A Bayesian sequential design with adaptive randomization for 2‐sided hypothesis test

Bayesian sequential and adaptive randomization designs are gaining popularity in clinical trials thanks to their potentials to reduce the number of required participants and save resources. We propose a Bayesian sequential design with adaptive randomization rates so as to more efficiently attribute newly recruited patients to different treatment arms. In this paper, we consider 2‐arm clinical trials. Patients are allocated to the 2 arms with a randomization rate to achieve minimum variance for the test statistic. Algorithms are presented to calculate the optimal randomization rate, critical values, and power for the proposed design. Sensitivity analysis is implemented to check the influence on design by changing the prior distributions. Simulation studies are applied to compare the proposed method and traditional methods in terms of power and actual sample sizes. Simulations show that, when total sample size is fixed, the proposed design can obtain greater power and/or cost smaller actual sample size than the traditional Bayesian sequential design. Finally, we apply the proposed method to a real data set and compare the results with the Bayesian sequential design without adaptive randomization in terms of sample sizes. The proposed method can further reduce required sample size.     

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 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.     

Effects of unstratified and centre‐stratified randomization in multi‐centre clinical trials

This paper deals with the analysis of randomization effects in multi‐centre clinical trials. The two randomization schemes most often used in clinical trials are considered: unstratified and centre‐stratified block‐permuted randomization. The prediction of the number of patients randomized to different treatment arms in different regions during the recruitment period accounting for the stochastic nature of the recruitment and effects of multiple centres is investigated. A new analytic approach using a Poisson‐gamma patient recruitment model (patients arrive at different centres according to Poisson processes with rates sampled from a gamma distributed population) and its further extensions is proposed. Closed‐form expressions for corresponding distributions of the predicted number of the patients randomized in different regions are derived. In the case of two treatments, the properties of the total imbalance in the number of patients on treatment arms caused by using centre‐stratified randomization are investigated and for a large number of centres a normal approximation of imbalance is proved. The impact of imbalance on the power of the study is considered. It is shown that the loss of statistical power is practically negligible and can be compensated by a minor increase in sample size. The influence of patient dropout is also investigated. The impact of randomization on predicted drug supply overage is discussed. Copyright © 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

Two-sample post-stratified or subgroup analysis with restricted randomization rules

In a clinical trial to compare two treatments, subjects may be allocated sequentially to treatment groups by a restricted randomization rule. Suppose that at the end of the trial, the investigator is interested in a post-stratified or subgroup analysis with respect to a particular demographic or clinical factor which was not selected prior to the trial for stratified randomization. Under a randomization model, large sample theory of two-sample post-stratified permutational tests is developed with a broad class of restricted randomization treatment allocation rules. The test procedures proposed here are illustrated with a real-life example. The results of this example indicate that it is not always possible to ignore the treatment rule used in the trial in the design-based analysis.     

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.     

Practical guide to sample size calculations: non‐inferiority and equivalence trials

A sample size justification is a vital part of any trial design. However, estimating the number of participants required to give a meaningful result is not always straightforward. A number of components are required to facilitate a suitable sample size calculation. In this paper, the steps for conducting sample size calculations for non‐inferiority and equivalence trials are summarised. Practical advice and examples are provided that illustrate how to carry out the calculations by hand and using the app SampSize. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Controlling type I error rates in multi-arm clinical trials: A case for the false discovery rate

Multi-arm trials are an efficient way of simultaneously testing several experimental treatments against a shared control group. As well as reducing the sample size required compared to running each trial separately, they have important administrative and logistical advantages. There has been debate over whether multi-arm trials should correct for the fact that multiple null hypotheses are tested within the same experiment. Previous opinions have ranged from no correction is required, to a stringent correction (controlling the probability of making at least one type I error) being needed, with regulators arguing the latter for confirmatory settings. In this article, we propose that controlling the false-discovery rate (FDR) is a suitable compromise, with an appealing interpretation in multi-arm clinical trials. We investigate the properties of the different correction methods in terms of the positive and negative predictive value (respectively how confident we are that a recommended treatment is effective and that a non-recommended treatment is ineffective). The number of arms and proportion of treatments that are truly effective is varied. Controlling the FDR provides good properties. It retains the high positive predictive value of FWER correction in situations where a low proportion of treatments is effective. It also has a good negative predictive value in situations where a high proportion of treatments is effective. In a multi-arm trial testing distinct treatment arms, we recommend that sponsors and trialists consider use of the FDR.     

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.     

Sample Size Calculation and Blinded Sample Size Recalculation in Clinical Trials Where the Treatment Effect is Measured by the Relative Risk

In clinical trials with binary endpoints, the required sample size does not depend only on the specified type I error rate, the desired power and the treatment effect but also on the overall event rate which, however, is usually uncertain. The internal pilot study design has been proposed to overcome this difficulty. Here, nuisance parameters required for sample size calculation are re-estimated during the ongoing trial and the sample size is recalculated accordingly. We performed extensive simulation studies to investigate the characteristics of the internal pilot study design for two-group superiority trials where the treatment effect is captured by the relative risk. As the performance of the sample size recalculation procedure crucially depends on the accuracy of the applied sample size formula, we firstly explored the precision of three approximate sample size formulae proposed in the literature for this situation. It turned out that the unequal variance asymptotic normal formula outperforms the other two, especially in case of unbalanced sample size allocation. Using this formula for sample size recalculation in the internal pilot study design assures that the desired power is achieved even if the overall rate is mis-specified in the planning phase. The maximum inflation of the type I error rate observed for the internal pilot study design is small and lies below the maximum excess that occurred for the fixed sample size design.     

Adaptive graph‐based multiple testing procedures

Multiple testing procedures defined by directed, weighted graphs have recently been proposed as an intuitive visual tool for constructing multiple testing strategies that reflect the often complex contextual relations between hypotheses in clinical trials. Many well‐known sequentially rejective tests, such as (parallel) gatekeeping tests or hierarchical testing procedures are special cases of the graph based tests. We generalize these graph‐based multiple testing procedures to adaptive trial designs with an interim analysis. These designs permit mid‐trial design modifications based on unblinded interim data as well as external information, while providing strong family wise error rate control. To maintain the familywise error rate, it is not required to prespecify the adaption rule in detail. Because the adaptive test does not require knowledge of the multivariate distribution of test statistics, it is applicable in a wide range of scenarios including trials with multiple treatment comparisons, endpoints or subgroups, or combinations thereof. Examples of adaptations are dropping of treatment arms, selection of subpopulations, and sample size reassessment. If, in the interim analysis, it is decided to continue the trial as planned, the adaptive test reduces to the originally planned multiple testing procedure. Only if adaptations are actually implemented, an adjusted test needs to be applied. The procedure is illustrated with a case study and its operating characteristics are investigated by simulations. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

A modified subset selection formulation with special reference to one-way and two-way layout experiments

The usual formulation of subset selection due to Gupta (1956) requires a minimum guaranteed probability of a correct selection. The modified formulation of the present paper includes an additional requirement that the expected number of the nonbest populations be bounded above by a specified constant when the best and the next best populations are ‘sufficiently’ apart. A class of procedures is defined and the determination of the minimum sample size required is discussed. The specific problems discussed for normal populations include selection in terms of means and variances, and selection in terms of treatment effects in a two-way layout.     

Properties of the weighted log‐rank test in the design of confirmatory studies with delayed effects

Proportional hazards are a common assumption when designing confirmatory clinical trials in oncology. This assumption not only affects the analysis part but also the sample size calculation. The presence of delayed effects causes a change in the hazard ratio while the trial is ongoing since at the beginning we do not observe any difference between treatment arms, and after some unknown time point, the differences between treatment arms will start to appear. Hence, the proportional hazards assumption no longer holds, and both sample size calculation and analysis methods to be used should be reconsidered. The weighted log‐rank test allows a weighting for early, middle, and late differences through the Fleming and Harrington class of weights and is proven to be more efficient when the proportional hazards assumption does not hold. The Fleming and Harrington class of weights, along with the estimated delay, can be incorporated into the sample size calculation in order to maintain the desired power once the treatment arm differences start to appear. In this article, we explore the impact of delayed effects in group sequential and adaptive group sequential designs and make an empirical evaluation in terms of power and type‐I error rate of the of the weighted log‐rank test in a simulated scenario with fixed values of the Fleming and Harrington class of weights. We also give some practical recommendations regarding which methodology should be used in the presence of delayed effects depending on certain characteristics of the trial.     

Sample size calculation for count outcomes in cluster randomization trials with varying cluster sizes

Abstract

In many cluster randomization studies, cluster sizes are not fixed and may be highly variable. For those studies, sample size estimation assuming a constant cluster size may lead to under-powered studies. Sample size formulas have been developed to incorporate the variability in cluster size for clinical trials with continuous and binary outcomes. Count outcomes frequently occur in cluster randomized studies. In this paper, we derive a closed-form sample size formula for count outcomes accounting for the variability in cluster size. We compare the performance of the proposed method with the average cluster size method through simulation. The simulation study shows that the proposed method has a better performance with empirical powers and type I errors closer to the nominal levels.     

Methodological issues with adaptation of clinical trial design

Adaptation of clinical trial design generates many issues that have not been resolved for practical applications, though statistical methodology has advanced greatly. This paper focuses on some methodological issues. In one type of adaptation such as sample size re-estimation, only the postulated value of a parameter for planning the trial size may be altered. In another type, the originally intended hypothesis for testing may be modified using the internal data accumulated at an interim time of the trial, such as changing the primary endpoint and dropping a treatment arm. For sample size re-estimation, we make a contrast between an adaptive test weighting the two-stage test statistics with the statistical information given by the original design and the original sample mean test with a properly corrected critical value. We point out the difficulty in planning a confirmatory trial based on the crude information generated by exploratory trials. In regards to selecting a primary endpoint, we argue that the selection process that allows switching from one endpoint to the other with the internal data of the trial is not very likely to gain a power advantage over the simple process of selecting one from the two endpoints by testing them with an equal split of alpha (Bonferroni adjustment). For dropping a treatment arm, distributing the remaining sample size of the discontinued arm to other treatment arms can substantially improve the statistical power of identifying a superior treatment arm in the design. A common difficult methodological issue is that of how to select an adaptation rule in the trial planning stage. Pre-specification of the adaptation rule is important for the practicality consideration. Changing the originally intended hypothesis for testing with the internal data generates great concerns to clinical trial researchers.     

Randomization of Clusters Versus Randomization of Persons Within Clusters

Many experiments aim at populations with persons nested within clusters. Randomization to treatment conditions can be done at the cluster level or at the person level within each cluster. The latter may result in control group contamination, and cluster randomization is therefore oftenpreferred in practice. This article models the control group contamination, calculates the required sample sizes for both levels of randomization, and gives the degree of contamination for which cluster randomization is preferable above randomization of persons within clusters. Moreover, itprovides examples of situations where one has to make a choice between both levels of randomization.     

Misspecification of at‐risk periods and distributional assumptions in estimating COPD exacerbation rates: The resultant bias in treatment effect estimation

In trials comparing the rate of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease exacerbation between treatment arms, the rate is typically calculated on the basis of the whole of each patient's follow‐up period. However, the true time a patient is at risk should exclude periods in which an exacerbation episode is occurring, because a patient cannot be at risk of another exacerbation episode until recovered. We used data from two chronic obstructive pulmonary disease randomized controlled trials and compared treatment effect estimates and confidence intervals when using two different definitions of the at‐risk period. Using a simulation study we examined the bias in the estimated treatment effect and the coverage of the confidence interval, using these two definitions of the at‐risk period. We investigated how the sample size required for a given power changes on the basis of the definition of at‐risk period used. Our results showed that treatment efficacy is underestimated when the at‐risk period does not take account of exacerbation duration, and the power to detect a statistically significant result is slightly diminished. Correspondingly, using the correct at‐risk period, some modest savings in required sample size can be achieved. Using the proposed at‐risk period that excludes recovery times requires formal definitions of the beginning and end of an exacerbation episode, and we recommend these be always predefined in a trial protocol.