Some practical considerations in three‐arm non‐inferiority trial design

Non‐inferiority trials aim to demonstrate whether an experimental therapy is not unacceptably worse than an active reference therapy already in use. When applicable, a three‐arm non‐inferiority trial, including an experiment therapy, an active reference therapy, and a placebo, is often recommended to assess assay sensitivity and internal validity of a trial. In this paper, we share some practical considerations based on our experience from a phase III three‐arm non‐inferiority trial. First, we discuss the determination of the total sample size and its optimal allocation based on the overall power of the non‐inferiority testing procedure and provide ready‐to‐use R code for implementation. Second, we consider the non‐inferiority goal of ‘capturing all possibilities’ and show that it naturally corresponds to a simple two‐step testing procedure. Finally, using this two‐step non‐inferiority testing procedure as an example, we compare extensively commonly used frequentist p ‐value methods with the Bayesian posterior probability approach. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Simultaneous confidence interval for assessing non‐inferiority with assay sensitivity in a three‐arm trial with binary endpoints

A three‐arm trial including an experimental treatment, an active reference treatment and a placebo is often used to assess the non‐inferiority (NI) with assay sensitivity of an experimental treatment. Various hypothesis‐test‐based approaches via a fraction or pre‐specified margin have been proposed to assess the NI with assay sensitivity in a three‐arm trial. There is little work done on confidence interval in a three‐arm trial. This paper develops a hybrid approach to construct simultaneous confidence interval for assessing NI and assay sensitivity in a three‐arm trial. For comparison, we present normal‐approximation‐based and bootstrap‐resampling‐based simultaneous confidence intervals. Simulation studies evidence that the hybrid approach with the Wilson score statistic performs better than other approaches in terms of empirical coverage probability and mesial‐non‐coverage probability. An example is used to illustrate the proposed approaches.     

Propensity‐score‐based priors for Bayesian augmented control design

Drug developers are required to demonstrate substantial evidence of effectiveness through the conduct of adequate and well‐controlled (A&WC) studies to obtain marketing approval of their medicine. What constitutes A&WC is interpreted as the conduct of randomized controlled trials (RCTs). However, these trials are sometimes unfeasible because of their size, duration, and cost. One way to reduce sample size is to leverage information on the control through a prior. One consideration when forming data‐driven prior is the consistency of the external and the current data. It is essential to make this process less susceptible to choosing information that only helps improve the chances toward making an effectiveness claim. For this purpose, propensity score methods are employed for two reasons: (1) it gives the probability of a patient to be in the trial, and (2) it minimizes selection bias by pairing together treatment and control within the trial and control subjects in the external data that are similar in terms of their pretreatment characteristics. Two matching schemes based on propensity scores, estimated through generalized boosted methods, are applied to a real example with the objective of using external data to perform Bayesian augmented control in a trial where the allocation is disproportionate. The simulation results show that the data augmentation process prevents prior and data conflict and improves the precision of the estimator of the average treatment effect.     

Distribution of the two‐sample t‐test statistic following blinded sample size re‐estimation

We consider the blinded sample size re‐estimation based on the simple one‐sample variance estimator at an interim analysis. We characterize the exact distribution of the standard two‐sample t‐test statistic at the final analysis. We describe a simulation algorithm for the evaluation of the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis at given treatment effect. We compare the blinded sample size re‐estimation method with two unblinded methods with respect to the empirical type I error, the empirical power, and the empirical distribution of the standard deviation estimator and final sample size. We characterize the type I error inflation across the range of standardized non‐inferiority margin for non‐inferiority trials, and derive the adjusted significance level to ensure type I error control for given sample size of the internal pilot study. We show that the adjusted significance level increases as the sample size of the internal pilot study increases. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Improving interim decisions in randomized trials by exploiting information on short‐term endpoints and prognostic baseline covariates

Conditional power calculations are frequently used to guide the decision whether or not to stop a trial for futility or to modify planned sample size. These ignore the information in short‐term endpoints and baseline covariates, and thereby do not make fully efficient use of the information in the data. We therefore propose an interim decision procedure based on the conditional power approach which exploits the information contained in baseline covariates and short‐term endpoints. We will realize this by considering the estimation of the treatment effect at the interim analysis as a missing data problem. This problem is addressed by employing specific prediction models for the long‐term endpoint which enable the incorporation of baseline covariates and multiple short‐term endpoints. We show that the proposed procedure leads to an efficiency gain and a reduced sample size, without compromising the Type I error rate of the procedure, even when the adopted prediction models are misspecified. In particular, implementing our proposal in the conditional power approach enables earlier decisions relative to standard approaches, whilst controlling the probability of an incorrect decision. This time gain results in a lower expected number of recruited patients in case of stopping for futility, such that fewer patients receive the futile regimen. We explain how these methods can be used in adaptive designs with unblinded sample size re‐assessment based on the inverse normal P‐value combination method to control Type I error. We support the proposal by Monte Carlo simulations based on data from a real clinical trial.     

Coherence principles in interval‐based dose finding

This paper studies the notion of coherence in interval‐based dose‐finding methods. An incoherent decision is either (a) a recommendation to escalate the dose following an observed dose‐limiting toxicity or (b) a recommendation to deescalate the dose following a non–dose‐limiting toxicity. In a simulated example, we illustrate that the Bayesian optimal interval method and the Keyboard method are not coherent. We generated dose‐limiting toxicity outcomes under an assumed set of true probabilities for a trial of n=36 patients in cohorts of size 1, and we counted the number of incoherent dosing decisions that were made throughout this simulated trial. Each of the methods studied resulted in 13/36 (36%) incoherent decisions in the simulated trial. Additionally, for two different target dose‐limiting toxicity rates, 20% and 30%, and a sample size of n=30 patients, we randomly generated 100 dose‐toxicity curves and tabulated the number of incoherent decisions made by each method in 1000 simulated trials under each curve. For each method studied, the probability of incurring at least one incoherent decision during the conduct of a single trial is greater than 75%. Coherency is an important principle in the conduct of dose‐finding trials. Interval‐based methods violate this principle for cohorts of size 1 and require additional modifications to overcome this shortcoming. Researchers need to take a closer look at the dose assignment behavior of interval‐based methods when using them to plan dose‐finding studies.     

A review and re‐interpretation of a group‐sequential approach to sample size re‐estimation in two‐stage trials

In this paper, we review the adaptive design methodology of Li et al. (Biostatistics 3 :277–287) for two‐stage trials with mid‐trial sample size adjustment. We argue that it is closer in principle to a group sequential design, in spite of its obvious adaptive element. Several extensions are proposed that aim to make it even more attractive and transparent alternative to a standard (fixed sample size) trial for funding bodies to consider. These enable a cap to be put on the maximum sample size and for the trial data to be analysed using standard methods at its conclusion. The regulatory view of trials incorporating unblinded sample size re‐estimation is also discussed. © 2014 The Authors. Pharmaceutical Statistics published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Study design of single‐arm phase II immunotherapy trials with long‐term survivors and random delayed treatment effect

In the traditional study design of a single‐arm phase II cancer clinical trial, the one‐sample log‐rank test has been frequently used. A common practice in sample size calculation is to assume that the event time in the new treatment follows exponential distribution. Such a study design may not be suitable for immunotherapy cancer trials, when both long‐term survivors (or even cured patients from the disease) and delayed treatment effect are present, because exponential distribution is not appropriate to describe such data and consequently could lead to severely underpowered trial. In this research, we proposed a piecewise proportional hazards cure rate model with random delayed treatment effect to design single‐arm phase II immunotherapy cancer trials. To improve test power, we proposed a new weighted one‐sample log‐rank test and provided a sample size calculation formula for designing trials. Our simulation study showed that the proposed log‐rank test performs well and is robust of misspecified weight and the sample size calculation formula also performs well.     

Design and analysis of a 3‐arm noninferiority trial with a prespecified margin for the hazard ratio

A 3‐arm trial design that includes an experimental treatment, an active reference treatment, and a placebo is useful for assessing the noninferiority of an experimental treatment. The inclusion of a placebo arm enables the assessment of assay sensitivity and internal validation, in addition to the testing of the noninferiority of the experimental treatment compared with the reference treatment. In 3‐arm noninferiority trials, various statistical test procedures have been considered to evaluate the following 3 hypotheses: (i) superiority of the experimental treatment over the placebo, (ii) superiority of the reference treatment over the placebo, and (iii) noninferiority of the experimental treatment compared with the reference treatment. However, hypothesis (ii) can be insufficient and may not accurately assess the assay sensitivity for the noninferiority of the experimental treatment compared with the reference treatment. Thus, demonstrating that the superiority of the reference treatment over the placebo is greater than the noninferiority margin (the nonsuperiority of the reference treatment compared with the placebo) can be necessary. Here, we propose log‐rank statistical procedures for evaluating data obtained from 3‐arm noninferiority trials to assess assay sensitivity with a prespecified margin Δ. In addition, we derive the approximate sample size and optimal allocation required to minimize the total sample size and that of the placebo treatment sample size, hierarchically.     

Sample size re‐estimation incorporating prior information on a nuisance parameter

Prior information is often incorporated informally when planning a clinical trial. Here, we present an approach on how to incorporate prior information, such as data from historical clinical trials, into the nuisance parameter–based sample size re‐estimation in a design with an internal pilot study. We focus on trials with continuous endpoints in which the outcome variance is the nuisance parameter. For planning and analyzing the trial, frequentist methods are considered. Moreover, the external information on the variance is summarized by the Bayesian meta‐analytic‐predictive approach. To incorporate external information into the sample size re‐estimation, we propose to update the meta‐analytic‐predictive prior based on the results of the internal pilot study and to re‐estimate the sample size using an estimator from the posterior. By means of a simulation study, we compare the operating characteristics such as power and sample size distribution of the proposed procedure with the traditional sample size re‐estimation approach that uses the pooled variance estimator. The simulation study shows that, if no prior‐data conflict is present, incorporating external information into the sample size re‐estimation improves the operating characteristics compared to the traditional approach. In the case of a prior‐data conflict, that is, when the variance of the ongoing clinical trial is unequal to the prior location, the performance of the traditional sample size re‐estimation procedure is in general superior, even when the prior information is robustified. When considering to include prior information in sample size re‐estimation, the potential gains should be balanced against the risks.     

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.     

Adaptive graph‐based multiple testing procedures

Multiple testing procedures defined by directed, weighted graphs have recently been proposed as an intuitive visual tool for constructing multiple testing strategies that reflect the often complex contextual relations between hypotheses in clinical trials. Many well‐known sequentially rejective tests, such as (parallel) gatekeeping tests or hierarchical testing procedures are special cases of the graph based tests. We generalize these graph‐based multiple testing procedures to adaptive trial designs with an interim analysis. These designs permit mid‐trial design modifications based on unblinded interim data as well as external information, while providing strong family wise error rate control. To maintain the familywise error rate, it is not required to prespecify the adaption rule in detail. Because the adaptive test does not require knowledge of the multivariate distribution of test statistics, it is applicable in a wide range of scenarios including trials with multiple treatment comparisons, endpoints or subgroups, or combinations thereof. Examples of adaptations are dropping of treatment arms, selection of subpopulations, and sample size reassessment. If, in the interim analysis, it is decided to continue the trial as planned, the adaptive test reduces to the originally planned multiple testing procedure. Only if adaptations are actually implemented, an adjusted test needs to be applied. The procedure is illustrated with a case study and its operating characteristics are investigated by simulations. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Properties of the weighted log‐rank test in the design of confirmatory studies with delayed effects

Proportional hazards are a common assumption when designing confirmatory clinical trials in oncology. This assumption not only affects the analysis part but also the sample size calculation. The presence of delayed effects causes a change in the hazard ratio while the trial is ongoing since at the beginning we do not observe any difference between treatment arms, and after some unknown time point, the differences between treatment arms will start to appear. Hence, the proportional hazards assumption no longer holds, and both sample size calculation and analysis methods to be used should be reconsidered. The weighted log‐rank test allows a weighting for early, middle, and late differences through the Fleming and Harrington class of weights and is proven to be more efficient when the proportional hazards assumption does not hold. The Fleming and Harrington class of weights, along with the estimated delay, can be incorporated into the sample size calculation in order to maintain the desired power once the treatment arm differences start to appear. In this article, we explore the impact of delayed effects in group sequential and adaptive group sequential designs and make an empirical evaluation in terms of power and type‐I error rate of the of the weighted log‐rank test in a simulated scenario with fixed values of the Fleming and Harrington class of weights. We also give some practical recommendations regarding which methodology should be used in the presence of delayed effects depending on certain characteristics of the trial.     

A mixture model using likelihood‐based and Bayesian approaches for identifying responders and non‐responders in longitudinal clinical trials

A longitudinal mixture model for classifying patients into responders and non‐responders is established using both likelihood‐based and Bayesian approaches. The model takes into consideration responders in the control group. Therefore, it is especially useful in situations where the placebo response is strong, or in equivalence trials where the drug in development is compared with a standard treatment. Under our model, a treatment shows evidence of being effective if it increases the proportion of responders or increases the response rate among responders in the treated group compared with the control group. Therefore, the model has flexibility to accommodate different situations. The proposed method is illustrated using simulation and a depression clinical trial dataset for the likelihood‐based approach, and the same depression clinical trial dataset for the Bayesian approach. The likelihood‐based and Bayesian approaches generated consistent results for the depression trial data. In both the placebo group and the treated group, patients are classified into two components with distinct response rate. The proportion of responders is shown to be significantly higher in the treated group compared with the control group, suggesting the treatment paroxetine is effective. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

An exact test for comparing two predictive values in small‐size clinical trials

Positive and negative predictive values describe the performance of a diagnostic test. There are several methods to test the equality of predictive values in paired designs. However, these methods were premised on large sample theory, and they may not be suitable for small‐size clinical trials because of inflation of the type 1 error rate. In this study, we propose an exact test to control the type 1 error rate strictly for conducting a small‐size clinical trial that investigates the equality of predictive values in paired designs. In addition, we execute simulation studies to evaluate the performance of the proposed exact test and existing methods in small‐size clinical trials. The proposed test can calculate the exact P value, and as a result of simulations, the empirical type 1 error rate for the proposed test did not exceed the significance level regardless of the setting, and the empirical power for the proposed test is not much different from the other methods based on large‐sample theory. Therefore, it is considered that the proposed exact test is useful when the type 1 error rate needs to be controlled strictly.     

Blinded sample size re‐estimation in crossover bioequivalence trials

In drug development, bioequivalence studies are used to indirectly demonstrate clinical equivalence of a test formulation and a reference formulation of a specific drug by establishing their equivalence in bioavailability. These studies are typically run as crossover studies. In the planning phase of such trials, investigators and sponsors are often faced with a high variability in the coefficients of variation of the typical pharmacokinetic endpoints such as the area under the concentration curve or the maximum plasma concentration. Adaptive designs have recently been considered to deal with this uncertainty by adjusting the sample size based on the accumulating data. Because regulators generally favor sample size re‐estimation procedures that maintain the blinding of the treatment allocations throughout the trial, we propose in this paper a blinded sample size re‐estimation strategy and investigate its error rates. We show that the procedure, although blinded, can lead to some inflation of the type I error rate. In the context of an example, we demonstrate how this inflation of the significance level can be adjusted for to achieve control of the type I error rate at a pre‐specified level. Furthermore, some refinements of the re‐estimation procedure are proposed to improve the power properties, in particular in scenarios with small sample sizes. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Identification of drug‐induced toxicity biomarkers for treatment determination

Drug‐induced organ toxicity (DIOT) that leads to the removal of marketed drugs or termination of candidate drugs has been a leading concern for regulatory agencies and pharmaceutical companies. In safety studies, the genomic assays are conducted after the treatment so that drug‐induced adverse effects can occur. Two types of biomarkers are observed: biomarkers of susceptibility and biomarkers of response. This paper presents a statistical model to distinguish two types of biomarkers and procedures to identify susceptible subpopulations. The biomarkers identified are used to develop classification model to identify susceptible subpopulation. Two methods to identify susceptibility biomarkers were evaluated in terms of predictive performance in subpopulation identification, including sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy. Method 1 considered the traditional linear model with a variable‐by‐treatment interaction term, and Method 2 considered fitting a single predictor variable model using only treatment data. Monte Carlo simulation studies were conducted to evaluate the performance of the two methods and impact of the subpopulation prevalence, probability of DIOT, and sample size on the predictive performance. Method 2 appeared to outperform Method 1, which was due to the lack of power for testing the interaction effect. Important statistical issues and challenges regarding identification of preclinical DIOT biomarkers were discussed. In summary, identification of predictive biomarkers for treatment determination highly depends on the subpopulation prevalence. When the proportion of susceptible subpopulation is 1% or less, a very large sample size is needed to ensure observing sufficient number of DIOT responses for biomarker and/or subpopulation identifications. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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 optimal phase II designs with dual-criterion decision making

The conventional phase II trial design paradigm is to make the go/no-go decision based on the hypothesis testing framework. Statistical significance itself alone, however, may not be sufficient to establish that the drug is clinically effective enough to warrant confirmatory phase III trials. We propose the Bayesian optimal phase II trial design with dual-criterion decision making (BOP2-DC), which incorporates both statistical significance and clinical relevance into decision making. Based on the posterior probability that the treatment effect reaches the lower reference value (statistical significance) and the clinically meaningful value (clinical significance), BOP2-DC allows for go/consider/no-go decisions, rather than a binary go/no-go decision. BOP2-DC is highly flexible and accommodates various types of endpoints, including binary, continuous, time-to-event, multiple, and coprimary endpoints, in single-arm and randomized trials. The decision rule of BOP2-DC is optimized to maximize the probability of a go decision when the treatment is effective or minimize the expected sample size when the treatment is futile. Simulation studies show that the BOP2-DC design yields desirable operating characteristics. The software to implement BOP2-DC is freely available at www.trialdesign.org .