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.     

Conditional estimation using prior information in 2‐stage group sequential designs assuming asymptotic normality when the trial terminated early

Two‐stage designs are widely used to determine whether a clinical trial should be terminated early. In such trials, a maximum likelihood estimate is often adopted to describe the difference in efficacy between the experimental and reference treatments; however, this method is known to display conditional bias. To reduce such bias, a conditional mean‐adjusted estimator (CMAE) has been proposed, although the remaining bias may be nonnegligible when a trial is stopped for efficacy at the interim analysis. We propose a new estimator for adjusting the conditional bias of the treatment effect by extending the idea of the CMAE. This estimator is calculated by weighting the maximum likelihood estimate obtained at the interim analysis and the effect size prespecified when calculating the sample size. We evaluate the performance of the proposed estimator through analytical and simulation studies in various settings in which a trial is stopped for efficacy or futility at the interim analysis. We find that the conditional bias of the proposed estimator is smaller than that of the CMAE when the information time at the interim analysis is small. In addition, the mean‐squared error of the proposed estimator is also smaller than that of the CMAE. In conclusion, we recommend the use of the proposed estimator for trials that are terminated early for efficacy or futility.     

Evaluating dynamic treatment strategies: does it have to be more costly?

Dynamic treatment strategies are designed to change treatments over time in response to intermediate outcomes. They can be deployed for primary treatment as well as for the introduction of adjuvant treatment or other treatment‐enhancing interventions. When treatment interventions are delayed until needed, more cost‐efficient strategies will result. Sequential multiple assignment randomized (SMAR) trials allow for unbiased estimation of the marginal effects of different sequences of history‐dependent treatment decisions. Because a single SMAR trial enables evaluation of many different dynamic regimes at once, it is naturally thought to require larger sample sizes than the parallel randomized trial. In this paper, we compare power between SMAR trials studying a regime, where treatment boosting enters when triggered by an observed event, versus the parallel design, where a treatment boost is consistently prescribed over the entire study period. In some settings, we found that the dynamic design yields the more efficient trial for the detection of treatment activity. We develop one particular trial to compare a dynamic nursing intervention with telemonitoring for the enhancement of medication adherence in epilepsy patients. To this end, we derive from the SMAR trial data either an average of conditional treatment effects (‘conditional estimator’) or the population‐averaged (‘marginal’) estimator of the dynamic regimes. Analytical sample size calculations for the parallel design and the conditional estimator are compared with simulated results for the population‐averaged estimator. We conclude that in specific settings, well‐chosen SMAR designs may require fewer data for the development of more cost‐efficient treatment strategies than parallel designs. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Choice of Baselines in Clinical Trials: A Simulation Study from Statistical Power Perspective

Multiple assessments of an efficacy variable are often conducted prior to the initiation of randomized treatments in clinical trials as baseline information. Two goals are investigated in this article, where the first goal is to investigate the choice of these baselines in the analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) to increase the statistical power, and the second to investigate the magnitude of power loss when a continuous efficacy variable is dichotomized to categorical variable as commonly reported the biomedical literature. A statistical power analysis is developed with extensive simulations based on data from clinical trials in study participants with end stage renal disease (ESRD). It is found that the baseline choices primarily depend on the correlations among the baselines and the efficacy variable, with substantial gains for correlations greater than 0.6 and negligible for less than 0.2. Continuous efficacy variables always give higher statistical power in the ANCOVA modeling and dichotomizing the efficacy variable generally decreases the statistical power by 25%, which is an important practicum in designing clinical trials for study sample size and realistically budget. These findings can be easily applied in and extended to other clinical trials with similar design.     

Implementing optimal allocation for sequential continuous responses with multiple treatments

In practice, it is important to find optimal allocation strategies for continuous response with multiple treatments under some optimization criteria. In this article, we focus on exponential responses. For a multivariate test of homogeneity, we obtain the optimal allocation strategies to maximize power while (1) fixing sample size and (2) fixing expected total responses. Then the doubly adaptive biased coin design [Hu, F., Zhang, L.-X., 2004. Asymptotic properties of doubly adaptive biased coin designs for multi-treatment clinical trials. The Annals of Statistics 21, 268–301] is used to implement the optimal allocation strategies. Simulation results show that the proposed procedures have advantages over complete randomization with respect to both inferential (power) and ethical standpoints on average. It is important to note that one can usually implement optimal allocation strategies numerically for other continuous responses, though it is usually not easy to get the closed form of the optimal allocation theoretically.     

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.     

Optimal design of clinical trials comparing several treatments with a control

Clinical trials are often designed to compare several treatments with a common control arm in pairwise fashion. In this paper we study optimal designs for such studies, based on minimizing the total number of patients required to achieve a given level of power. A common approach when designing studies to compare several treatments with a control is to achieve the desired power for each individual pairwise treatment comparison. However, it is often more appropriate to characterize power in terms of the family of null hypotheses being tested, and to control the probability of rejecting all, or alternatively any, of these individual hypotheses. While all approaches lead to unbalanced designs with more patients allocated to the control arm, it is found that the optimal design and required number of patients can vary substantially depending on the chosen characterization of power. The methods make allowance for both continuous and binary outcomes and are illustrated with reference to two clinical trials, one involving multiple doses compared to placebo and the other involving combination therapy compared to mono-therapies. In one example a 55% reduction in sample size is achieved through an optimal design combined with the appropriate characterization of power.     

TITE‐BOIN‐ET: Time‐to‐event Bayesian optimal interval design to accelerate dose‐finding based on both efficacy and toxicity outcomes

One of the primary purposes of an oncology dose‐finding trial is to identify an optimal dose (OD) that is both tolerable and has an indication of therapeutic benefit for subjects in subsequent clinical trials. In addition, it is quite important to accelerate early stage trials to shorten the entire period of drug development. However, it is often challenging to make adaptive decisions of dose escalation and de‐escalation in a timely manner because of the fast accrual rate, the difference of outcome evaluation periods for efficacy and toxicity and the late‐onset outcomes. To solve these issues, we propose the time‐to‐event Bayesian optimal interval design to accelerate dose‐finding based on cumulative and pending data of both efficacy and toxicity. The new design, named “TITE‐BOIN‐ET” design, is nonparametric and a model‐assisted design. Thus, it is robust, much simpler, and easier to implement in actual oncology dose‐finding trials compared with the model‐based approaches. These characteristics are quite useful from a practical point of view. A simulation study shows that the TITE‐BOIN‐ET design has advantages compared with the model‐based approaches in both the percentage of correct OD selection and the average number of patients allocated to the ODs across a variety of realistic settings. In addition, the TITE‐BOIN‐ET design significantly shortens the trial duration compared with the designs without sequential enrollment and therefore has the potential to accelerate early stage dose‐finding trials.     

Adaptive designs for single‐arm phase II trials in oncology

Clinical phase II trials in oncology are conducted to determine whether the activity of a new anticancer treatment is promising enough to merit further investigation. Two‐stage designs are commonly used for this situation to allow for early termination. Designs proposed in the literature so far have the common drawback that the sample sizes for the two stages have to be specified in the protocol and have to be adhered to strictly during the course of the trial. As a consequence, designs that allow a higher extent of flexibility are desirable. In this article, we propose a new adaptive method that allows an arbitrary modification of the sample size of the second stage using the results of the interim analysis or external information while controlling the type I error rate. If the sample size is not changed during the trial, the proposed design shows very similar characteristics to the optimal two‐stage design proposed by Chang et al. (Biometrics 1987; 43:865–874). However, the new design allows the use of mid‐course information for the planning of the second stage, thus meeting practical requirements when performing clinical phase II trials in oncology. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

A two‐stage phase II clinical trial design with nested criteria for early stopping and efficacy

We propose a two‐stage design for a single arm clinical trial with an early stopping rule for futility. This design employs different endpoints to assess early stopping and efficacy. The early stopping rule is based on a criteria determined more quickly than that for efficacy. These separate criteria are also nested in the sense that efficacy is a special case of, but usually not identical to, the early stopping endpoint. The design readily allows for planning in terms of statistical significance, power, expected sample size, and expected duration. This method is illustrated with a phase II design comparing rates of disease progression in elderly patients treated for lung cancer to rates found using a historical control. In this example, the early stopping rule is based on the number of patients who exhibit progression‐free survival (PFS) at 2 months post treatment follow‐up. Efficacy is judged by the number of patients who have PFS at 6 months. We demonstrate our design has expected sample size and power comparable with the Simon two‐stage design but exhibits shorter expected duration under a range of useful parameter values.     

Enhancement of the adaptive signature design for learning and confirming in a single pivotal trial

Because of the complexity of cancer biology, often the target pathway is not well understood at the time that phase III trials are initiated. A 2‐stage trial design was previously proposed for identifying a subgroup of interest in a learn stage, on the basis of 1 or more baseline biomarkers, and then subsequently confirming it in a confirmation stage. In this article, we discuss some practical aspects of this type of design and describe an enhancement to this approach that can be built into the study randomization to increase the robustness of the evaluation. Furthermore, we show via simulation studies how the proportion of patients allocated to the learn stage versus the confirm stage impacts the power and provide recommendations.     

Bayesian randomized clinical trials: A decision‐theoretic sequential design

The authors propose a Bayesian decision‐theoretic framework justifying randomization in clinical trials. Noting that the decision maker is often unable or unwilling to specify a unique utility function, they develop a sequential myopic design that includes randomization justified by the consideration of a set of utility functions. Randomization is introduced over all nondominated treatments, allowing for interim removal of treatments and early stopping. The authors illustrate their approach in the context of a study to find the optimal dose of pegylated interferon for platinum resistant ovarian cancer. They also develop an algorithm to implement their methodology in a phase II clinical trial comparing several competing experimental treatments.     

Cost‐efficient higher‐order crossover designs for two‐treatment clinical trials

Higher‐order crossover designs have drawn considerable attention in clinical trials, because of their ability to test direct treatment effects in the presence of carry‐over effects. The important question, when applying higher‐order crossover designs in practice, is how to choose a design with both statistical and cost efficiencies from various alternatives. In this paper, we propose a general cost function and compare five statistically optimal or near‐optimal designs with this cost function for a two‐treatment study under different carry‐over models. Based on our study, to achieve both statistical and cost efficiencies, a four‐period, four‐sequence crossover design is generally recommended under the simple carry‐over or no carry‐over models, and a three‐period, two‐sequence crossover design is generally recommended under the steady‐state carry‐over models. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Optimal composite scores for longitudinal clinical trials under the linear mixed effects model

Clinical trials of chronic, progressive conditions use rate of change on continuous measures as the primary outcome measure, with slowing of progression on the measure as evidence of clinical efficacy. For clinical trials with a single prespecified primary endpoint, it is important to choose an endpoint with the best signal‐to‐noise properties to optimize statistical power to detect a treatment effect. Composite endpoints composed of a linear weighted average of candidate outcome measures have also been proposed. Composites constructed as simple sums or averages of component tests, as well as composites constructed using weights derived from more sophisticated approaches, can be suboptimal, in some cases performing worse than individual outcome measures. We extend recent research on the construction of efficient linearly weighted composites by establishing the often overlooked connection between trial design and composite performance under linear mixed effects model assumptions and derive a formula for calculating composites that are optimal for longitudinal clinical trials of known, arbitrary design. Using data from a completed trial, we provide example calculations showing that the optimally weighted linear combination of scales can improve the efficiency of trials by almost 20% compared with the most efficient of the individual component scales. Additional simulations and analytical results demonstrate the potential losses in efficiency that can result from alternative published approaches to composite construction and explore the impact of weight estimation on composite performance. Copyright © 2016. The Authors. Pharmaceutical Statistics Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.     

Two‐stage phase II survival trial design

Recently, molecularly targeted agents and immunotherapy have been advanced for the treatment of relapse or refractory cancer patients, where disease progression‐free survival or event‐free survival is often a primary endpoint for the trial design. However, methods to evaluate two‐stage single‐arm phase II trials with a time‐to‐event endpoint are currently processed under an exponential distribution, which limits application of real trial designs. In this paper, we developed an optimal two‐stage design, which is applied to the four commonly used parametric survival distributions. The proposed method has advantages compared with existing methods in that the choice of underlying survival model is more flexible and the power of the study is more adequately addressed. Therefore, the proposed two‐stage design can be routinely used for single‐arm phase II trial designs with a time‐to‐event endpoint as a complement to the commonly used Simon's two‐stage design for the binary outcome.     

Outcome-adaptive allocation with natural lead-in for three-group trials with binary outcomes

ABSTRACT

Just as Bayes extensions of the frequentist optimal allocation design have been developed for the two-group case, we provide a Bayes extension of optimal allocation in the three-group case. We use the optimal allocations derived by Jeon and Hu [Optimal adaptive designs for binary response trials with three treatments. Statist Biopharm Res. 2010;2(3):310–318] and estimate success probabilities for each treatment arm using a Bayes estimator. We also introduce a natural lead-in design that allows adaptation to begin as early in the trial as possible. Simulation studies show that the Bayesian adaptive designs simultaneously increase the power and expected number of successfully treated patients compared to the balanced design. And compared to the standard adaptive design, the natural lead-in design introduced in this study produces a higher expected number of successes whilst preserving power.     

Weighted log‐rank test for time‐to‐event data in immunotherapy trials with random delayed treatment effect and cure rate

A cancer clinical trial with an immunotherapy often has 2 special features, which are patients being potentially cured from the cancer and the immunotherapy starting to take clinical effect after a certain delay time. Existing testing methods may be inadequate for immunotherapy clinical trials, because they do not appropriately take the 2 features into consideration at the same time, hence have low power to detect the true treatment effect. In this paper, we proposed a piece‐wise proportional hazards cure rate model with a random delay time to fit data, and a new weighted log‐rank test to detect the treatment effect of an immunotherapy over a chemotherapy control. We showed that the proposed weight was nearly optimal under mild conditions. Our simulation study showed a substantial gain of power in the proposed test over the existing tests and robustness of the test with misspecified weight. We also introduced a sample size calculation formula to design the immunotherapy clinical trials using the proposed weighted log‐rank test.     

Optimal inference for Simon's two-stage design with over or under enrollment at the second stage

Simon's two-stage designs are widely used in clinical trials to assess the activity of a new treatment. In practice, it is often the case that the second stage sample size is different from the planned one. For this reason, the critical value for the second stage is no longer valid for statistical inference. Existing approaches for making statistical inference are either based on asymptotic methods or not optimal. We propose an approach to maximize the power of a study while maintaining the type I error rate, where the type I error rate and power are calculated exactly from binomial distributions. The critical values of the proposed approach are numerically searched by an intelligent algorithm over the complete parameter space. It is guaranteed that the proposed approach is at least as powerful as the conditional power approach which is a valid but non-optimal approach. The power gain of the proposed approach can be substantial as compared to the conditional power approach. We apply the proposed approach to a real Phase II clinical trial.     

Response‐adaptive designs for binary responses: How to offer patient benefit while being robust to time trends?

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 either feasible or ethically questionable. In this paper, we discuss and address a major criticism levelled at RAR: namely, type I error inflation due to an unknown time trend over the course of the trial. The most common cause of this phenomenon is changes in the characteristics of recruited patients—referred to as patient drift. This is a realistic concern for clinical trials in rare diseases due to their lengthly accrual rate. We compute the type I error inflation as a function of the time trend magnitude to determine in which contexts the problem is most exacerbated. We then assess the ability of different correction methods to preserve type I error in these contexts and their performance in terms of other operating characteristics, including patient benefit and power. We make recommendations as to which correction methods are most suitable in the rare disease context for several RAR rules, differentiating between the 2‐armed and the multi‐armed case. We further propose a RAR design for multi‐armed clinical trials, which is computationally efficient and robust to several time trends considered.     

Generalized optimal design for two‐arm,randomized phase II clinical trials with endpoints from the exponential dispersion family

For two‐arm randomized phase II clinical trials, previous literature proposed an optimal design that minimizes the total sample sizes subject to multiple constraints on the standard errors of the estimated event rates and their difference. The original design is limited to trials with dichotomous endpoints. This paper extends the original approach to be applicable to phase II clinical trials with endpoints from the exponential dispersion family distributions. The proposed optimal design minimizes the total sample sizes needed to provide estimates of population means of both arms and their difference with pre‐specified precision. Its applications on data from specific distribution families are discussed under multiple design considerations. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.