Search

This study presents a hybrid (Bayesian‐frequentist) approach to sample size re‐estimation (SSRE) for cluster randomised trials with continuous outcome data, allowing for uncertainty in the intra‐cluster correlation (ICC). In the hybrid framework, pre‐trial knowledge about the ICC is captured by placing a Truncated Normal prior on it, which is then updated at an interim analysis using the study data, and used in expected power control. On average, both the hybrid and frequentist approaches mitigate against the implications of misspecifying the ICC at the trial's design stage. In addition, both frameworks lead to SSRE designs with approximate control of the type I error‐rate at the desired level. It is clearly demonstrated how the hybrid approach is able to reduce the high variability in the re‐estimated sample size observed within the frequentist framework, based on the informativeness of the prior. However, misspecification of a highly informative prior can cause significant power loss. In conclusion, a hybrid approach could offer advantages to cluster randomised trials using SSRE. Specifically, when there is available data or expert opinion to help guide the choice of prior for the ICC, the hybrid approach can reduce the variance of the re‐estimated required sample size compared to a frequentist approach. As SSRE is unlikely to be employed when there is substantial amounts of such data available (ie, when a constructed prior is highly informative), the greatest utility of a hybrid approach to SSRE likely lies when there is low‐quality evidence available to guide the choice of prior. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Repeated testing in a group sequential trial can result in bias in the maximum likelihood estimate of the unknown parameter of interest. Many authors have therefore proposed adjusted point estimation procedures, which attempt to reduce such bias. Here, we describe nine possible point estimators within a common general framework for a two-stage group sequential trial. We then contrast their performance in five example trial settings, examining their conditional and marginal biases and residual mean square error. By focusing on the case of a trial with a single interim analysis, additional new results aiding the determination of the estimators are given. Our findings demonstrate that the uniform minimum variance unbiased estimator, whilst being marginally unbiased, often has large conditional bias and residual mean square error. If one is concerned solely about inference on progression to the second trial stage, the conditional uniform minimum variance unbiased estimator may be preferred. Two estimators, termed mean adjusted estimators, which attempt to reduce the marginal bias, arguably perform best in terms of the marginal residual mean square error. In all, one should choose an estimator accounting for its conditional and marginal biases and residual mean square error; the most suitable estimator will depend on relative desires to minimise each of these factors. If one cares solely about the conditional and marginal biases, the conditional maximum likelihood estimate may be preferred provided lower and upper stopping boundaries are included. If the conditional and marginal residual mean square error are also of concern, two mean adjusted estimators perform well. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The uniform minimum variance unbiased estimator (UMVUE) is, by definition, a solution to removing bias in estimation following a multi-stage single-arm trial with a primary dichotomous outcome. However, the UMVUE is known to have large residual mean squared error (RMSE). Therefore, we develop an optimisation approach to finding estimators with reduced RMSE for many response rates, which attain low bias. We demonstrate that careful choice of the optimisation parameters can lead to an estimator with often substantially reduced RMSE, without the introduction of appreciable bias. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

It is well accepted that randomized controlled trials provide the greatest quality of evidence about effectiveness and safety of new interventions. In neurosurgery, randomized controlled trials face challenges, with their use remaining relatively low compared with other clinical areas. Adaptive designs have emerged as a method for improving the efficiency and patient benefit of trials. They allow modifications to the trial design to be made as patient outcome data are collected. The benefit they provide is highly variable, predominantly governed by the time taken to observe the primary endpoint compared with the planned recruitment rate. They also face challenges in design, conduct, and reporting. We provide an overview of the benefits and challenges of adaptive designs, with a focus on neurosurgery applications. To investigate how often an adaptive design may be advantageous in neurosurgery, we extracted data on recruitment rates and endpoint lengths for ongoing neurosurgery trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. We found that a majority of neurosurgery trials had a relatively short endpoint length compared with the planned recruitment period and therefore may benefit from an adaptive trial. However, we did not identify any ongoing ClinicalTrials.gov registered neurosurgery trials that mentioned using an adaptive design. Adaptive designs may provide benefits to neurosurgery trials and should be considered for use more widely. Use of some types of adaptive design, such as multiarm multistage, may further increase the number of interventions that can be tested with limited patient and financial resources. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Stepped‐wedge cluster randomized trial (SW‐CRT) designs are often used when there is a desire to provide an intervention to all enrolled clusters, because of a belief that it will be effective. However, given there should be equipoise at trial commencement, there has been discussion around whether a pre‐trial decision to provide the intervention to all clusters is appropriate. In pharmaceutical drug development, a solution to a similar desire to provide more patients with an effective treatment is to use a response adaptive (RA) design. Methods: We introduce a way in which RA design could be incorporated in an SW‐CRT, permitting modification of the intervention allocation during the trial. The proposed framework explicitly permits a balance to be sought between power and patient benefit considerations. A simulation study evaluates the methodology. Results: In one scenario, for one particular RA design, the proportion of cluster‐periods spent in the intervention condition was observed to increase from 32.2% to 67.9% as the intervention effect was increased. A cost of this was a 6.2% power drop compared to a design that maximized power by fixing the proportion of time in the intervention condition at 45.0%, regardless of the intervention effect. Conclusions: An RA approach may be most applicable to settings for which the intervention has substantial individual or societal benefit considerations, potentially in combination with notable safety concerns. In such a setting, the proposed methodology may routinely provide the desired adaptability of the roll‐out speed, with only a small cost to the study's power. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Adapting the final sample size of a trial to the evidence accruing during the trial is a natural way to address planning uncertainty. Since the sample size is usually determined by 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. To this end, we first review and compare common approaches to estimating conditional power, which is often used in heuristic sample size recalculation rules. We then discuss the connection of heuristic sample size recalculation and optimal two‐stage designs, demonstrating that the latter is the superior approach in a fully preplanned setting. Hence, 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 optimality criterion but not as a reaction to trial‐internal data. We are able to show that commonly discussed sample size recalculation rules lead to paradoxical adaptations where an initially planned optimal design is not invariant under the adaptation rule even if the planning assumptions do not change. Finally, we propose two alternative ways of reacting to newly emerging trial‐external evidence in ways that are consistent with the originally planned design to avoid such inconsistencies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Summary: Randomised controlled trials are considered the gold standard in trial design. However, phase II oncology trials with a binary outcome are often single‐arm. Although a number of reasons exist for choosing a single‐arm trial, the primary reason is that single‐arm designs require fewer participants than their randomised equivalents. Therefore, the development of novel methodology that makes randomised designs more efficient is of value to the trials community. This article introduces a randomised two‐arm binary outcome trial design that includes stochastic curtailment (SC), allowing for the possibility of stopping a trial before the final conclusions are known with certainty. In addition to SC, the proposed design involves the use of a randomised block design, which allows investigators to control the number of interim analyses. This approach is compared with existing designs that also use early stopping, through the use of a loss function comprised of a weighted sum of design characteristics. Comparisons are also made using an example from a real trial. The comparisons show that for many possible loss functions, the proposed design is superior to existing designs. Further, the proposed design may be more practical, by allowing a flexible number of interim analyses. One existing design produces superior design realisations when the anticipated response rate is low. However, when using this design, the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis is sensitive to misspecification of the null response rate. Therefore, when considering randomised designs in phase II, we recommend the proposed approach be preferred over other sequential designs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We describe and compare two methods for the group sequential design of two-arm experiments with Poisson distributed data, which are based on a normal approximation and exact calculations respectively. A framework to determine near-optimal stopping boundaries is also presented. Using this framework, for a considered example, we demonstrate that a group sequential design could reduce the expected sample size under the null hypothesis by as much as 44% compared to a fixed sample approach. We conclude with a discussion of the advantages and disadvantages of the two presented procedures. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

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. for this article are available online. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Most literature on optimal group-sequential designs focuses on minimising the expected sample size. We highlight other factors for consideration. We discuss several quantities less-often considered in adaptive design: the median and standard deviation of the random required sample size, and the probability of committing an interim error. We consider how the optimal timing of interim analyses changes when these quantities are accounted for. Incorporating the standard deviation of the required sample size into an optimality framework, we demonstrate how and when this quantity means using a group-sequential approach is not optimal. The optimal timing of an interim analysis is shown to be highly dependent on the pre-specified preference for minimising the expected sample size relative to its standard deviation. Examining multiple factors, which measure the advantages and disadvantages of group-sequential designs, helps determine the best design for a specific trial. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Simon's two-stage design is a widely used adaptive design, particularly in phase II oncology trials due to its simplicity and efficiency. However, its efficiency can be adversely affected when the primary end-point takes time to observe, as is common in practice. We propose an optimal design, taking the delay in observing treatment outcome into consideration and compare the efficiency gained from using Simon's design over a single-stage design for real-life oncology trials. Based on the results, we provide a general rule-of-thumb for determining whether a two-stage single-arm design can provide any added advantage over a single-stage design, given the recruitment rate and primary end-point length. We observed an average 15–30% loss in the estimated efficiency gain in real oncology trials that used Simon's design due to the delay in observing the treatment outcome. The delay-optimal design provides some advantage over Simon's design in terms of reduced sample size when the delay is large compared to the recruitment length. Simon's two-stage design provides large benefit over a single-stage design, in terms of reduced sample size, when the primary end-point length is no more than 10% of the total recruitment time. It provides no efficiency advantage when this ratio is above 50%. • The delay in observing treatment outcome reduces the efficiency of an adaptive trial. • Oncology trials using Simon's design lost 15–30% efficiency on average due to delay. • A delay-optimal design helps to overcome these issues if the delay is moderate. • Simon's design maximises gain if delay is less than 10% of total recruitment time. • Simon's design is inefficient when delay is more than 50% of total recruitment time. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]