer large efficiency gains over the standard analysis. We find that the magnitude of the precision gains are highly dependent on which components are driving response. Bias is introduced when joint normality assumptions are not satisfied, which we correct for using a bootstrap procedure. The method is applied to the Phase IIb MUSE trial in patients with moderate to severe SLE. We show that it estimates the treatment effect 2.5 times more precisely, offering a 60% reduction in required sample size., Comment: 44 pages, 12 figures

Modern biomedical research frequently involves testing multiple related hypotheses, while maintaining control over a suitable error rate. In many applications the false discovery rate (FDR), which is the expected proportion of false positives among the rejected hypotheses, has become the standard error criterion. Procedures that control the FDR, such as the well-known Benjamini-Hochberg procedure, assume that all p-values are available to be tested at a single time point. However, this ignores the sequential nature of many biomedical experiments, where a sequence of hypotheses is tested without having access to future p-values or even the number of hypotheses. Recently, the first procedures that control the FDR in this online manner have been proposed by Javanmard and Montanari (Ann. Stat. 2018), and built upon by Ramdas et al. (NIPS 2017, ICML 2018). In this paper, we compare and contrast these proposed procedures, with a particular focus on the setting where the p-values are dependent. We also propose a simple modification of the procedures for when there is an upper bound on the number of hypotheses to be tested. Using comprehensive simulation scenarios and case studies, we provide recommendations for which procedures to use in practice for online FDR control., Comment: 48 pages, 18 figures; Updated references

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 over-powered. 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 multi-treatment crossover trials. Specifically, regulators favour re-estimation 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 randomisation. We demonstrate that, provided an equal number of patients are allocated to sequences that are balanced for period, the proposed estimators following block randomisation are unbiased. We further provide a formula for the bias of the estimators following simple randomisation. The performance of these procedures, along with that of an unblinded approach, is then examined utilising 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.

Recently, methodology was presented to facilitate the incorporation of interim analyses in stepped-wedge (SW) cluster randomised trials (CRTs). Here, we extend this previous discussion. We detail how the stopping boundaries, allocation sequences, and per-cluster per-period sample size of a group sequential SW-CRT can be optimised. We then describe methods by which point estimates, p-values, and confidence intervals, which account for the sequential nature of the design, can be calculated. We demonstrate that optimal sequential designs can reduce the expected required number of measurements under the null hypothesis, compared to the classical design, by up to 30%, with no cost to the maximal possible required number of measurements. Furthermore, the adjusted analysis procedure almost universally reduces the average bias in the point estimate, and consistently provides a confidence interval with coverage close to the nominal level. In contrast, the coverage of a naive 95% confidence interval is observed to range between 92 and 98%. Methodology is now readily available for the efficient design and analysis of group sequential SW-CRTs. In scenarios in which there are substantial ethical or financial reasons to terminate a SW-CRT as soon as possible, trialists should strongly consider a group sequential approach.

Response-adaptive designs allow the randomization probabilities to change during the course of a trial based on cumulated response data, so that a greater proportion of patients can be allocated to the better performing treatments. A major concern over the use of response-adaptive designs in practice, particularly from a regulatory viewpoint, is controlling the type I error rate. In particular, we show that the naive z-test can have an inflated type I error rate even after applying a Bonferroni correction. Simulation studies have often been used to demonstrate error control, but do not provide a guarantee. In this paper, we present adaptive testing procedures for normally distributed outcomes that ensure strong familywise error control, by iteratively applying the conditional invariance principle. Our approach can be used for fully sequential and block randomized trials, and for a large class of adaptive randomization rules found in the literature. We show there is a high price to pay in terms of power to guarantee familywise error control for randomization schemes with extreme allocation probabilities. However, for proposed Bayesian adaptive randomization schemes in the literature, our adaptive tests maintain or increase the power of the trial compared to the z-test. We illustrate our method using a three-armed trial in primary hypercholesterolemia., Comment: 55 pages, 3 figures

Primarily motivated by the drug development process, several publications have now presented methodology for the design of multi-arm multi-stage experiments with normally distributed outcome variables of known variance. Here, we extend these past considerations to allow the design of what we refer to as an abcd multi-arm multi-stage experiment. We provide a proof of how strong control of the a-generalised type-I familywise error-rate can be ensured. We then describe how to attain the power to reject at least b out of c false hypotheses, which is related to controlling the b-generalised type-II familywise error-rate. Following this, we detail how a design can be optimised for a scenario in which rejection of any d null hypotheses brings about termination of the experiment. We achieve this by proposing a highly computationally efficient approach for evaluating the performance of a candidate design. Finally, using a real clinical trial as a motivating example, we explore the effect of the design's control parameters on the statistical operating characteristics.

In small sample studies with binary outcome data, use of a normal approximation for hypothesis testing can lead to substantial inflation of the type-I error-rate. Consequently, exact statistical methods are necessitated, and accordingly, much research has been conducted to facilitate this. Recently, this has included methodology for the design of two-stage multi-arm studies utilising exact binomial tests. These designs were demonstrated to carry substantial efficiency advantages over a fixed sample design, but generally suffered from strong conservatism. An alternative classical means of small sample inference with dichotomous data is Fisher's exact test. However, this method is limited to single-stage designs when there are multiple arms. Therefore, here, we propose a two-stage version of Fisher's exact test, with the potential to stop early to accept or reject null hypotheses, which is applicable to multi-arm studies. In particular, we provide precise formulae describing the requirements for achieving weak or strong control of the familywise error-rate with this design. Following this, we describe how the design parameters may be optimised to confer desirable operating characteristics. For a motivating example based on a phase II clinical trial, we demonstrate that on average our approach is less conservative than corresponding optimal designs based on exact binomial tests.

Numerous publications have now addressed the principles of designing, analyzing, and reporting the results of, stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials. In contrast, there is little research available pertaining to the design and analysis of multi-arm stepped-wedge cluster randomized trials, utilized to evaluate the effectiveness of multiple experimental interventions. In this paper, we address this by explaining how the required sample size in these multi-arm trials can be ascertained when data are to be analyzed using a linear mixed model. We then go on to describe how the design of such trials can be optimized to balance between minimizing the cost of the trial, and minimizing some function of the covariance matrix of the treatment effect estimates. Using a recently commenced trial that will evaluate the effectiveness of sensor monitoring in an occupational therapy rehabilitation program for older persons after hip fracture as an example, we demonstrate that our designs could reduce the number of observations required for a fixed power level by up to 58%. Consequently, when logistical constraints permit the utilization of any one of a range of possible multi-arm stepped-wedge cluster randomized trial designs, researchers should consider employing our approach to optimize their trials efficiency.

Crossover designs are an extremely useful tool to investigators, whilst group sequential methods have proven highly proficient at improving the efficiency of parallel group trials. Yet, group sequential methods and crossover designs have rarely been paired together. One possible explanation for this could be the absence of a formal proof of how to strongly control the familywise error rate in the case when multiple comparisons will be made. Here, we provide this proof, valid for any number of initial experimental treatments and any number of stages, when results are analysed using a linear mixed model. We then establish formulae for the expected sample size and expected number of observations of such a trial, given any choice of stopping boundaries. Finally, utilising the four-treatment, four-period TOMADO trial as an example, we demonstrate group sequential methods in this setting could have reduced the trials expected number of observations under the global null hypothesis by over 33%.

Multi-arm multi-stage trial designs can bring notable gains in efficiency to the drug development process. However, for normally distributed endpoints, the determination of a design typically depends on the assumption that the patient variance in response is known. In practice, this will not usually be the case. To allow for unknown variance, previous research explored the performance of t-test statistics, coupled with a quantile substitution procedure for modifying the stopping boundaries, at controlling the familywise error-rate to the nominal level. Here, we discuss an alternative method based on Monte Carlo simulation that allows the group size and stopping boundaries of a multi-arm multi-stage t-test to be optimised according to some nominated optimality criteria. We consider several examples, provide R code for general implementation, and show that our designs confer a familywise error-rate and power close to the desired level. Consequently, this methodology will provide utility in future multi-arm multi-stage trials.

In a group sequential clinical trial, accumulated data are analysed at numerous time-points in order to allow early decisions about a hypothesis of interest. These designs have historically been recommended for their ethical, administrative and economic benefits. In this work, we discuss a collection of new Stata commands for computing the stopping boundaries and required group size of various classical group sequential designs, assuming a normally distributed outcome variable. Following this, we demonstrate how the performance of several designs can be compared graphically.

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 mis-specified, the trial could be over-powered, leading to increased cost, or under-powered, 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 re-estimation (SSRE). Blinded estimators for the variance parameters of a SW-CRT analyzed using the Hussey and Hughes model are derived. Then, 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 under-specified by 50%, the SSRE procedures were able to increase power over the conventional SW-CRT design by up to 29%, resulting in an empirical power above the desired level. Moreover, the performance of the re-estimation procedures was relatively insensitive to the timing of the interim assessment. Thus, the considered SSRE procedures can bring substantial gains in power when the underlying variance parameters are mis-specified. Though there are practical issues to consider, the procedure's performance means researchers should consider incorporating SSRE in to future SW-CRTs.

Response-adaptive randomisation (RAR) can considerably improve the chances of a successful treatment outcome for patients in a clinical trial by skewing the allocation probability towards better performing treatments as data accumulates. There is considerable interest in using RAR designs in drug development for rare diseases, where traditional designs are not feasible or ethically objectionable. In this paper we discuss and address a major criticism of RAR: the undesirable type I error inflation due to unknown time trends in the trial. Time trends can appear because of changes in the characteristics of recruited patients - so-called "patient drift". Patient drift is a realistic concern for clinical trials in rare diseases because these typically recruit patients over a very long period of time. We compute by simulations how large the type I error inflation is as a function of the time trend magnitude in order to determine in which contexts a potentially costly correction is actually necessary. We then assess the ability of different correction methods to preserve type I error in this context and their performance in terms of other operating characteristics, including patient benefit and power. We make recommendations of which correction methods are most suitable in the rare disease context for several RAR rules, differentiating between the two-armed and the multi-armed case. We further propose a RAR design for multi-armed clinical trials, which is computationally cheap and robust to several time trends considered.

In many phase II trials in solid tumours, patients are assessed using endpoints based on the Response Evaluation Criteria in Solid Tumours (RECIST) scale. Often, analyses are based on the response rate. This is the proportion of patients who have an observed tumour shrinkage above a pre-defined level and no new tumour lesions. The augmented binary method has been proposed to improve the precision of the estimator of the response rate. The method involves modelling the tumour shrinkage to avoid dichotomising it. However, in many trials the best observed response is used as the primary outcome. In such trials, patients are followed until progression, and their best observed RECIST outcome is used as the primary endpoint. In this paper, we propose a method that extends the augmented binary method so that it can be used when the outcome is best observed response. We show through simulated data and data from a real phase II cancer trial that this method improves power in both single-arm and randomised trials. The average gain in power compared to the traditional analysis is equivalent to approximately a 35% increase in sample size. A modified version of the method is proposed to reduce the computational effort required. We show this modified method maintains much of the efficiency advantages., Comment: 12 pages, 2 figures