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.     

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.     

Sequential design approaches for bioequivalence studies with crossover designs

The planning of bioequivalence (BE) studies, as for any clinical trial, requires a priori specification of an effect size for the determination of power and an assumption about the variance. The specified effect size may be overly optimistic, leading to an underpowered study. The assumed variance can be either too small or too large, leading, respectively, to studies that are underpowered or overly large. There has been much work in the clinical trials field on various types of sequential designs that include sample size reestimation after the trial is started, but these have seen only little use in BE studies. The purpose of this work was to validate at least one such method for crossover design BE studies. Specifically, we considered sample size reestimation for a two-stage trial based on the variance estimated from the first stage. We identified two methods based on Pocock's method for group sequential trials that met our requirement for at most negligible increase in type I error rate.     

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.     

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.     

Adapting the sample size planning of a phase III trial based on phase II data

Traditionally, in clinical development plan, phase II trials are relatively small and can be expected to result in a large degree of uncertainty in the estimates based on which Phase III trials are planned. Phase II trials are also to explore appropriate primary efficacy endpoint(s) or patient populations. When the biology of the disease and pathogenesis of disease progression are well understood, the phase II and phase III studies may be performed in the same patient population with the same primary endpoint, e.g. efficacy measured by HbA1c in non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus trials with treatment duration of at least three months. In the disease areas that molecular pathways are not well established or the clinical outcome endpoint may not be observed in a short-term study, e.g. mortality in cancer or AIDS trials, the treatment effect may be postulated through use of intermediate surrogate endpoint in phase II trials. However, in many cases, we generally explore the appropriate clinical endpoint in the phase II trials. An important question is how much of the effect observed in the surrogate endpoint in the phase II study can be translated into the clinical effect in the phase III trial. Another question is how much of the uncertainty remains in phase III trials. In this work, we study the utility of adaptation by design (not by statistical test) in the sense of adapting the phase II information for planning the phase III trials. That is, we investigate the impact of using various phase II effect size estimates on the sample size planning for phase III trials. In general, if the point estimate of the phase II trial is used for planning, it is advisable to size the phase III trial by choosing a smaller alpha level or a higher power level. The adaptation via using the lower limit of the one standard deviation confidence interval from the phase II trial appears to be a reasonable choice since it balances well between the empirical power of the launched trials and the proportion of trials not launched if a threshold lower than the true effect size of phase III trial can be chosen for determining whether the phase III trial is to be launched.     

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.     

Estimates of subgroup treatment effects in overall nonsignificant trials: To what extent should we believe in them?

In drug development, it sometimes occurs that a new drug does not demonstrate effectiveness for the full study population but appears to be beneficial in a relevant subgroup. In case the subgroup of interest was not part of a confirmatory testing strategy, the inflation of the overall type I error is substantial and therefore such a subgroup analysis finding can only be seen as exploratory at best. To support such exploratory findings, an appropriate replication of the subgroup finding should be undertaken in a new trial. We should, however, be reasonably confident in the observed treatment effect size to be able to use this estimate in a replication trial in the subpopulation of interest. We were therefore interested in evaluating the bias of the estimate of the subgroup treatment effect, after selection based on significance for the subgroup in an overall “failed” trial. Different scenarios, involving continuous as well as dichotomous outcomes, were investigated via simulation studies. It is shown that the bias associated with subgroup findings in overall nonsignificant clinical trials is on average large and varies substantially across plausible scenarios. This renders the subgroup treatment estimate from the original trial of limited value to design the replication trial. An empirical Bayesian shrinkage method is suggested to minimize this overestimation. The proposed estimator appears to offer either a good or a conservative correction to the observed subgroup treatment effect hence provides a more reliable subgroup treatment effect estimate for adequate planning of future studies.     

Sample sizes required for binomial trials when the true response rates are estimated

Binomial trial sample size specification depends upon the values of the unknown response rate parameters, as well as upon the size and power of the resulting test. In practice, the values assumed for these parameters are based upon the results of previous or pilot trials, or upon the investigator's prior knowledge or belief. In either case, there is some uncertainty associated with these values that should be taken into account if the sample sizes are to be specified realistically. This paper describes a procedure for incorporating this uncertainty explicitly into the sample size determination on the basis of joint confidence distributions obtained from the pilot or prior information.     

Blinded continuous monitoring in clinical trials with recurrent event endpoints

In studies with recurrent event endpoints, misspecified assumptions of event rates or dispersion can lead to underpowered trials or overexposure of patients. Specification of overdispersion is often a particular problem as it is usually not reported in clinical trial publications. Changing event rates over the years have been described for some diseases, adding to the uncertainty in planning. To mitigate the risks of inadequate sample sizes, internal pilot study designs have been proposed with a preference for blinded sample size reestimation procedures, as they generally do not affect the type I error rate and maintain trial integrity. Blinded sample size reestimation procedures are available for trials with recurrent events as endpoints. However, the variance in the reestimated sample size can be considerable in particular with early sample size reviews. Motivated by a randomized controlled trial in paediatric multiple sclerosis, a rare neurological condition in children, we apply the concept of blinded continuous monitoring of information, which is known to reduce the variance in the resulting sample size. Assuming negative binomial distributions for the counts of recurrent relapses, we derive information criteria and propose blinded continuous monitoring procedures. The operating characteristics of these are assessed in Monte Carlo trial simulations demonstrating favourable properties with regard to type I error rate, power, and stopping time, ie, sample size.     

SELECTING THE m POPULATIONS WITH LARGEST MEANS FROM k NORMAL POPULATIONS WITH UNKNOWN VARIANCES

This paper gives a two-sample procedure for selecting the m populations with the largest means from k normal populations with unknown variances. The method is a generalization of a recent work by Ofosu [1973] and hence should find wider practical applications. The experimenter takes an initial sample of preset size N₀ from each population and computes an unbiased estimate of its variance. From this estimate he determines the second sample size for the population according to a table presented for this purpose. The populations associated with the m largest overall sample means will be selected. The procedure is shown to satisfy a confidence requirement similar to that of Ofosu.     

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.     

Linearly admissible estimators of mean vector with respect to balanced loss function in multivariate statistics

The authors discuss the bias of the estimate of the variance of the overall effect synthesized from individual studies by using the variance weighted method. This bias is proven to be negative. Furthermore, the conditions, the likelihood of underestimation and the bias from this conventional estimate are studied based on the assumption that the estimates of the effect are subject to normal distribution with common mean. The likelihood of underestimation is very high (e.g. it is greater than 85% when the sample sizes in two combined studies are less than 120). The alternative less biased estimates for the cases with and without the homogeneity of the variances are given in order to adjust for the sample size and the variation of the population variance. In addition, the sample size weight method is suggested if the consistence of the sample variances is violated Finally, a real example is presented to show the difference by using the above three estimate methods.     

网络访问固定样本调查的统计推断研究

如何解决网络访问固定样本调查的统计推断问题,是大数据背景下网络调查面临的严重挑战。针对此问题,提出将网络访问固定样本的调查样本与概率样本结合,利用倾向得分逆加权和加权组调整构造伪权数来估计目标总体,进一步采用基于有放回概率抽样的Vwr方法、基于广义回归估计的Vgreg方法与Jackknife方法来估计方差,并比较不同方法估计的效果。研究表明:无论概率样本的样本量较大还是较小,本研究所提出的总体均值估计方法效果较好,并且在方差估计中Jackknife方法的估计效果最好。     

Bayesian blinded sample size re-estimation

Information before unblinding regarding the success of confirmatory clinical trials is highly uncertain. Current techniques using point estimates of auxiliary parameters for estimating expected blinded sample size: (i) fail to describe the range of likely sample sizes obtained after the anticipated data are observed, and (ii) fail to adjust to the changing patient population. Sequential MCMC-based algorithms are implemented for purposes of sample size adjustments. The uncertainty arising from clinical trials is characterized by filtering later auxiliary parameters through their earlier counterparts and employing posterior distributions to estimate sample size and power. The use of approximate expected power estimates to determine the required additional sample size are closely related to techniques employing Simple Adjustments or the EM algorithm. By contrast with these, our proposed methodology provides intervals for the expected sample size using the posterior distribution of auxiliary parameters. Future decisions about additional subjects are better informed due to our ability to account for subject response heterogeneity over time. We apply the proposed methodologies to a depression trial. Our proposed blinded procedures should be considered for most studies due to ease of implementation.     

Adaptive blinded sample size adjustment for comparing two normal means—a mostly Bayesian approach

Adaptive sample size redetermination (SSR) for clinical trials consists of examining early subsets of on‐trial data to adjust prior estimates of statistical parameters and sample size requirements. Blinded SSR, in particular, while in use already, seems poised to proliferate even further because it obviates many logistical complications of unblinded methods and it generally introduces little or no statistical or operational bias. On the other hand, current blinded SSR methods offer little to no new information about the treatment effect (TE); the obvious resulting problem is that the TE estimate scientists might simply ‘plug in’ to the sample size formulae could be severely wrong. This paper proposes a blinded SSR method that formally synthesizes sample data with prior knowledge about the TE and the within‐treatment variance. It evaluates the method in terms of the type 1 error rate, the bias of the estimated TE, and the average deviation from the targeted power. The method is shown to reduce this average deviation, in comparison with another established method, over a range of situations. The paper illustrates the use of the proposed method with an example. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

Study design of single‐arm phase II immunotherapy trials with long‐term survivors and random delayed treatment effect

In the traditional study design of a single‐arm phase II cancer clinical trial, the one‐sample log‐rank test has been frequently used. A common practice in sample size calculation is to assume that the event time in the new treatment follows exponential distribution. Such a study design may not be suitable for immunotherapy cancer trials, when both long‐term survivors (or even cured patients from the disease) and delayed treatment effect are present, because exponential distribution is not appropriate to describe such data and consequently could lead to severely underpowered trial. In this research, we proposed a piecewise proportional hazards cure rate model with random delayed treatment effect to design single‐arm phase II immunotherapy cancer trials. To improve test power, we proposed a new weighted one‐sample log‐rank test and provided a sample size calculation formula for designing trials. Our simulation study showed that the proposed log‐rank test performs well and is robust of misspecified weight and the sample size calculation formula also performs well.     

A note on sample size savings with the use of a single well‐controlled clinical trial to support the efficacy of a new drug

In terms of the risk of making a Type I error in evaluating a null hypothesis of equality, requiring two independent confirmatory trials with two‐sided p‐values less than 0.05 is equivalent to requiring one confirmatory trial with two‐sided p‐value less than 0.001 25. Furthermore, the use of a single confirmatory trial is gaining acceptability, with discussion in both ICH E9 and a CPMP Points to Consider document. Given the growing acceptance of this approach, this note provides a formula for the sample size savings that are obtained with the single clinical trial approach depending on the levels of Type I and Type II errors chosen. For two replicate trials each powered at 90%, which corresponds to a single larger trial powered at 81%, an approximate 19% reduction in total sample size is achieved with the single trial approach. Alternatively, a single trial with the same sample size as the total sample size from two smaller trials will have much greater power. For example, in the case where two trials are each powered at 90% for two‐sided α=0.05 yielding an overall power of 81%, a single trial using two‐sided α=0.001 25 would have 91% power. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.