Testing noninferiority in three‐armed clinical trials based on likelihood ratio statistics

Clinical noninferiority trials with at least three groups have received much attention recently, perhaps due to the fact that regulatory agencies often require that a placebo group be evaluated along with a new experimental drug and an active control. The authors discuss likelihood ratio tests for binary endpoints and various noninferiority hypotheses. They find that, depending on the particular hypothesis, the test reduces asymptotically either to the intersection‐union test or to a test which follows asymptotically a mixture of generalized chi‐squared distributions. They investigate the performance of this asymptotic test and provide an exact modification. They show that this test considerably outperforms multiple testing methods such as the Bonferroni adjustment with respect to power. They illustrate their methods with a cancer study to compare antiemetic agents. Finally, they discuss the extension of the results to other settings, such as Gaussian endpoints.     

Two-stage k-sample designs for the ordered alternative problem

In preclinical studies and clinical dose-ranging trials, the Jonckheere-Terpstra test is widely used in the assessment of dose-response relationships. Hewett and Spurrier (1979) presented a two-stage analog of the test in the context of large sample sizes. In this paper, we propose an exact test based on Simon's minimax and optimal design criteria originally used in one-arm phase II designs based on binary endpoints. The convergence rate of the joint distribution of the first and second stage test statistics to the limiting distribution is studied, and design parameters are provided for a variety of assumed alternatives. The behavior of the test is also examined in the presence of ties, and the proposed designs are illustrated through application in the planning of a hypercholesterolemia clinical trial. The minimax and optimal two-stage procedures are shown to be preferable as compared with the one-stage procedure because of the associated reduction in expected sample size for given error constraints.     

Multiple-arm superiority and non-inferiority designs with various endpoints

Multiple-arm dose-response superiority trials are widely studied for continuous and binary endpoints, while non-inferiority designs have been studied recently in two-arm trials. In this paper, a unified asymptotic formulation of a sample size calculation for k-arm (k>0) trials with different endpoints (continuous, binary and survival endpoints) is derived for both superiority and non-inferiority designs. The proposed method covers the sample size calculation for single-arm and k-arm (k> or =2) designs with survival endpoints, which has not been covered in the statistic literature. A simple, closed form for power and sample size calculations is derived from a contrast test. Application examples are provided. The effect of the contrasts on the power is discussed, and a SAS program for sample size calculation is provided and ready to use.     

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.     

Strengthening the understanding of the relationship between survival designs and test statistics

In the planning of randomized survival trials, the role of follow‐up time of trial participants introduces a level of complexity not encountered in non‐survival trials. Of the two commonly used survival designs, one design fixes the follow‐up time whereas the other allows it to vary. When the follow‐up time is fixed the number of events varies. Conversely, when the number of events is fixed, the follow‐up time varies. These two designs influence test statistics in ways that have not been fully explored resulting in a misunderstanding of the design–test statistic relationship. We use examples from the literature to strengthen the understanding of this relationship. Group sequential trials are briefly discussed. When the number of events is fixed, we demonstrate why a two‐sample risk difference test statistic reduces to a one‐sample test statistic which is nearly equal to the risk ratio test statistic. Some aspects of fixed event designs that need further consideration are also discussed. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Sample size determination for testing equality in Poisson frequency data under an AB/BA crossover trial

Assuming that the frequency of occurrence follows the Poisson distribution, we develop sample size calculation procedures for testing equality based on an exact test procedure and an asymptotic test procedure under an AB/BA crossover design. We employ Monte Carlo simulation to demonstrate the use of these sample size formulae and evaluate the accuracy of sample size calculation formula derived from the asymptotic test procedure with respect to power in a variety of situations. We note that when both the relative treatment effect of interest and the underlying intraclass correlation between frequencies within patients are large, the sample size calculation based on the asymptotic test procedure can lose accuracy. In this case, the sample size calculation procedure based on the exact test is recommended. On the other hand, if the relative treatment effect of interest is small, the minimum required number of patients per group will be large, and the asymptotic test procedure will be valid for use. In this case, we may consider use of the sample size calculation formula derived from the asymptotic test procedure to reduce the number of patients needed for the exact test procedure. We include an example regarding a double‐blind randomized crossover trial comparing salmeterol with a placebo in exacerbations of asthma to illustrate the practical use of these sample size formulae. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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

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

Exact sample-size determination in testing non-inferiority under a simple crossover trial

For testing the non-inferiority (or equivalence) of an experimental treatment to a standard treatment, the odds ratio (OR) of patient response rates has been recommended to measure the relative treatment efficacy. On the basis of an exact test procedure proposed elsewhere for a simple crossover design, we develop an exact sample-size calculation procedure with respect to the OR of patient response rates for a desired power of detecting non-inferiority at a given nominal type I error. We note that the sample size calculated for a desired power based on an asymptotic test procedure can be much smaller than that based on the exact test procedure under a given situation. We further discuss the advantage and disadvantage of sample-size calculation using the exact test and the asymptotic test procedures. We employ an example by studying two inhalation devices for asthmatics to illustrate the use of sample-size calculation procedure developed here.     

Vaccine clinical trials with dynamic borrowing of historical controls: Two retrospective studies

Traditional vaccine efficacy trials usually use fixed designs with fairly large sample sizes. Recruiting a large number of subjects requires longer time and higher costs. Furthermore, vaccine developers are more than ever facing the need to accelerate vaccine development to fulfill the public's medical needs. A possible approach to accelerate development is to use the method of dynamic borrowing of historical controls in clinical trials. In this paper, we evaluate the feasibility and the performance of this approach in vaccine development by retrospectively analyzing two real vaccine studies: a relatively small immunological trial (typical early phase study) and a large vaccine efficacy trial (typical Phase 3 study) assessing prophylactic human papillomavirus vaccine. Results are promising, particularly for early development immunological studies, where the adaptive design is feasible, and control of type I error is less relevant.     

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

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

Optimal treatment allocation and study duration for trials with discrete-time survival endpoints

Studies on event occurrence may be conducted in experiments, where one or more treatment groups are compared to a control group. Most of the randomized trials are designed with equally sized groups, but this design is not always the best one. The statistical power of the study may be larger with unequal sample sizes, and researchers may want to place more participants in one group relative to the other due to resource constraints or costs. The optimal designs for discrete-time survival endpoints in trials with two groups, where different proportions of subjects in the experimental group are taken into account, can be studied using the generalized linear model. Applying a cost function, the optimal combination of the number of subjects and periods in the study and the optimal allocation ratio can be found. It is observed that the ratio of the recruitment costs in both groups, the ratio of the recruitment cost in the control group to the cost of obtaining a measurement, the size of the treatment effect, and the shape of the survival distribution have the greatest influence on the optimal design.     

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 .     

Pair Chart Test for an Early Survival Difference

The log-rank test is commonly used in comparing survival distributions between treatment and control groups in clinical trials. However, in many studies, the treatment is only effective at the early stage of the trial. Especially when the two survival curves cross, the log-rank test has a low statistical power to show the survival difference. We propose a test statistic for detecting such an early difference between the two treatment arms. The new test has an intuitive geometric interpretation based on a pair chart and is shown to have more power than the log-rank test when the treatment effect only appears in the early phase of the study. This advantage is evaluated for finite sample sizes in simulation studies. Finally, the proposed method is illustrated with a real data example of patients with gastric cancer.     

Randomized allocation procedure for testing a normal mean with known variance

This paper provides an alternative test procedure for the problem of testing normal mean against two-sided alternative with known variance for costly trials. The goal is to carry out the test procedure with a smaller sample size if the alternative is true. The sample size is determined in an adaptive fashion which takes all the previous observations into account for adaptation. Some exact and asymptotic results related to the test and design are studied.     

On the Gini Mean Difference Test for Circular Data

We introduce a new test of isotropy or uniformity on the circle, based on the Gini mean difference of the sample arc-lengths and obtain both the exact and asymptotic distributions under the null hypothesis of circular uniformity. We also provide a table of upper percentile values of the exact distribution for small to moderate sample sizes. Illustrative examples in circular data analysis are also given. It is shown that a “generalized” Gini mean difference test has better asymptotic efficiency than a corresponding “generalized” Rao's test in the sense of Pitman asymptotic relative efficiency.     

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.     

A convenient formula for sample size calculations in clinical trials with multiple co-primary continuous endpoints

The clinical efficacy of a new treatment may often be better evaluated by two or more co-primary endpoints. Recently, in pharmaceutical drug development, there has been increasing discussion regarding establishing statistically significant favorable results on more than one endpoint in comparisons between treatments, which is referred to as a problem of multiple co-primary endpoints. Several methods have been proposed for calculating the sample size required to design a trial with multiple co-primary correlated endpoints. However, because these methods require users to have considerable mathematical sophistication and knowledge of programming techniques, their application and spread may be restricted in practice. To improve the convenience of these methods, in this paper, we provide a useful formula with accompanying numerical tables for sample size calculations to design clinical trials with two treatments, where the efficacy of a new treatment is demonstrated on continuous co-primary endpoints. In addition, we provide some examples to illustrate the sample size calculations made using the formula. Using the formula and the tables, which can be read according to the patterns of correlations and effect size ratios expected in multiple co-primary endpoints, makes it convenient to evaluate the required sample size promptly.     

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.     

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.