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.     

Sample size calculations for time-averaged difference of longitudinal binary outcomes

In clinical trials with repeated measurements, the responses from each subject are measured multiple times during the study period. Two approaches have been widely used to assess the treatment effect, one that compares the rate of change between two groups and the other that tests the time-averaged difference (TAD). While sample size calculations based on comparing the rate of change between two groups have been reported by many investigators, the literature has paid relatively little attention to the sample size estimation for time-averaged difference (TAD) in the presence of heterogeneous correlation structure and missing data in repeated measurement studies. In this study, we investigate sample size calculation for the comparison of time-averaged responses between treatment groups in clinical trials with longitudinally observed binary outcomes. The generalized estimating equation (GEE) approach is used to derive a closed-form sample size formula, which is flexible enough to account for arbitrary missing patterns and correlation structures. In particular, we demonstrate that the proposed sample size can accommodate a mixture of missing patterns, which is frequently encountered by practitioners in clinical trials. To our knowledge, this is the first study that considers the mixture of missing patterns in sample size calculation. Our simulation shows that the nominal power and type I error are well preserved over a wide range of design parameters. Sample size calculation is illustrated through an example.     

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.     

Consultants' forum: should post hoc sample size calculations be done?

Pre‐study sample size calculations for clinical trial research protocols are now mandatory. When an investigator is designing a study to compare the outcomes of an intervention, an essential step is the calculation of sample sizes that will allow a reasonable chance (power) of detecting a pre‐determined difference (effect size) in the outcome variable, at a given level of statistical significance. Frequently studies will recruit fewer patients than the initial pre‐study sample size calculation suggested. Investigators are faced with the fact that their study may be inadequately powered to detect the pre‐specified treatment effect and the statistical analysis of the collected outcome data may or may not report a statistically significant result. If the data produces a “non‐statistically significant result” then investigators are frequently tempted to ask the question “Given the actual final study size, what is the power of the study, now, to detect a treatment effect or difference?” The aim of this article is to debate whether or not it is desirable to answer this question and to undertake a power calculation, after the data have been collected and analysed. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Non-parametric group sequential designs in randomized clinical trials

This paper examines some non‐parametric group sequential designs applicable for randomized clinical trials, for comparing two continuous treatment effects taking the observations in matched pairs, or applicable in event‐based analysis. Two inverse binomial sampling schemes are considered, of which the second one is an adaptive data‐dependent design. These designs are compared with some fixed sample size competitors. Power and expected sample sizes are calculated for the proposed procedures.     

A case study in identifying targeted patients population in major depressive disorder by enhanced enrichment design

Despite advances in clinical trial design, failure rates near 80% in phase 2 and 50% in phase 3 have recently been reported. The challenges to successful drug development are particularly acute in central nervous system trials such as for pain, schizophrenia, mania, and depression because high‐placebo response rates lessen assay sensitivity, diminish estimated treatment effect sizes, and thereby decrease statistical power. This paper addresses the importance of rigorous patient selection in major depressive disorder trials through an enhanced enrichment paradigm. This approach led to a redefinition of an ongoing, blinded phase 3 trial algorithm for patient inclusion (1) to eliminate further randomization of transient placebo responders and (2) to exclude previously randomized transient responders from the primary analysis of the double blind phase of the trial. It is illustrated for a case study for the comparison between brexpiprazole + antidepressant therapy and placebo + antidepressant therapy. Analysis of the primary endpoint showed that efficacy of brexpiprazole versus placebo could not be established statistically if the original algorithm for identification of placebo responders was used, but the enhanced enrichment approach did statistically demonstrate efficacy. Additionally, the enhanced enrichment approach identified a target population with a clinically meaningful treatment effect. Through its successful identification of a target population, the innovative enhanced enrichment approach enabled the demonstration of a positive treatment effect in a very challenging area of depression research.     

Indirect comparisons in the comparative efficacy and non-inferiority settings

International Conference on Harmonization E10 concerns non-inferiority trials and the assessment of comparative efficacy, both of which often involve indirect comparisons. In the non-inferiority setting, there are clinical trial results directly comparing an experimental treatment with an active control, and clinical trial results directly comparing the active control with placebo, and there is an interest in the indirect comparison of the experimental treatment with placebo. In the comparative efficacy setting, there may be separate clinical trial results comparing each of two treatments with placebo, and there is interest in an indirect comparison of the treatments. First, we show that the sample size required for a trial intended to demonstrate superiority through an indirect comparison is always greater than the sample size required for a direct comparison. In addition, by introducing the concept of preservation of effect, we show that the hypothesis addressed in the two settings is identical. Our main result concerns the logical inconsistency between a reasonable criterion for preference of an experimental treatment to a standard treatment and existing regulatory guidance for approval of the experimental treatment on the basis of an indirect comparison. Specifically, the preferred treatment will not always meet the criterion for regulatory approval. This is due to the fact that the experimental treatment bears the burden of overcoming the uncertainty in the effect of the standard treatment. We consider an alternative approval criterion that avoids this logical inconsistency.     

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.     

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.     

Dealing with excess of zeros in the statistical analysis of magnetic resonance imaging lesion count in multiple sclerosis

Lesion count observed on brain magnetic resonance imaging scan is a common end point in phase 2 clinical trials evaluating therapeutic treatment in relapsing remitting multiple sclerosis (MS). This paper compares the performances of Poisson, zero‐inflated poisson (ZIP), negative binomial (NB), and zero‐inflated NB (ZINB) mixed‐effects regression models in fitting lesion count data in a clinical trial evaluating the efficacy and safety of fingolimod in comparison with placebo, in MS. The NB and ZINB models prove to be superior to the Poisson and ZIP models. We discuss the advantages and limitations of zero‐inflated models in the context of MS treatment. Copyright © 2012 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.     

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.     

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.     

Non‐inferiority and networks: inferring efficacy from a web of data

In the absence of placebo‐controlled trials, the efficacy of a test treatment can be alternatively examined by showing its non‐inferiority to an active control; that is, the test treatment is not worse than the active control by a pre‐specified margin. The margin is based on the effect of the active control over placebo in historical studies. In other words, the non‐inferiority setup involves a network of direct and indirect comparisons between test treatment, active controls, and placebo. Given this framework, we consider a Bayesian network meta‐analysis that models the uncertainty and heterogeneity of the historical trials into the non‐inferiority trial in a data‐driven manner through the use of the Dirichlet process and power priors. Depending on whether placebo was present in the historical trials, two cases of non‐inferiority testing are discussed that are analogs of the synthesis and fixed‐margin approach. In each of these cases, the model provides a more reliable estimate of the control given its effect in other trials in the network, and, in the case where placebo was only present in the historical trials, the model can predict the effect of the test treatment over placebo as if placebo had been present in the non‐inferiority trial. It can further answer other questions of interest, such as comparative effectiveness of the test treatment among its comparators. More importantly, the model provides an opportunity for disproportionate randomization or the use of small sample sizes by allowing borrowing of information from a network of trials to draw explicit conclusions on non‐inferiority. Copyright © 2015 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.     

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.     

Missing data sensitivity analysis for recurrent event data using controlled imputation

Statistical analyses of recurrent event data have typically been based on the missing at random assumption. One implication of this is that, if data are collected only when patients are on their randomized treatment, the resulting de jure estimator of treatment effect corresponds to the situation in which the patients adhere to this regime throughout the study. For confirmatory analysis of clinical trials, sensitivity analyses are required to investigate alternative de facto estimands that depart from this assumption. Recent publications have described the use of multiple imputation methods based on pattern mixture models for continuous outcomes, where imputation for the missing data for one treatment arm (e.g. the active arm) is based on the statistical behaviour of outcomes in another arm (e.g. the placebo arm). This has been referred to as controlled imputation or reference‐based imputation. In this paper, we use the negative multinomial distribution to apply this approach to analyses of recurrent events and other similar outcomes. The methods are illustrated by a trial in severe asthma where the primary endpoint was rate of exacerbations and the primary analysis was based on the negative binomial model. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

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.     

Sample size re-estimation for survival data in clinical trials with an adaptive design

In clinical trials with survival data, investigators may wish to re-estimate the sample size based on the observed effect size while the trial is ongoing. Besides the inflation of the type-I error rate due to sample size re-estimation, the method for calculating the sample size in an interim analysis should be carefully considered because the data in each stage are mutually dependent in trials with survival data. Although the interim hazard estimate is commonly used to re-estimate the sample size, the estimate can sometimes be considerably higher or lower than the hypothesized hazard by chance. We propose an interim hazard ratio estimate that can be used to re-estimate the sample size under those circumstances. The proposed method was demonstrated through a simulation study and an actual clinical trial as an example. The effect of the shape parameter for the Weibull survival distribution on the sample size re-estimation is presented.