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.     

Blinded sample size re‐estimation in superiority and noninferiority trials: bias versus variance in variance estimation

The internal pilot study design allows for modifying the sample size during an ongoing study based on a blinded estimate of the variance thus maintaining the trial integrity. Various blinded sample size re‐estimation procedures have been proposed in the literature. We compare the blinded sample size re‐estimation procedures based on the one‐sample variance of the pooled data with a blinded procedure using the randomization block information with respect to bias and variance of the variance estimators, and the distribution of the resulting sample sizes, power, and actual type I error rate. For reference, sample size re‐estimation based on the unblinded variance is also included in the comparison. It is shown that using an unbiased variance estimator (such as the one using the randomization block information) for sample size re‐estimation does not guarantee that the desired power is achieved. Moreover, in situations that are common in clinical trials, the variance estimator that employs the randomization block length shows a higher variability than the simple one‐sample estimator and in turn the sample size resulting from the related re‐estimation procedure. This higher variability can lead to a lower power as was demonstrated in the setting of noninferiority trials. In summary, the one‐sample estimator obtained from the pooled data is extremely simple to apply, shows good performance, and is therefore recommended for application. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

A Bayesian adaptive blinded sample size adjustment method for risk differences

Adaptive sample size adjustment (SSA) for clinical trials consists of examining early subsets of on trial data to adjust estimates of sample size requirements. Blinded SSA is often preferred over unblinded SSA because it obviates many logistical complications of the latter and generally introduces less bias. On the other hand, current blinded SSA methods for binary data offer little to no new information about the treatment effect, ignore uncertainties associated with the population treatment proportions, and/or depend on enhanced randomization schemes that risk partial unblinding. I propose an innovative blinded SSA method for use when the primary analysis is a non‐inferiority or superiority test regarding a risk difference. The method incorporates evidence about the treatment effect via the likelihood function of a mixture distribution. I compare the new method with an established one and with the fixed sample size study design, in terms of maximization of an expected utility function. The new method maximizes the expected utility better than do the comparators, under a range of assumptions. I illustrate the use of the proposed method with an example that incorporates a Bayesian hierarchical model. Lastly, I suggest topics for future study regarding the proposed methods. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Adaptive blinded sample size adjustment for comparing two normal means—a mostly Bayesian approach

Adaptive sample size redetermination (SSR) for clinical trials consists of examining early subsets of on‐trial data to adjust prior estimates of statistical parameters and sample size requirements. Blinded SSR, in particular, while in use already, seems poised to proliferate even further because it obviates many logistical complications of unblinded methods and it generally introduces little or no statistical or operational bias. On the other hand, current blinded SSR methods offer little to no new information about the treatment effect (TE); the obvious resulting problem is that the TE estimate scientists might simply ‘plug in’ to the sample size formulae could be severely wrong. This paper proposes a blinded SSR method that formally synthesizes sample data with prior knowledge about the TE and the within‐treatment variance. It evaluates the method in terms of the type 1 error rate, the bias of the estimated TE, and the average deviation from the targeted power. The method is shown to reduce this average deviation, in comparison with another established method, over a range of situations. The paper illustrates the use of the proposed method with an example. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Blinded continuous monitoring in clinical trials with recurrent event endpoints

In studies with recurrent event endpoints, misspecified assumptions of event rates or dispersion can lead to underpowered trials or overexposure of patients. Specification of overdispersion is often a particular problem as it is usually not reported in clinical trial publications. Changing event rates over the years have been described for some diseases, adding to the uncertainty in planning. To mitigate the risks of inadequate sample sizes, internal pilot study designs have been proposed with a preference for blinded sample size reestimation procedures, as they generally do not affect the type I error rate and maintain trial integrity. Blinded sample size reestimation procedures are available for trials with recurrent events as endpoints. However, the variance in the reestimated sample size can be considerable in particular with early sample size reviews. Motivated by a randomized controlled trial in paediatric multiple sclerosis, a rare neurological condition in children, we apply the concept of blinded continuous monitoring of information, which is known to reduce the variance in the resulting sample size. Assuming negative binomial distributions for the counts of recurrent relapses, we derive information criteria and propose blinded continuous monitoring procedures. The operating characteristics of these are assessed in Monte Carlo trial simulations demonstrating favourable properties with regard to type I error rate, power, and stopping time, ie, sample size.     

Bayesian single-to-double arm transition design using both short-term and long-term endpoints

The choice between single-arm designs versus randomized double-arm designs has been contentiously debated in the literature of phase II oncology trials. Recently, as a compromise, the single-to-double arm transition design was proposed, combining the two designs into one trial over two stages. Successful implementation of the two-stage transition design requires a suspension period at the end of the first stage to collect the response data of the already enrolled patients. When the evaluation of the primary efficacy endpoint is overly long, the between-stage suspension period may unfavorably prolong the trial duration and cause a delay in treating future eligible patients. To accelerate the trial, we propose a Bayesian single-to-double arm design with short-term endpoints (BSDS), where an intermediate short-term endpoint is used for making early termination decisions at the end of the single-arm stage, followed by an evaluation of the long-term endpoint at the end of the subsequent double-arm stage. Bayesian posterior probabilities are used as the primary decision-making tool at the end of the trial. Design calibration steps are proposed for this Bayesian monitoring process to control the frequentist operating characteristics and minimize the expected sample size. Extensive simulation studies have demonstrated that our design has comparable power and average sample size but a much shorter trial duration than conventional single-to-double arm design. Applications of the design are illustrated using two phase II oncology trials with binary endpoints.     

Approaches to sample size calculation for clinical trials in rare diseases

We discuss 3 alternative approaches to sample size calculation: traditional sample size calculation based on power to show a statistically significant effect, sample size calculation based on assurance, and sample size based on a decision‐theoretic approach. These approaches are compared head‐to‐head for clinical trial situations in rare diseases. Specifically, we consider 3 case studies of rare diseases (Lyell disease, adult‐onset Still disease, and cystic fibrosis) with the aim to plan the sample size for an upcoming clinical trial. We outline in detail the reasonable choice of parameters for these approaches for each of the 3 case studies and calculate sample sizes. We stress that the influence of the input parameters needs to be investigated in all approaches and recommend investigating different sample size approaches before deciding finally on the trial size. Highly influencing for the sample size are choice of treatment effect parameter in all approaches and the parameter for the additional cost of the new treatment in the decision‐theoretic approach. These should therefore be discussed extensively.     

Bayesian Approach to Multicentre Sparse Data

In a 2 × 2 contingency table, when the sample size is small, there may be a number of cells that contain few or no observations, usually referred to as sparse data. In such cases, a common recommendation in the conventional frequentist methods is adding a small constant to every cell of the observed table to find the estimates of the unknown parameters. However, this approach is based on asymptotic properties of the estimates and may work poorly for small samples. An alternative approach would be to use Bayesian methods in order to provide better insight into the problem of sparse data coupled with fewer centers, which would otherwise be difficult to carry out the analysis. In this article, an attempt has been made to use hierarchical Bayesian model to a multicenter data on the effect of a surgical treatment with standard foot care among leprosy patients with posterior tibial nerve damage which is summarized as seven 2 × 2 tables. Monte Carlo Markov Chain (MCMC) techniques are applied in estimating the parameters of interest under sparse data setup.     

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.     

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.     

The perils with the misuse of predictive power

In early drug development, especially when studying new mechanisms of action or in new disease areas, little is known about the targeted or anticipated treatment effect or variability estimates. Adaptive designs that allow for early stopping but also use interim data to adapt the sample size have been proposed as a practical way of dealing with these uncertainties. Predictive power and conditional power are two commonly mentioned techniques that allow predictions of what will happen at the end of the trial based on the interim data. Decisions about stopping or continuing the trial can then be based on these predictions. However, unless the user of these statistics has a deep understanding of their characteristics important pitfalls may be encountered, especially with the use of predictive power. The aim of this paper is to highlight these potential pitfalls. It is critical that statisticians understand the fundamental differences between predictive power and conditional power as they can have dramatic effects on decision making at the interim stage, especially if used to re-evaluate the sample size. The use of predictive power can lead to much larger sample sizes than either conditional power or standard sample size calculations. One crucial difference is that predictive power takes account of all uncertainty, parts of which are ignored by standard sample size calculations and conditional power. By comparing the characteristics of each of these statistics we highlight important characteristics of predictive power that experimenters need to be aware of when using this approach.     

On the Bayesian analysis of the mixture of power function distribution using the complete and the censored sample

The power function distribution is often used to study the electrical component reliability. In this paper, we model a heterogeneous population using the two-component mixture of the power function distribution. A comprehensive simulation scheme including a large number of parameter points is followed to highlight the properties and behavior of the estimates in terms of sample size, censoring rate, parameters size and the proportion of the components of the mixture. The parameters of the power function mixture are estimated and compared using the Bayes estimates. A simulated mixture data with censored observations is generated by probabilistic mixing for the computational purposes. Elegant closed form expressions for the Bayes estimators and their variances are derived for the censored sample as well as for the complete sample. Some interesting comparison and properties of the estimates are observed and presented. The system of three non-linear equations, required to be solved iteratively for the computations of maximum likelihood (ML) estimates, is derived. The complete sample expressions for the ML estimates and for their variances are also given. The components of the information matrix are constructed as well. Uninformative as well as informative priors are assumed for the derivation of the Bayes estimators. A real-life mixture data example has also been discussed. The posterior predictive distribution with the informative Gamma prior is derived, and the equations required to find the lower and upper limits of the predictive intervals are constructed. The Bayes estimates are evaluated under the squared error loss function.     

Sample size recalculation for binary data in internal pilot study designs

For binary endpoints, the required sample size depends not only on the known values of significance level, power and clinically relevant difference but also on the overall event rate. However, the overall event rate may vary considerably between studies and, as a consequence, the assumptions made in the planning phase on this nuisance parameter are to a great extent uncertain. The internal pilot study design is an appealing strategy to deal with this problem. Here, the overall event probability is estimated during the ongoing trial based on the pooled data of both treatment groups and, if necessary, the sample size is adjusted accordingly. From a regulatory viewpoint, besides preserving blindness it is required that eventual consequences for the Type I error rate should be explained. We present analytical computations of the actual Type I error rate for the internal pilot study design with binary endpoints and compare them with the actual level of the chi‐square test for the fixed sample size design. A method is given that permits control of the specified significance level for the chi‐square test under blinded sample size recalculation. Furthermore, the properties of the procedure with respect to power and expected sample size are assessed. Throughout the paper, both the situation of equal sample size per group and unequal allocation ratio are considered. The method is illustrated with application to a clinical trial in depression. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.     

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.     

Bayesian inference and prediction of the Pareto distribution based on ordered ranked set sampling

In this paper, order statistics from independent and non identically distributed random variables is used to obtain ordered ranked set sampling (ORSS). Bayesian inference of unknown parameters under a squared error loss function of the Pareto distribution is determined. We compute the minimum posterior expected loss (the posterior risk) of the derived estimates and compare them with those based on the corresponding simple random sample (SRS) to assess the efficiency of the obtained estimates. Two-sample Bayesian prediction for future observations is introduced by using SRS and ORSS for one- and m-cycle. A simulation study and real data are applied to show the proposed results.     

Bayesian analysis of hierarchical linear mixed modeling using the multivariate t distribution

This article presents a fully Bayesian approach to modeling incomplete longitudinal data using the t linear mixed model with AR(p) dependence. Markov chain Monte Carlo (MCMC) techniques are implemented for computing posterior distributions of parameters. To facilitate the computation, two types of auxiliary indicator matrices are incorporated into the model. Meanwhile, the constraints on the parameter space arising from the stationarity conditions for the autoregressive parameters are handled by a reparametrization scheme. Bayesian predictive inferences for the future vector are also investigated. An application is illustrated through a real example from a multiple sclerosis clinical trial.     

Hazard ratio inference in stratified clinical trials with time‐to‐event endpoints and limited sample size

The stratified Cox model is commonly used for stratified clinical trials with time‐to‐event endpoints. The estimated log hazard ratio is approximately a weighted average of corresponding stratum‐specific Cox model estimates using inverse‐variance weights; the latter are optimal only under the (often implausible) assumption of a constant hazard ratio across strata. Focusing on trials with limited sample sizes (50‐200 subjects per treatment), we propose an alternative approach in which stratum‐specific estimates are obtained using a refined generalized logrank (RGLR) approach and then combined using either sample size or minimum risk weights for overall inference. Our proposal extends the work of Mehrotra et al, to incorporate the RGLR statistic, which outperforms the Cox model in the setting of proportional hazards and small samples. This work also entails development of a remarkably accurate plug‐in formula for the variance of RGLR‐based estimated log hazard ratios. We demonstrate using simulations that our proposed two‐step RGLR analysis delivers notably better results through smaller estimation bias and mean squared error and larger power than the stratified Cox model analysis when there is a treatment‐by‐stratum interaction, with similar performance when there is no interaction. Additionally, our method controls the type I error rate while the stratified Cox model does not in small samples. We illustrate our method using data from a clinical trial comparing two treatments for colon cancer.     

Adapting the sample size planning of a phase III trial based on phase II data

Traditionally, in clinical development plan, phase II trials are relatively small and can be expected to result in a large degree of uncertainty in the estimates based on which Phase III trials are planned. Phase II trials are also to explore appropriate primary efficacy endpoint(s) or patient populations. When the biology of the disease and pathogenesis of disease progression are well understood, the phase II and phase III studies may be performed in the same patient population with the same primary endpoint, e.g. efficacy measured by HbA1c in non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus trials with treatment duration of at least three months. In the disease areas that molecular pathways are not well established or the clinical outcome endpoint may not be observed in a short-term study, e.g. mortality in cancer or AIDS trials, the treatment effect may be postulated through use of intermediate surrogate endpoint in phase II trials. However, in many cases, we generally explore the appropriate clinical endpoint in the phase II trials. An important question is how much of the effect observed in the surrogate endpoint in the phase II study can be translated into the clinical effect in the phase III trial. Another question is how much of the uncertainty remains in phase III trials. In this work, we study the utility of adaptation by design (not by statistical test) in the sense of adapting the phase II information for planning the phase III trials. That is, we investigate the impact of using various phase II effect size estimates on the sample size planning for phase III trials. In general, if the point estimate of the phase II trial is used for planning, it is advisable to size the phase III trial by choosing a smaller alpha level or a higher power level. The adaptation via using the lower limit of the one standard deviation confidence interval from the phase II trial appears to be a reasonable choice since it balances well between the empirical power of the launched trials and the proportion of trials not launched if a threshold lower than the true effect size of phase III trial can be chosen for determining whether the phase III trial is to be launched.     

Bias in linear model power and sample size calculation due to estimating noncentrality

Data analysts frequently calculate power and sample size for a planned study using mean and variance estimates from an initial trial. Hence power,or the sample size needed to achieve a fixed power, varies randomly. Such claculations can be very inaccurate in the General Linear Univeriate Model (GLUM). Biased noncentrality estimators and censored power calculations create inaccuracy. Censoring occurs if only certain outcomes of an initial trial lead to a power calculation. For example, a confirmatory study may be planned (and a sample size estimated) only following a significant resulte in the initial trial.

Computing accurate point estimates or confidence bounds of GLUM noncentrality, power, or sample size in the presence of censoring involves truncated noncentral F distributions. We recommed confidence bounds, whether or not censoring occurs. A power analysis of data from humans exposed to carbon monoxide demonstrates the substantial impact on samle size that may occur. The results highlight potential; biases and should aid study planning and interpretation.     

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.