A new procedure for steepest ascent

The procedure of steepest ascent consists of performing a sequence of sets of trials. Each set of trials is obtained as a result of proceeding sequentially along the path of maximum increase in response. Until now there has been no formal stopping rule, When response values are subject to random error, the decision to stop can be premature due to a “false” drop in the observed response.

A new stopping rule procedure for steepest ascent is intro-duced that takes into account the random error variation in response values. The new procedure protects against taking too many observations when the true mean response is decreasing, it also protects against stopping. prematurely when the true mean response is increasing, A numerical example is given which illus-trates the method.     

Nested combination tests with a time‐to‐event endpoint using a short‐term endpoint for design adaptations

Adaptive trial methodology for multiarmed trials and enrichment designs has been extensively discussed in the past. A general principle to construct test procedures that control the family‐wise Type I error rate in the strong sense is based on combination tests within a closed test. Using survival data, a problem arises when using information of patients for adaptive decision making, which are under risk at interim. With the currently available testing procedures, either no testing of hypotheses in interim analyses is possible or there are restrictions on the interim data that can be used in the adaptation decisions as, essentially, only the interim test statistics of the primary endpoint may be used. We propose a general adaptive testing procedure, covering multiarmed and enrichment designs, which does not have these restrictions. An important application are clinical trials, where short‐term surrogate endpoints are used as basis for trial adaptations, and we illustrate how such trials can be designed. We propose statistical models to assess the impact of effect sizes, the correlation structure between the short‐term and the primary endpoint, the sample size, the timing of interim analyses, and the selection rule on the operating characteristics.     

Stochastically Curtailed Tests Under Fractional Brownian Motion

Stochastic curtailment has been considered for the interim monitoring of group sequential trials (Davis and Hardy, 1994). Statistical boundaries in Davis and Hardy (1994) were derived using theory of Brownian motion. In some clinical trials, the conditions of forming a Brownian motion may not be satisfied. In this paper, we extend the computations of Brownian motion based boundaries, expected stopping times, and type I and type II error rates to fractional Brownian motion (FBM). FBM includes Brownian motion as a special case. Designs under FBM are compared to those under Brownian motion and to those of O’Brien–Fleming type tests. One- and two-sided boundaries for efficacy and futility monitoring are also discussed. Results show that boundary values decrease and error rates deviate from design levels when the Hurst parameter increases from 0.1 to 0.9, these changes should be considered when designing a study under FBM.     

Choice of alpha spending function and time points in clinical trials with one or two interim analyses

One characterization of group sequential methods uses alpha spending functions to allocate the false positive rate throughout a study. We consider and evaluate several such spending functions as well as the time points of the interim analyses at which they apply. In addition, we evaluate the double triangular test as an alternative procedure that allows for early termination of the trial not only due to efficacy differences between treatments, but also due to lack of such differences. We motivate and illustrate our work by reference to the analysis of survival data from a proposed oncology study. Such group sequential procedures with one or two interim analyses are only slightly less powerful than fixed sample trials, but provide for the strong possibility of early stopping. Therefore, in all situations where they can practically be applied, we recommend their routine use in clinical trials. The double triangular test provides a suitable alternative to the group sequential procedures in that they do not provide for early stopping with acceptance of the null hypothesis. Again, there is only a modest loss in power relative to fixed sample tests. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

A Framework for Monte Carlo based Multiple Testing

We are concerned with a situation in which we would like to test multiple hypotheses with tests whose p‐values cannot be computed explicitly but can be approximated using Monte Carlo simulation. This scenario occurs widely in practice. We are interested in obtaining the same rejections and non‐rejections as the ones obtained if the p‐values for all hypotheses had been available. The present article introduces a framework for this scenario by providing a generic algorithm for a general multiple testing procedure. We establish conditions that guarantee that the rejections and non‐rejections obtained through Monte Carlo simulations are identical to the ones obtained with the p‐values. Our framework is applicable to a general class of step‐up and step‐down procedures, which includes many established multiple testing corrections such as the ones of Bonferroni, Holm, Sidak, Hochberg or Benjamini–Hochberg. Moreover, we show how to use our framework to improve algorithms available in the literature in such a way as to yield theoretical guarantees on their results. These modifications can easily be implemented in practice and lead to a particular way of reporting multiple testing results as three sets together with an error bound on their correctness, demonstrated exemplarily using a real biological dataset.     

Tables of critical values for two group interim analyses

Tables of critical values are given, which can be used to execute interim analyses in clinical trials involving two groups when the joint distribution of the test statistics can be approximated by a multivariate normal distribution. Critical values are given for both the one and two interim analyses cases for a variety of partitions of α and correlation structures. Results of power calculations are presented, which reflect the effects of both the correlation structure and partitions of α.Several examples are given, which illustrate how to apply the tables to a variety of experiments     

Multiple Comparisons Controlling Expected Number of False Discoveries

In this paper, it is put forward that the task of designing a procedure for a set of multiple comparisons should be considered as a decision-making under uncertainty. Due to this motivation, for the problem of multiple comparisons, we considered another error rate to be controlled, called PFER (per-family error rate), which requests that the expected number of false rejections of a test procedure should be bounded no more than a prespecified level k. Although PFER was proposed by Tukey in 1953, there is not much studying about it so far. We first present Bonferroni procedure (single-step) and then build two step-up procedures with one having generic critical values and another using critical values in BH (Benjamini and Hochberg) type. These procedures are compared through simulations.     

A Bayesian sequential design with binary outcome

Several researchers have proposed solutions to control type I error rate in sequential designs. The use of Bayesian sequential design becomes more common; however, these designs are subject to inflation of the type I error rate. We propose a Bayesian sequential design for binary outcome using an alpha‐spending function to control the overall type I error rate. Algorithms are presented for calculating critical values and power for the proposed designs. We also propose a new stopping rule for futility. Sensitivity analysis is implemented for assessing the effects of varying the parameters of the prior distribution and maximum total sample size on critical values. Alpha‐spending functions are compared using power and actual sample size through simulations. Further simulations show that, when total sample size is fixed, the proposed design has greater power than the traditional Bayesian sequential design, which sets equal stopping bounds at all interim analyses. We also find that the proposed design with the new stopping for futility rule results in greater power and can stop earlier with a smaller actual sample size, compared with the traditional stopping rule for futility when all other conditions are held constant. Finally, we apply the proposed method to a real data set and compare the results with traditional designs.     

A simulation-free group sequential design with max-combo tests in the presence of non-proportional hazards

Non-proportional hazards (NPH) have been observed in many immuno-oncology clinical trials. Weighted log-rank tests (WLRT) with suitable weights can be used to improve the power of detecting the difference between survival curves in the presence of NPH. However, it is not easy to choose a proper WLRT in practice. A versatile max-combo test was proposed to achieve the balance of robustness and efficiency, and has received increasing attention recently. Survival trials often warrant interim analyses due to their high cost and long durations. The integration and implementation of max-combo tests in interim analyses often require extensive simulation studies. In this report, we propose a simulation-free approach for group sequential designs with the max-combo test in survival trials. The simulation results support that the proposed method can successfully control the type I error rate and offer excellent accuracy and flexibility in estimating sample sizes, with light computation burden. Notably, our method displays strong robustness towards various model misspecifications and has been implemented in an R package.     

Exploring changes in treatment effects across design stages in adaptive trials

The recently published Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use reflection paper on flexible designs highlights a controversial issue regarding the interpretation of adaptive trials. The guideline suggests that a test for heterogeneity should be preplanned and if treatment effect estimates differ significantly between design stages then data collected before and after the interim analysis might not be combined in a formal analysis. In this paper we investigate error rates for such a procedure in the presence of calendar-time effects. Furthermore, we present an alternative testing strategy based on change point methods. In a simulation study we demonstrate that our procedure performs well in comparison to that suggested by the guideline.     

Type I error rate control in adaptive designs for confirmatory clinical trials with treatment selection at interim

Interest in confirmatory adaptive combined phase II/III studies with treatment selection has increased in the past few years. These studies start comparing several treatments with a control. One (or more) treatment(s) is then selected after the first stage based on the available information at an interim analysis, including interim data from the ongoing trial, external information and expert knowledge. Recruitment continues, but now only for the selected treatment(s) and the control, possibly in combination with a sample size reassessment. The final analysis of the selected treatment(s) includes the patients from both stages and is performed such that the overall Type I error rate is strictly controlled, thus providing confirmatory evidence of efficacy at the final analysis. In this paper we describe two approaches to control the Type I error rate in adaptive designs with sample size reassessment and/or treatment selection. The first method adjusts the critical value using a simulation-based approach, which incorporates the number of patients at an interim analysis, the true response rates, the treatment selection rule, etc. We discuss the underlying assumptions of simulation-based procedures and give several examples where the Type I error rate is not controlled if some of the assumptions are violated. The second method is an adaptive Bonferroni-Holm test procedure based on conditional error rates of the individual treatment-control comparisons. We show that this procedure controls the Type I error rate, even if a deviation from a pre-planned adaptation rule or the time point of such a decision is necessary.     

A sequential conditional probability ratio test procedure for comparing diagnostic tests

In this paper, we derive sequential conditional probability ratio tests to compare diagnostic tests without distributional assumptions on test results. The test statistics in our method are nonparametric weighted areas under the receiver-operating characteristic curves. By using the new method, the decision of stopping the diagnostic trial early is unlikely to be reversed should the trials continue to the planned end. The conservatism reflected in this approach to have more conservative stopping boundaries during the course of the trial is especially appealing for diagnostic trials since the end point is not death. In addition, the maximum sample size of our method is not greater than a fixed sample test with similar power functions. Simulation studies are performed to evaluate the properties of the proposed sequential procedure. We illustrate the method using data from a thoracic aorta imaging study.     

Early stopping by using stochastic curtailment in a three-arm sequential trial

Summary. Interim analysis is important in a large clinical trial for ethical and cost considerations. Sometimes, an interim analysis needs to be performed at an earlier than planned time point. In that case, methods using stochastic curtailment are useful in examining the data for early stopping while controlling the inflation of type I and type II errors. We consider a three-arm randomized study of treatments to reduce perioperative blood loss following major surgery. Owing to slow accrual, an unplanned interim analysis was required by the study team to determine whether the study should be continued. We distinguish two different cases: when all treatments are under direct comparison and when one of the treatments is a control. We used simulations to study the operating characteristics of five different stochastic curtailment methods. We also considered the influence of timing of the interim analyses on the type I error and power of the test. We found that the type I error and power between the different methods can be quite different. The analysis for the perioperative blood loss trial was carried out at approximately a quarter of the planned sample size. We found that there is little evidence that the active treatments are better than a placebo and recommended closure of the trial.     

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.     

A stochastically curtailed two-arm randomised phase II trial design for binary outcomes

Randomised controlled trials are considered the gold standard in trial design. However, phase II oncology trials with a binary outcome are often single-arm. Although a number of reasons exist for choosing a single-arm trial, the primary reason is that single-arm designs require fewer participants than their randomised equivalents. Therefore, the development of novel methodology that makes randomised designs more efficient is of value to the trials community. This article introduces a randomised two-arm binary outcome trial design that includes stochastic curtailment (SC), allowing for the possibility of stopping a trial before the final conclusions are known with certainty. In addition to SC, the proposed design involves the use of a randomised block design, which allows investigators to control the number of interim analyses. This approach is compared with existing designs that also use early stopping, through the use of a loss function comprised of a weighted sum of design characteristics. Comparisons are also made using an example from a real trial. The comparisons show that for many possible loss functions, the proposed design is superior to existing designs. Further, the proposed design may be more practical, by allowing a flexible number of interim analyses. One existing design produces superior design realisations when the anticipated response rate is low. However, when using this design, the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis is sensitive to misspecification of the null response rate. Therefore, when considering randomised designs in phase II, we recommend the proposed approach be preferred over other sequential designs.     

A flexible multi-stage design for phase II oncology trials

Phase II trials evaluate whether a new drug or a new therapy is worth further pursuing or certain treatments are feasible or not. A typical phase II is a single arm (open label) trial with a binary clinical endpoint (response to therapy). Although many oncology Phase II clinical trials are designed with a two-stage procedure, multi-stage design for phase II cancer clinical trials are now feasible due to increased capability of data capture. Such design adjusts for multiple analyses and variations in analysis time, and provides greater flexibility such as minimizing the number of patients treated on an ineffective therapy and identifying the minimum number of patients needed to evaluate whether the trial would warrant further development. In most of the NIH sponsored studies, the early stopping rule is determined so that the number of patients treated on an ineffective therapy is minimized. In pharmaceutical trials, it is also of importance to know as early as possible if the trial is highly promising and what is the likelihood the early conclusion can sustain. Although various methods are available to address these issues, practitioners often use disparate methods for addressing different issues and do not realize a single unified method exists. This article shows how to utilize a unified approach via a fully sequential procedure, the sequential conditional probability ratio test, to address the multiple needs of a phase II trial. We show the fully sequential program can be used to derive an optimized efficient multi-stage design for either a low activity or a high activity, to identify the minimum number of patients required to assess whether a new drug warrants further study and to adjust for unplanned interim analyses. In addition, we calculate a probability of discordance that the statistical test will conclude otherwise should the trial continue to the planned end that is usually at the sample size of a fixed sample design. This probability can be used to aid in decision making in a drug development program. All computations are based on exact binomial distribution.     

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.     

Increasing the sample size at interim for a two‐sample experiment without Type I error inflation

For the case of a one‐sample experiment with known variance σ²=1, it has been shown that at interim analysis the sample size (SS) may be increased by any arbitrary amount provided: (1) The conditional power (CP) at interim is ?50% and (2) there can be no decision to decrease the SS (stop the trial early). In this paper we verify this result for the case of a two‐sample experiment with proportional SS in the treatment groups and an arbitrary common variance. Numerous authors have presented the formula for the CP at interim for a two‐sample test with equal SS in the treatment groups and an arbitrary common variance, for both the one‐ and two‐sided hypothesis tests. In this paper we derive the corresponding formula for the case of unequal, but proportional SS in the treatment groups for both one‐sided superiority and two‐sided hypothesis tests. Finally, we present an SAS macro for doing this calculation and provide a worked out hypothetical example. In discussion we note that this type of trial design trades the ability to stop early (for lack of efficacy) for the elimination of the Type I error penalty. The loss of early stopping requires that such a design employs a data monitoring committee, blinding of the sponsor to the interim calculations, and pre‐planning of how much and under what conditions to increase the SS and that this all be formally written into an interim analysis plan before the start of the study. Copyright © 2009 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.