Outcome-adaptive allocation with natural lead-in for three-group trials with binary outcomes

ABSTRACT

Just as Bayes extensions of the frequentist optimal allocation design have been developed for the two-group case, we provide a Bayes extension of optimal allocation in the three-group case. We use the optimal allocations derived by Jeon and Hu [Optimal adaptive designs for binary response trials with three treatments. Statist Biopharm Res. 2010;2(3):310–318] and estimate success probabilities for each treatment arm using a Bayes estimator. We also introduce a natural lead-in design that allows adaptation to begin as early in the trial as possible. Simulation studies show that the Bayesian adaptive designs simultaneously increase the power and expected number of successfully treated patients compared to the balanced design. And compared to the standard adaptive design, the natural lead-in design introduced in this study produces a higher expected number of successes whilst preserving power.     

Applications of Bayesian analysis to proof‐of‐concept trial planning and decision making

Decision making is a critical component of a new drug development process. Based on results from an early clinical trial such as a proof of concept trial, the sponsor can decide whether to continue, stop, or defer the development of the drug. To simplify and harmonize the decision‐making process, decision criteria have been proposed in the literature. One of them is to exam the location of a confidence bar relative to the target value and lower reference value of the treatment effect. In this research, we modify an existing approach by moving some of the “stop” decision to “consider” decision so that the chance of directly terminating the development of a potentially valuable drug can be reduced. As Bayesian analysis has certain flexibilities and can borrow historical information through an inferential prior, we apply the Bayesian analysis to the trial planning and decision making. Via a design prior, we can also calculate the probabilities of various decision outcomes in relationship with the sample size and the other parameters to help the study design. An example and a series of computations are used to illustrate the applications, assess the operating characteristics, and compare the performances of different approaches.     

Critical appraisal of Bayesian dynamic borrowing from an imperfectly commensurate historical control

Bayesian dynamic borrowing designs facilitate borrowing information from historical studies. Historical data, when perfectly commensurate with current data, have been shown to reduce the trial duration and the sample size, while inflation in the type I error and reduction in the power have been reported, when imperfectly commensurate. These results, however, were obtained without considering that Bayesian designs are calibrated to meet regulatory requirements in practice and even no‐borrowing designs may use information from historical data in the calibration. The implicit borrowing of historical data suggests that imperfectly commensurate historical data may similarly impact no‐borrowing designs negatively. We will provide a fair appraiser of Bayesian dynamic borrowing and no‐borrowing designs. We used a published selective adaptive randomization design and real clinical trial setting and conducted simulation studies under varying degrees of imperfectly commensurate historical control scenarios. The type I error was inflated under the null scenario of no intervention effect, while larger inflation was noted with borrowing. The larger inflation in type I error under the null setting can be offset by the greater probability to stop early correctly under the alternative. Response rates were estimated more precisely and the average sample size was smaller with borrowing. The expected increase in bias with borrowing was noted, but was negligible. Using Bayesian dynamic borrowing designs may improve trial efficiency by stopping trials early correctly and reducing trial length at the small cost of inflated type I error.     

Optimal and lead-in adaptive allocation for binary outcomes: A comparison of Bayesian methods

We compare posterior and predictive estimators and probabilities in response-adaptive randomization designs for two- and three-group clinical trials with binary outcomes. Adaptation based upon posterior estimates are discussed, as are two predictive probability algorithms: one using the traditional definition, the other using a skeptical distribution. Optimal and natural lead-in designs are covered. Simulation studies show that efficacy comparisons lead to more adaptation than center comparisons, though at some power loss, skeptically predictive efficacy comparisons and natural lead-in approaches lead to less adaptation but offer reduced allocation variability. Though nuanced, these results help clarify the power-adaptation trade-off in adaptive randomization.     

Bayesian single-arm phase II trial designs with time-to-event endpoints

For the cancer clinical trials with immunotherapy and molecularly targeted therapy, time-to-event endpoint is often a desired endpoint. In this paper, we present an event-driven approach for Bayesian one-stage and two-stage single-arm phase II trial designs. Two versions of Bayesian one-stage designs were proposed with executable algorithms and meanwhile, we also develop theoretical relationships between the frequentist and Bayesian designs. These findings help investigators who want to design a trial using Bayesian approach have an explicit understanding of how the frequentist properties can be achieved. Moreover, the proposed Bayesian designs using the exact posterior distributions accommodate the single-arm phase II trials with small sample sizes. We also proposed an optimal two-stage approach, which can be regarded as an extension of Simon's two-stage design with the time-to-event endpoint. Comprehensive simulations were conducted to explore the frequentist properties of the proposed Bayesian designs and an R package BayesDesign can be assessed via R CRAN for convenient use of the proposed methods.     

Response-adaptive designs for continuous outcomes

In this paper, we propose two new response-adaptive designs to use in a trial comparing treatments with continuous outcomes. Both designs assign more subjects to the better treatment on average. The new designs are compared with existing procedures and the equal allocation. The power of the treatment comparison is assessed.     

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.     

Incorporating historical information to improve phase I clinical trials

Incorporating historical data has a great potential to improve the efficiency of phase I clinical trials and to accelerate drug development. For model-based designs, such as the continuous reassessment method (CRM), this can be conveniently carried out by specifying a “skeleton,” that is, the prior estimate of dose limiting toxicity (DLT) probability at each dose. In contrast, little work has been done to incorporate historical data into model-assisted designs, such as the Bayesian optimal interval (BOIN), Keyboard, and modified toxicity probability interval (mTPI) designs. This has led to the misconception that model-assisted designs cannot incorporate prior information. In this paper, we propose a unified framework that allows for incorporating historical data into model-assisted designs. The proposed approach uses the well-established “skeleton” approach, combined with the concept of prior effective sample size, thus it is easy to understand and use. More importantly, our approach maintains the hallmark of model-assisted designs: simplicity—the dose escalation/de-escalation rule can be tabulated prior to the trial conduct. Extensive simulation studies show that the proposed method can effectively incorporate prior information to improve the operating characteristics of model-assisted designs, similarly to model-based designs.     

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.     

Treatment allocation strategies for umbrella trials in the presence of multiple biomarkers: A comparison of methods

Umbrella trials are an innovative trial design where different treatments are matched with subtypes of a disease, with the matching typically based on a set of biomarkers. Consequently, when patients can be positive for more than one biomarker, they may be eligible for multiple treatment arms. In practice, different approaches could be applied to allocate patients who are positive for multiple biomarkers to treatments. However, to date there has been little exploration of how these approaches compare statistically. We conduct a simulation study to compare five approaches to handling treatment allocation in the presence of multiple biomarkers – equal randomisation; randomisation with fixed probability of allocation to control; Bayesian adaptive randomisation (BAR); constrained randomisation; and hierarchy of biomarkers. We evaluate these approaches under different scenarios in the context of a hypothetical phase II biomarker-guided umbrella trial. We define the pairings representing the pre-trial expectations on efficacy as linked pairs, and the other biomarker-treatment pairings as unlinked. The hierarchy and BAR approaches have the highest power to detect a treatment-biomarker linked interaction. However, the hierarchy procedure performs poorly if the pre-specified treatment-biomarker pairings are incorrect. The BAR method allocates a higher proportion of patients who are positive for multiple biomarkers to promising treatments when an unlinked interaction is present. In most scenarios, the constrained randomisation approach best balances allocation to all treatment arms. Pre-specification of an approach to deal with treatment allocation in the presence of multiple biomarkers is important, especially when overlapping subgroups are likely.     

Power and sample size for GEE analysis of incomplete paired outcomes in 2 × 2 crossover trials

The 2 × 2 crossover trial uses subjects as their own control to reduce the intersubject variability in the treatment comparison, and typically requires fewer subjects than a parallel design. The generalized estimating equations (GEE) methodology has been commonly used to analyze incomplete discrete outcomes from crossover trials. We propose a unified approach to the power and sample size determination for the Wald Z-test and t-test from GEE analysis of paired binary, ordinal and count outcomes in crossover trials. The proposed method allows misspecification of the variance and correlation of the outcomes, missing outcomes, and adjustment for the period effect. We demonstrate that misspecification of the working variance and correlation functions leads to no or minimal efficiency loss in GEE analysis of paired outcomes. In general, GEE requires the assumption of missing completely at random. For bivariate binary outcomes, we show by simulation that the GEE estimate is asymptotically unbiased or only minimally biased, and the proposed sample size method is suitable under missing at random (MAR) if the working correlation is correctly specified. The performance of the proposed method is illustrated with several numerical examples. Adaption of the method to other paired outcomes is discussed.     

Multiple-objective response-adaptive repeated measurement designs for clinical trials

In a response-adaptive design, we review and update the trial on the basis of outcomes in order to achieve a specific goal. Response-adaptive designs for clinical trials are usually constructed to achieve a single objective. In this paper, we develop a new adaptive allocation rule to improve current strategies for building response-adaptive designs to construct multiple-objective repeated measurement designs. This new rule is designed to increase estimation precision and treatment benefit by assigning more patients to a better treatment sequence. We demonstrate that designs constructed under the new proposed allocation rule can be nearly as efficient as fixed optimal designs in terms of the mean squared error, while leading to improved patient care.     

Sample size allocation in multiregional equivalence studies

With the increasing globalization of drug development, the multiregional clinical trial (MRCT) has gained extensive use. The data from MRCTs could be accepted by regulatory authorities across regions and countries as the primary sources of evidence to support global marketing drug approval simultaneously. The MRCT can speed up patient enrollment and drug approval, and it makes the effective therapies available to patients all over the world simultaneously. However, there are many challenges both operationally and scientifically in conducting a drug development globally. One of many important questions to answer for the design of a multiregional study is how to partition sample size into each individual region. In this paper, two systematic approaches are proposed for the sample size allocation in a multiregional equivalence trial. A numerical evaluation and a biosimilar trial are used to illustrate the characteristics of the proposed approaches.     

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.     

A COMPARISON OF THE IMPRECISE BETA CLASS, THE RANDOMIZED PLAY-THE-WINNER RULE AND THE TRIANGULAR TEST FOR CLINICAL TRIALS WITH BINARY RESPONSES

This paper develops clinical trial designs that compare two treatments with a binary outcome. The imprecise beta class (IBC), a class of beta probability distributions, is used in a robust Bayesian framework to calculate posterior upper and lower expectations for treatment success rates using accumulating data. The posterior expectation for the difference in success rates can be used to decide when there is sufficient evidence for randomized treatment allocation to cease. This design is formally related to the randomized play‐the‐winner (RPW) design, an adaptive allocation scheme where randomization probabilities are updated sequentially to favour the treatment with the higher observed success rate. A connection is also made between the IBC and the sequential clinical trial design based on the triangular test. Theoretical and simulation results are presented to show that the expected sample sizes on the truly inferior arm are lower using the IBC compared with either the triangular test or the RPW design, and that the IBC performs well against established criteria involving error rates and the expected number of treatment failures.     

抗肿瘤药物贝叶斯Ⅰ期临床试验设计方法比较研究

Ⅰ期临床试验的主要目的是探索药物毒性最大耐受剂量MTD,而MTD估计的准确与否将影响之后的Ⅱ期和Ⅲ期临床试验研究的结果.抗肿瘤药物Ⅰ期试验的特点是直接对病人进行试验,且样本量较小,这对构造估计精确度高并具有安全性保障要求的统计设计方法提出了挑战.回顾三种常用的Ⅰ期试验设计方法有:3+3设计、CRM设计和mTPI设计.3+3设计是应用较为广泛的传统方法,后两者是当前常用的贝叶斯自适应试验设计方法.通过大量模拟研究对三种方法从最优分配、安全性和估计MTD精确性三方面给以全面考察,并结合中国实际得出mTPI设计是比较适合推荐的Ⅰ期临床试验设计方法的结论.     

Bayesian estimation of varying-coefficient models with missing data,with application to the Singapore Longitudinal Aging Study

Motivated by the Singapore Longitudinal Aging Study (SLAS), we propose a Bayesian approach for the estimation of semiparametric varying-coefficient models for longitudinal continuous and cross-sectional binary responses. These models have proved to be more flexible than simple parametric regression models. Our development is a new contribution towards their Bayesian solution, which eases computational complexity. We also consider adapting all kinds of familiar statistical strategies to address the missing data issue in the SLAS. Our simulation results indicate that a Bayesian imputation (BI) approach performs better than complete-case (CC) and available-case (AC) approaches, especially under small sample designs, and may provide more useful results in practice. In the real data analysis for the SLAS, the results for longitudinal outcomes from BI are similar to AC analysis, differing from those with CC analysis.     

Optimal designs for the development of personalized treatment rules

We study the design of multi-armed parallel group clinical trials to estimate personalized treatment rules that identify the best treatment for a given patient with given covariates. Assuming that the outcomes in each treatment arm are given by a homoscedastic linear model, with possibly different variances between treatment arms, and that the trial subjects form a random sample from an unselected overall population, we optimize the (possibly randomized) treatment allocation allowing the allocation rates to depend on the covariates. We find that, for the case of two treatments, the approximately optimal allocation rule does not depend on the value of the covariates but only on the variances of the responses. In contrast, for the case of three treatments or more, the optimal treatment allocation does depend on the values of the covariates as well as the true regression coefficients. The methods are illustrated with a recently published dietary clinical trial.     

Sample size re-estimation in Phase 2 dose-finding: Conditional power versus Bayesian predictive power

Unblinded sample size re-estimation (SSR) is often planned in a clinical trial when there is large uncertainty about the true treatment effect. For Proof-of Concept (PoC) in a Phase II dose finding study, contrast test can be adopted to leverage information from all treatment groups. In this article, we propose two-stage SSR designs using frequentist conditional power (CP) and Bayesian predictive power (PP) for both single and multiple contrast tests. The Bayesian SSR can be implemented under a wide range of prior settings to incorporate different prior knowledge. Taking the adaptivity into account, all type I errors of final analysis in this paper are rigorously protected. Simulation studies are carried out to demonstrate the advantages of unblinded SSR in multi-arm trials.