Blinded sample size recalculation for clinical trials with normal data and baseline adjusted analysis

Baseline adjusted analyses are commonly encountered in practice, and regulatory guidelines endorse this practice. Sample size calculations for this kind of analyses require knowledge of the magnitude of nuisance parameters that are usually not given when the results of clinical trials are reported in the literature. It is therefore quite natural to start with a preliminary calculated sample size based on the sparse information available in the planning phase and to re‐estimate the value of the nuisance parameters (and with it the sample size) when a portion of the planned number of patients have completed the study. We investigate the characteristics of this internal pilot study design when an analysis of covariance with normally distributed outcome and one random covariate is applied. For this purpose we first assess the accuracy of four approximate sample size formulae within the fixed sample size design. Then the performance of the recalculation procedure with respect to its actual Type I error rate and power characteristics is examined. The results of simulation studies show that this approach has favorable properties with respect to the Type I error rate and power. Together with its simplicity, these features should make it attractive for practical application. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Sample size of 12 per group rule of thumb for a pilot study

When designing a clinical trial an appropriate justification for the sample size should be provided in the protocol. However, there are a number of settings when undertaking a pilot trial when there is no prior information to base a sample size on. For such pilot studies the recommendation is a sample size of 12 per group. The justifications for this sample size are based on rationale about feasibility; precision about the mean and variance; and regulatory considerations. The context of the justifications are that future studies will use the information from the pilot in their design. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Improving sample size recalculation in adaptive clinical trials by resampling

Sample size calculations in clinical trials need to be based on profound parameter assumptions. Wrong parameter choices may lead to too small or too high sample sizes and can have severe ethical and economical consequences. Adaptive group sequential study designs are one solution to deal with planning uncertainties. Here, the sample size can be updated during an ongoing trial based on the observed interim effect. However, the observed interim effect is a random variable and thus does not necessarily correspond to the true effect. One way of dealing with the uncertainty related to this random variable is to include resampling elements in the recalculation strategy. In this paper, we focus on clinical trials with a normally distributed endpoint. We consider resampling of the observed interim test statistic and apply this principle to several established sample size recalculation approaches. The resulting recalculation rules are smoother than the original ones and thus the variability in sample size is lower. In particular, we found that some resampling approaches mimic a group sequential design. In general, incorporating resampling of the interim test statistic in existing sample size recalculation rules results in a substantial performance improvement with respect to a recently published conditional performance score.     

Incorporating historical two‐arm data in clinical trials with binary outcome: A practical approach

The feasibility of a new clinical trial may be increased by incorporating historical data of previous trials. In the particular case where only data from a single historical trial are available, there exists no clear recommendation in the literature regarding the most favorable approach. A main problem of the incorporation of historical data is the possible inflation of the type I error rate. A way to control this type of error is the so‐called power prior approach. This Bayesian method does not “borrow” the full historical information but uses a parameter 0 ≤ δ ≤ 1 to determine the amount of borrowed data. Based on the methodology of the power prior, we propose a frequentist framework that allows incorporation of historical data from both arms of two‐armed trials with binary outcome, while simultaneously controlling the type I error rate. It is shown that for any specific trial scenario a value δ > 0 can be determined such that the type I error rate falls below the prespecified significance level. The magnitude of this value of δ depends on the characteristics of the data observed in the historical trial. Conditionally on these characteristics, an increase in power as compared to a trial without borrowing may result. Similarly, we propose methods how the required sample size can be reduced. The results are discussed and compared to those obtained in a Bayesian framework. Application is illustrated by a clinical trial example.     

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.     

Sample size determination for testing equality in frequency data under an incomplete block crossover design

When there are more than two treatments under comparison, we may consider the use of the incomplete block crossover design (IBCD) to save the number of patients needed for a parallel groups design and reduce the duration of a crossover trial. We develop an asymptotic procedure for simultaneously testing equality of two treatments versus a control treatment (or placebo) in frequency data under the IBCD with two periods. We derive a sample size calculation procedure for the desired power of detecting the given treatment effects at a nominal-level and suggest a simple ad hoc adjustment procedure to improve the accuracy of the sample size determination when the resulting minimum required number of patients is not large. We employ Monte Carlo simulation to evaluate the finite-sample performance of the proposed test, the accuracy of the sample size calculation procedure, and that with the simple ad hoc adjustment suggested here. We use the data taken as a part of a crossover trial comparing the number of exacerbations between using salbutamol or salmeterol and a placebo in asthma patients to illustrate the sample size calculation procedure.     

Sample size determination for 2k-r experiments with a binomial response

This paper provides closed form expressions for the sample size for two-level factorial experiments when the response is the number of defectives. The sample sizes are obtained by approximating the two-sided test for no effect through tests for the mean of a normal distribution, and borrowing the classical sample size solution for that problem. The proposals are appraised relative to the exact sample sizes computed numerically, without appealing to any approximation to the binomial distribution, and the use of the sample size tables provided is illustrated through an example.     

Sample size re-estimation without unblinding for normally distributed outcomes with unknown variance

Monitoring clinical trials in nonfatal diseases where ethical considerations do not dictate early termination upon demonstration of efficacy often requires examining the interim findings to assure that the protocol-specified sample size will provide sufficient power against the null hypothesis when the alternative hypothesis is true. The sample size may be increased, if necessary to assure adequate power. This paper presents a new method for carrying out such interim power evaluations for observations from normal distributions without unblinding the treatment assignments or discernably affecting the Type 1 error rate. Simulation studies confirm the expected performance of the method.     

Sample size estimation for non-inferiority trials of time-to-event data

We consider the problem of sample size calculation for non-inferiority based on the hazard ratio in time-to-event trials where overall study duration is fixed and subject enrollment is staggered with variable follow-up. An adaptation of previously developed formulae for the superiority framework is presented that specifically allows for effect reversal under the non-inferiority setting, and its consequent effect on variance. Empirical performance is assessed through a small simulation study, and an example based on an ongoing trial is presented. The formulae are straightforward to program and may prove a useful tool in planning trials of this type.     

Sample size calculations for clinical studies allowing for uncertainty about the variance

One of the most important steps in the design of a pharmaceutical clinical trial is the estimation of the sample size. For a superiority trial the sample size formula (to achieve a stated power) would be based on a given clinically meaningful difference and a value for the population variance. The formula is typically used as though this population variance is known whereas in reality it is unknown and is replaced by an estimate with its associated uncertainty. The variance estimate would be derived from an earlier similarly designed study (or an overall estimate from several previous studies) and its precision would depend on its degrees of freedom. This paper provides a solution for the calculation of sample sizes that allows for the imprecision in the estimate of the sample variance and shows how traditional formulae give sample sizes that are too small since they do not allow for this uncertainty with the deficiency being more acute with fewer degrees of freedom. It is recommended that the methodology described in this paper should be used when the sample variance has less than 200 degrees of freedom.     

Sample size calculation for an agreement study

It is often necessary to compare two measurement methods in medicine and other experimental sciences. This problem covers a broad range of data. Many authors have explored ways of assessing the agreement of two sets of measurements. However, there has been relatively little attention to the problem of determining sample size for designing an agreement study. In this paper, a method using the interval approach for concordance is proposed to calculate sample size in conducting an agreement study. The philosophy behind this is that the concordance is satisfied when no more than the pre‐specified k discordances are found for a reasonable large sample size n since it is much easier to define a discordance pair. The goal here is to find such a reasonable large sample size n. The sample size calculation is based on two rates: the discordance rate and tolerance probability, which in turn can be used to quantify an agreement study. The proposed approach is demonstrated through a real data set. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Sample size determination for clustered right-censored data using copula models

Determination of an adequate sample size is critical to the design of research ventures. For clustered right-censored data, Manatunga and Chen [Sample size estimation for survival outcomes in cluster-randomized studies with small cluster sizes. Biometrics. 2000;56(2):616–621] proposed a sample size calculation based on considering the bivariate marginal distribution as Clayton copula model. In addition to the Clayton copula, other important family of copulas, such as Gumbel and Frank copulas are also well established in multivariate survival analysis. However, sample size calculation based on these assumptions has not been fully investigated yet. To broaden the scope of Manatunga and Chen [Sample size estimation for survival outcomes in cluster-randomized studies with small cluster sizes. Biometrics. 2000;56(2):616–621]'s research and achieve a more flexible sample size calculation for clustered right-censored data, we extended the work by assuming the marginal distribution as bivariate Gumbel and Frank copulas. We evaluate the performance of the proposed method and investigate the impacts of the accrual times, follow-up times and the within-clustered correlation effect of the study. The proposed method is applied to two real-world studies, and the R code is made available to users.     

Sample sizes for trials involving multiple correlated must-win comparisons

In Clinical trials involving multiple comparisons of interest, the importance of controlling the trial Type I error is well-understood and well-documented. Moreover, when these comparisons are themselves correlated, methodologies exist for accounting for the correlation in the trial design, when calculating the trial significance levels. However, less well-documented is the fact that there are some circumstances where multiple comparisons affect the Type II error rather than the Type I error, and failure to account for this, can result in a reduction in the overall trial power. In this paper, we describe sample size calculations for clinical trials involving multiple correlated comparisons, where all the comparisons must be statistically significant for the trial to provide evidence of effect, and show how such calculations have to account for multiplicity in the Type II error. For the situation of two comparisons, we provide a result which assumes a bivariate Normal distribution. For the general case of two or more comparisons we provide a solution using inflation factors to increase the sample size relative to the case of a single outcome. We begin with a simple case of two comparisons assuming a bivariate Normal distribution, show how to factor in correlation between comparisons and then generalise our findings to situations with two or more comparisons. These methods are easy to apply, and we demonstrate how accounting for the multiplicity in the Type II error leads, at most, to modest increases in the sample size.     

An alternative phase II/III design for continuous endpoints

The success rate of drug development has been declined dramatically in recent years and the current paradigm of drug development is no longer functioning. It requires a major undertaking on breakthrough strategies and methodology for designs to minimize sample sizes and to shorten duration of the development. We propose an alternative phase II/III design based on continuous efficacy endpoints, which consists of two stages: a selection stage and a confirmation stage. For the selection stage, a randomized parallel design with several doses with a placebo group is employed for selection of doses. After the best dose is chosen, the patients of the selected dose group and placebo group continue to enter the confirmation stage. New patients will also be recruited and randomized to receive the selected dose or placebo group. The final analysis is performed with the cumulative data of patients from both stages. With the pre‐specified probabilities of rejecting the drug at each stage, sample sizes and critical values for both stages can be determined. As it is a single trial with controlling overall type I and II error rates, the proposed phase II/III adaptive design may not only reduce the sample size but also improve the success rate. An example illustrates the applications of the proposed phase II/III adaptive design. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

A comparison of analysis procedures for correlated binary data in dedicated multi‐rater imaging trials

In this paper, three analysis procedures for repeated correlated binary data with no a priori ordering of the measurements are described and subsequently investigated. Examples for correlated binary data could be the binary assessments of subjects obtained by several raters in the framework of a clinical trial. This topic is especially of relevance when success criteria have to be defined for dedicated imaging trials involving several raters conducted for regulatory purposes. First, an analytical result on the expectation of the ‘Majority rater’ is presented when only the marginal distributions of the single raters are given. The paper provides a simulation study where all three analysis procedures are compared for a particular setting. It turns out that in many cases, ‘Average rater’ is associated with a gain in power. Settings were identified where ‘Majority significant’ has favorable properties. ‘Majority rater’ is in many cases difficult to interpret. Copyright © 2014 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.     

Seme distributions and their implications for an internal pilot study with a univariate linear model

In planning a study, the choice of sample size may depend on a variance value based on speculation or obtained from an earlier study. Scientists may wish to use an internal pilot design to protect themselves against an incorrect choice of variance. Such a design involves collecting a portion of the originally planned sample and using it to produce a new variance estimate. This leads to a new power analysis and increasing or decreasing sample size. For any general linear univariate model, with fixed predictors and Gaussian errors, we prove that the uncorrected fixed sample F-statistic is the likelihood ratio test statistic. However, the statistic does not follow an F distribution. Ignoring the discrepancy may inflate test size. We derive and evaluate properties of the components of the likelihood ratio test statistic in order to characterize and quantify the bias. Most notably, the fixed sample size variance estimate becomes biased downward. The bias may inflate test size for any hypothesis test, even if the parameter being tested was not involved in the sample size re-estimation. Furthermore, using fixed sample size methods may create biased confidence intervals for secondary parameters and the variance estimate.     

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.     

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.     

Sample size re‐estimation incorporating prior information on a nuisance parameter

Prior information is often incorporated informally when planning a clinical trial. Here, we present an approach on how to incorporate prior information, such as data from historical clinical trials, into the nuisance parameter–based sample size re‐estimation in a design with an internal pilot study. We focus on trials with continuous endpoints in which the outcome variance is the nuisance parameter. For planning and analyzing the trial, frequentist methods are considered. Moreover, the external information on the variance is summarized by the Bayesian meta‐analytic‐predictive approach. To incorporate external information into the sample size re‐estimation, we propose to update the meta‐analytic‐predictive prior based on the results of the internal pilot study and to re‐estimate the sample size using an estimator from the posterior. By means of a simulation study, we compare the operating characteristics such as power and sample size distribution of the proposed procedure with the traditional sample size re‐estimation approach that uses the pooled variance estimator. The simulation study shows that, if no prior‐data conflict is present, incorporating external information into the sample size re‐estimation improves the operating characteristics compared to the traditional approach. In the case of a prior‐data conflict, that is, when the variance of the ongoing clinical trial is unequal to the prior location, the performance of the traditional sample size re‐estimation procedure is in general superior, even when the prior information is robustified. When considering to include prior information in sample size re‐estimation, the potential gains should be balanced against the risks.