Bayesian Experimental Design for Long-Term Longitudinal HIV Dynamic Studies

The study of HIV dynamics is one of the most important developments in recent AIDS research for understanding the pathogenesis of HIV-1 infection and antiviral treatment strategies. Currently a large number of AIDS clinical trials on HIV dynamics are in development worldwide. However, many design issues that arise from AIDS clinical trials have not been addressed. In this paper, we use a simulation-based approach to deal with design problems in Bayesian hierarchical nonlinear (mixed-effects) models. The underlying model characterizes the long-term viral dynamics with antiretroviral treatment where we directly incorporate drug susceptibility and exposure into a function of treatment efficacy. The Bayesian design method is investigated under the framework of hierarchical Bayesian (mixed-effects) models. We compare a finite number of feasible candidate designs numerically, which are currently used in AIDS clinical trials from different perspectives, and provide guidance on how a design might be chosen in practice.     

A Bayesian sequential design with adaptive randomization for 2‐sided hypothesis test

Bayesian sequential and adaptive randomization designs are gaining popularity in clinical trials thanks to their potentials to reduce the number of required participants and save resources. We propose a Bayesian sequential design with adaptive randomization rates so as to more efficiently attribute newly recruited patients to different treatment arms. In this paper, we consider 2‐arm clinical trials. Patients are allocated to the 2 arms with a randomization rate to achieve minimum variance for the test statistic. Algorithms are presented to calculate the optimal randomization rate, critical values, and power for the proposed design. Sensitivity analysis is implemented to check the influence on design by changing the prior distributions. Simulation studies are applied to compare the proposed method and traditional methods in terms of power and actual sample sizes. Simulations show that, when total sample size is fixed, the proposed design can obtain greater power and/or cost smaller actual sample size than the traditional Bayesian sequential design. Finally, we apply the proposed method to a real data set and compare the results with the Bayesian sequential design without adaptive randomization in terms of sample sizes. The proposed method can further reduce required sample size.     

Practical approaches for design and analysis of clinical trials of infertility treatments: crossover designs and the Mantel–Haenszel method are recommended

Crossover designs have some advantages over standard clinical trial designs and they are often used in trials evaluating the efficacy of treatments for infertility. However, clinical trials of infertility treatments violate a fundamental condition of crossover designs, because women who become pregnant in the first treatment period are not treated in the second period. In previous research, to deal with this problem, some new designs, such as re‐randomization designs, and analysis methods including the logistic mixture model and the beta‐binomial mixture model were proposed. Although the performance of these designs and methods has previously been evaluated in large‐scale clinical trials with sample sizes of more than 1000 per group, the actual sample sizes of infertility treatment trials are usually around 100 per group. The most appropriate design and analysis for these moderate‐scale clinical trials are currently unclear. In this study, we conducted simulation studies to determine the appropriate design and analysis method of moderate‐scale clinical trials for irreversible endpoints by evaluating the statistical power and bias in the treatment effect estimates. The Mantel–Haenszel method had similar power and bias to the logistic mixture model. The crossover designs had the highest power and the smallest bias. We recommend using a combination of the crossover design and the Mantel–Haenszel method for two‐period, two‐treatment clinical trials with irreversible endpoints. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Testing treatment‐by‐period interaction in four‐period crossover trials

Statistical analyses of crossover clinical trials have mainly focused on assessing the treatment effect, carryover effect, and period effect. When a treatment‐by‐period interaction is plausible, it is important to test such interaction first before making inferences on differences among individual treatments. Considerably less attention has been paid to the treatment‐by‐period interaction, which has historically been aliased with the carryover effect in two‐period or three‐period designs. In this article, from the data of a newly developed four‐period crossover design, we propose a statistical method to compare the effects of two active drugs with respect to two response variables. We study estimation and hypothesis testing considering the treatment‐by‐period interaction. Constrained least squares is used to estimate the treatment effect, period effect, and treatment‐by‐period interaction. For hypothesis testing, we extend a general multivariate method for analyzing the crossover design with multiple responses. Results from simulation studies have shown that this method performs very well. We also illustrate how to apply our method to the real data problem.     

A class of confidence intervals for sequential phase II clinical trials with binary outcome

The phase II clinical trials often use the binary outcome. Thus, accessing the success rate of the treatment is a primary objective for the phase II clinical trials. Reporting confidence intervals is a common practice for clinical trials. Due to the group sequence design and relatively small sample size, many existing confidence intervals for phase II trials are much conservative. In this paper, we propose a class of confidence intervals for binary outcomes. We also provide a general theory to assess the coverage of confidence intervals for discrete distributions, and hence make recommendations for choosing the parameter in calculating the confidence interval. The proposed method is applied to Simon's [14] optimal two-stage design with numerical studies. The proposed method can be viewed as an alternative approach for the confidence interval for discrete distributions in general.     

Sample size determination and treatment screening in two‐stage phase II clinical trials via ROC curve

In pharmaceutical‐related research, we usually use clinical trials methods to identify valuable treatments and compare their efficacy with that of a standard control therapy. Although clinical trials are essential for ensuring the efficacy and postmarketing safety of a drug, conducting clinical trials is usually costly and time‐consuming. Moreover, to allocate patients to the little therapeutic effect treatments is inappropriate due to the ethical and cost imperative. Hence, there are several 2‐stage designs in the literature where, for reducing cost and shortening duration of trials, they use the conditional power obtained from interim analysis results to appraise whether we should continue the lower efficacious treatments in the next stage. However, there is a lack of discussion about the influential impacts on the conditional power of a trial at the design stage in the literature. In this article, we calculate the optimal conditional power via the receiver operating characteristic curve method to assess the impacts on the quality of a 2‐stage design with multiple treatments and propose an optimal design using the minimum expected sample size for choosing the best or promising treatment(s) among several treatments under an optimal conditional power constraint. In this paper, we provide tables of the 2‐stage design subject to optimal conditional power for various combinations of design parameters and use an example to illustrate our methods.     

Sequential parallel comparison design with two coprimary endpoints

A placebo‐controlled randomized clinical trial is required to demonstrate that an experimental treatment is superior to its corresponding placebo on multiple coprimary endpoints. This is particularly true in the field of neurology. In fact, clinical trials for neurological disorders need to show the superiority of an experimental treatment over a placebo in two coprimary endpoints. Unfortunately, these trials often fail to detect a true treatment effect for the experimental treatment versus the placebo owing to an unexpectedly high placebo response rate. Sequential parallel comparison design (SPCD) can be used to address this problem. However, the SPCD has not yet been discussed in relation to clinical trials with coprimary endpoints. In this article, our aim was to develop a hypothesis‐testing method and a method for calculating the corresponding sample size for the SPCD with two coprimary endpoints. In a simulation, we show that the proposed hypothesis‐testing method achieves the nominal type I error rate and power and that the proposed sample size calculation method has adequate power accuracy. In addition, the usefulness of our methods is confirmed by returning to an SPCD trial with a single primary endpoint of Alzheimer disease‐related agitation.     

Bayesian phase II adaptive randomization by jointly modeling time-to-event efficacy and binary toxicity

In oncology, toxicity is typically observable shortly after a chemotherapy treatment, whereas efficacy, often characterized by tumor shrinkage, is observable after a relatively long period of time. In a phase II clinical trial design, we propose a Bayesian adaptive randomization procedure that accounts for both efficacy and toxicity outcomes. We model efficacy as a time-to-event endpoint and toxicity as a binary endpoint, sharing common random effects in order to induce dependence between the bivariate outcomes. More generally, we allow the randomization probability to depend on patients’ specific covariates, such as prognostic factors. Early stopping boundaries are constructed for toxicity and futility, and a superior treatment arm is recommended at the end of the trial. Following the setup of a recent renal cancer clinical trial at M. D. Anderson Cancer Center, we conduct extensive simulation studies under various scenarios to investigate the performance of the proposed method, and compare it with available Bayesian adaptive randomization procedures.     

Sequential estimation for covariate-adjusted response-adaptive designs

In clinical trials, a covariate-adjusted response-adaptive (CARA) design allows a subject newly entering a trial a better chance of being allocated to a superior treatment regimen based on cumulative information from previous subjects, and adjusts the allocation according to individual covariate information. Since this design allocates subjects sequentially, it is natural to apply a sequential method for estimating the treatment effect in order to make the data analysis more efficient. In this paper, we study the sequential estimation of treatment effect for a general CARA design. A stopping criterion is proposed such that the estimates satisfy a prescribed precision when the sampling is stopped. The properties of estimates and stopping time are obtained under the proposed stopping rule. In addition, we show that the asymptotic properties of the allocation function, under the proposed stopping rule, are the same as those obtained in the non-sequential/fixed sample size counterpart. We then illustrate the performance of the proposed procedure with some simulation results using logistic models. The properties, such as the coverage probability of treatment effect, correct allocation proportion and average sample size, for diverse combinations of initial sample sizes and tuning parameters in the utility function are discussed.     

Adaptive Crossover Design for Normal Responses

In a response-adaptive design, we review and update the trial on the basis of outcomes in order to achive a specific goal. In clinical trials our goal is to allocate a larger number of patients to the better treatment. In the present paper, we use a response adaptive design in a two-treatment two-period crossover trial where the treatment responses are continuous. We provide probability measures to choose between the possible treatment combinations AA, AB, BA, or BB. The goal is to use the better treatment combination a larger number of times. We calculate the allocation proportions to the possible treatment combinations and their standard errors. We also derive some asymptotic results and provide solutions on related inferential problems. The proposed procedure is compared with a possible competitor. Finally, we use a data set to illustrate the applicability of our proposed design.     

Predictability of designs which adjust for imbalances in prognostic factors

Minimisation is a method often used in clinical trials to balance the treatment groups with respect to some prognostic factors. In the case of two treatments, the predictability of this method is calculated for different numbers of factors, different numbers of levels of each factor and for different proportions of the population at each level. It is shown that if we know nothing about the previous patients except the last treatment allocation, the next treatment can be correctly guessed more than 60% of the time if no biased coin is used. If the two previous assignments are known to have been the same, the next treatment can be guessed correctly around 80% of the time. Therefore, it is suggested that a biased coin should always be used with minimisation. Different choices of biased coin are investigated in terms of the reduction in predictability and the increase in imbalance that they produce. An alternative design to minimisation which makes use of optimum design theory is also investigated, by means of simulation, and does not appear to have any clear advantages over minimisation with a biased coin.     

Inference on treatment effects for targeted clinical trials under enrichment design

After completion of a human genome project, the disease targets at molecular level can be identified. As a result, treatment modality for molecular targets can be developed. In practice, targeted clinical trials are usually conducted for evaluation of the possibility and feasibility of the individualized treatment of patients. However, the accuracy of diagnostic devices for identification of such molecular targets is usually not perfect. Therefore, some of the patients enrolled in targeted clinical trials with a positive result by the diagnostic device might not have the specific molecular targets and hence the treatment effects of the targeted drugs estimated from targeted clinical trials could be biased for the patient population truly with the molecular targets. Under an enrichment design for targeted clinical trials, we propose to use the EM algorithm and bootstrap method for obtaining the inference of the treatment effects of the targeted drugs in the patient population truly with molecular targets. A simulation study was conducted to empirically investigate the bias and variability of the proposed estimator and the size and power of the proposed testing method. Simulation results demonstrate that the proposed estimator is unbiased with adequate precision and the confidence interval can provide satisfactory coverage probability. In addition, the proposed testing procedure can adequately control the size with sufficient power. A practical example illustrates the utility of the proposed method. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Doubly adaptive biased coin designs with heterogeneous responses

Doubly adaptive biased coin design (DBCD) is an important family of response-adaptive randomization procedures for clinical trials. It uses sequentially updated estimation to skew the allocation probability to favor the treatment that has performed better thus far. An important assumption for the DBCD is the homogeneity assumption for the patient responses. However, this assumption may be violated in many sequential experiments. Here we prove the robustness of the DBCD against certain time trends in patient responses. Strong consistency and asymptotic normality of the design are obtained under some widely satisfied conditions. Also, we propose a general weighted likelihood method to reduce the bias caused by the heterogeneity in the inference after a trial. Some numerical studies are also presented to illustrate the finite sample properties of DBCD.     

Optimum treatment allocation for dual-objective clinical trials with binary outcomes

A common problem in randomized controlled clinical trials is the optimal assignment of patients to treatment protocols, The traditional optimal design assumes a single criterion, although in reality, there are usually more than one objective in a clinical trial. In this paper, optimal treatment allocation schemes are found for a dual-objective clinical trial with a binary response. A graphical method for finding the optimal strategy is proposed and illustrative examples are discussed.     

A simple test for the treatment effect in clinical trials with a sequential parallel comparison design and negative binomial outcomes

In placebo‐controlled, double‐blinded, randomized clinical trials, the presence of placebo responders reduces the effect size for comparison of the active drug group with the placebo group. An attempt to resolve this problem is to use the sequential parallel comparison design (SPCD). Although there are SPCDs with dichotomous or continuous outcomes, an SPCD with negative binomial outcomes—with which investigators deal eg, in clinical trials involving multiple sclerosis, where the investigators are still concerned about the presence of placebo responders—has not yet been discussed. In this article, we propose a simple test for the treatment effect in clinical trials with an SPCD and negative binomial outcomes. Through simulations, we show that the analysis method achieves the nominal type I error rate and power, whereas the sample size calculation provides the sample size with adequate power accuracy.     

Blinded assessment of treatment effects for survival endpoint in an ongoing trial

Many assumptions, including assumptions regarding treatment effects, are made at the design stage of a clinical trial for power and sample size calculations. It is desirable to check these assumptions during the trial by using blinded data. Methods for sample size re‐estimation based on blinded data analyses have been proposed for normal and binary endpoints. However, there is a debate that no reliable estimate of the treatment effect can be obtained in a typical clinical trial situation. In this paper, we consider the case of a survival endpoint and investigate the feasibility of estimating the treatment effect in an ongoing trial without unblinding. We incorporate information of a surrogate endpoint and investigate three estimation procedures, including a classification method and two expectation–maximization (EM) algorithms. Simulations and a clinical trial example are used to assess the performance of the procedures. Our studies show that the expectation–maximization algorithms highly depend on the initial estimates of the model parameters. Despite utilization of a surrogate endpoint, all three methods have large variations in the treatment effect estimates and hence fail to provide a precise conclusion about the treatment effect. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Evaluate the relative efficiency of a targeted clinical trial design to an untargeted design under the issue of cost

In this article, we evaluate the relative cost of a targeted design to an untargeted design for a randomized clinical trial comparing a new treatment to a control. We observed that when the ratio of screen cost per person and drug cost per person is very small, say 0.008, the trial cost for conducting a targeted design might be fewer than that for conducting an untargeted design. When the difference between the treatment effect for the targeted patients and the treatment effect for the untargeted patients is increased, the savings in trial cost for the targeted design would be increased significantly. The greater sensitivity and specificity for the screen tool will lead to greater savings in trial cost for the targeted design. The relative cost of a targeted design to an untargeted design is associated with the treatment effect difference between targeted and untargeted patients, the proportion of targeted patients in the population, the screen tool performance, and the ratio of drug cost per person and screen cost per person.     

A Frailty Model in Crossover Studies with Time-to-Event Response Variable

In this article, we develop a model to study treatment, period, carryover, and other applicable effects in a crossover design with a time-to-event response variable. Because time-to-event outcomes on different treatment regimens within the crossover design are correlated for an individual, we adopt a proportional hazards frailty model. If the frailty is assumed to have a gamma distribution, and the hazard rates are piecewise constant, then the likelihood function can be determined via closed-form expressions. We illustrate the methodology via an application to a data set from an asthma clinical trial and run simulations that investigate sensitivity of the model to data generated from different distributions.     

Approaches to evaluation of treatment effect in randomized clinical trials with genomic subset

With the advances in human genomic/genetic studies, the clinical trial community gradually recognizes that phenotypically homogeneous patients may be heterogeneous at the genomic level. The genomic technology brings a possible avenue for developing a genomic (composite) biomarker to predict a genomically responsive patient subset that may have a (much) higher likelihood of benefiting from a treatment. Randomized controlled trial is the mainstay to provide scientifically convincing evidence of a purported effect a new treatment may demonstrate. In conventional clinical trials, the primary clinical hypothesis pertains to the therapeutic effect in all patients who are eligible for the study defined by the primary efficacy endpoint. The aspect of one-size-fits-all surrounding the conventional design has been challenged, particularly when the diseases may be heterogeneous due to observable clinical characteristics and/or unobservable underlying the genomic characteristics. Extension from the conventional single population design objective to an objective that encompasses two possible patient populations will allow more informative evaluation in the patients having different degrees of responsiveness to medication. Building in conventional clinical trials, an additional genomic objective can generate an appealing conceptual framework from the patient's perspective in addressing personalized medicine in well-controlled clinical trials. There are many perceived benefits of personalized medicine that are based on the notion of being genomically proactive in the identification of disease and prevention of disease or recurrence. In this paper, we show that an adaptive design approach can be constructed to study a clinical hypothesis of overall treatment effect and a hypothesis of treatment effect in a genomic subset more efficiently than the conventional non-adaptive approach.     

An efficient sequential design of clinical trials

We propose an efficient group sequential monitoring rule for clinical trials. At each interim analysis both efficacy and futility are evaluated through a specified loss structure together with the predicted power. The proposed design is robust to a wide range of priors, and achieves the specified power with a saving of sample size compared to existing adaptive designs. A method is also proposed to obtain a reduced-bias estimator of treatment difference for the proposed design. The new approaches hold great potential for efficiently selecting a more effective treatment in comparative trials. Operating characteristics are evaluated and compared with other group sequential designs in empirical studies. An example is provided to illustrate the application of the method.