Simultaneous confidence interval for assessing non‐inferiority with assay sensitivity in a three‐arm trial with binary endpoints

A three‐arm trial including an experimental treatment, an active reference treatment and a placebo is often used to assess the non‐inferiority (NI) with assay sensitivity of an experimental treatment. Various hypothesis‐test‐based approaches via a fraction or pre‐specified margin have been proposed to assess the NI with assay sensitivity in a three‐arm trial. There is little work done on confidence interval in a three‐arm trial. This paper develops a hybrid approach to construct simultaneous confidence interval for assessing NI and assay sensitivity in a three‐arm trial. For comparison, we present normal‐approximation‐based and bootstrap‐resampling‐based simultaneous confidence intervals. Simulation studies evidence that the hybrid approach with the Wilson score statistic performs better than other approaches in terms of empirical coverage probability and mesial‐non‐coverage probability. An example is used to illustrate the proposed approaches.     

Some practical considerations in three‐arm non‐inferiority trial design

Non‐inferiority trials aim to demonstrate whether an experimental therapy is not unacceptably worse than an active reference therapy already in use. When applicable, a three‐arm non‐inferiority trial, including an experiment therapy, an active reference therapy, and a placebo, is often recommended to assess assay sensitivity and internal validity of a trial. In this paper, we share some practical considerations based on our experience from a phase III three‐arm non‐inferiority trial. First, we discuss the determination of the total sample size and its optimal allocation based on the overall power of the non‐inferiority testing procedure and provide ready‐to‐use R code for implementation. Second, we consider the non‐inferiority goal of ‘capturing all possibilities’ and show that it naturally corresponds to a simple two‐step testing procedure. Finally, using this two‐step non‐inferiority testing procedure as an example, we compare extensively commonly used frequentist p ‐value methods with the Bayesian posterior probability approach. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

An evidential approach to non-inferiority clinical trials

We present likelihood methods for defining the non-inferiority margin and measuring the strength of evidence in non-inferiority trials using the 'fixed-margin' framework. Likelihood methods are used to (1) evaluate and combine the evidence from historical trials to define the non-inferiority margin, (2) assess and report the smallest non-inferiority margin supported by the data, and (3) assess potential violations of the constancy assumption. Data from six aspirin-controlled trials for acute coronary syndrome and data from an active-controlled trial for acute coronary syndrome, Organisation to Assess Strategies for Ischemic Syndromes (OASIS-2) trial, are used for illustration. The likelihood framework offers important theoretical and practical advantages when measuring the strength of evidence in non-inferiority trials. Besides eliminating the influence of sample spaces and prior probabilities on the 'strength of evidence in the data', the likelihood approach maintains good frequentist properties. Violations of the constancy assumption can be assessed in the likelihood framework when it is appropriate to assume a unifying regression model for trial data and a constant control effect including a control rate parameter and a placebo rate parameter across historical placebo controlled trials and the non-inferiority trial. In situations where the statistical non-inferiority margin is data driven, lower likelihood support interval limits provide plausibly conservative candidate margins.     

Distribution of the two‐sample t‐test statistic following blinded sample size re‐estimation

We consider the blinded sample size re‐estimation based on the simple one‐sample variance estimator at an interim analysis. We characterize the exact distribution of the standard two‐sample t‐test statistic at the final analysis. We describe a simulation algorithm for the evaluation of the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis at given treatment effect. We compare the blinded sample size re‐estimation method with two unblinded methods with respect to the empirical type I error, the empirical power, and the empirical distribution of the standard deviation estimator and final sample size. We characterize the type I error inflation across the range of standardized non‐inferiority margin for non‐inferiority trials, and derive the adjusted significance level to ensure type I error control for given sample size of the internal pilot study. We show that the adjusted significance level increases as the sample size of the internal pilot study increases. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

A dynamic power prior for borrowing historical data in noninferiority trials with binary endpoint

Traditionally, noninferiority hypotheses have been tested using a frequentist method with a fixed margin. Given that information for the control group is often available from previous studies, it is interesting to consider a Bayesian approach in which information is “borrowed” for the control group to improve efficiency. However, construction of an appropriate informative prior can be challenging. In this paper, we consider a hybrid Bayesian approach for testing noninferiority hypotheses in studies with a binary endpoint. To account for heterogeneity between the historical information and the current trial for the control group, a dynamic P value–based power prior parameter is proposed to adjust the amount of information borrowed from the historical data. This approach extends the simple test‐then‐pool method to allow a continuous discounting power parameter. An adjusted α level is also proposed to better control the type I error. Simulations are conducted to investigate the performance of the proposed method and to make comparisons with other methods including test‐then‐pool and hierarchical modeling. The methods are illustrated with data from vaccine clinical trials.     

Design and analysis of a 3‐arm noninferiority trial with a prespecified margin for the hazard ratio

A 3‐arm trial design that includes an experimental treatment, an active reference treatment, and a placebo is useful for assessing the noninferiority of an experimental treatment. The inclusion of a placebo arm enables the assessment of assay sensitivity and internal validation, in addition to the testing of the noninferiority of the experimental treatment compared with the reference treatment. In 3‐arm noninferiority trials, various statistical test procedures have been considered to evaluate the following 3 hypotheses: (i) superiority of the experimental treatment over the placebo, (ii) superiority of the reference treatment over the placebo, and (iii) noninferiority of the experimental treatment compared with the reference treatment. However, hypothesis (ii) can be insufficient and may not accurately assess the assay sensitivity for the noninferiority of the experimental treatment compared with the reference treatment. Thus, demonstrating that the superiority of the reference treatment over the placebo is greater than the noninferiority margin (the nonsuperiority of the reference treatment compared with the placebo) can be necessary. Here, we propose log‐rank statistical procedures for evaluating data obtained from 3‐arm noninferiority trials to assess assay sensitivity with a prespecified margin Δ. In addition, we derive the approximate sample size and optimal allocation required to minimize the total sample size and that of the placebo treatment sample size, hierarchically.     

Designing a non-inferiority study in kidney transplantation: a case study

In organ transplantation, placebo-controlled clinical trials are not possible for ethical reasons, and hence non-inferiority trials are used to evaluate new drugs. Patients with a transplanted kidney typically receive three to four immunosuppressant drugs to prevent organ rejection. In the described case of a non-inferiority trial for one of these immunosuppressants, the dose is changed, and another is replaced by an investigational drug. This test regimen is compared with the active control regimen. Justification for the non-inferiority margin is challenging as the putative placebo has never been studied in a clinical trial. We propose the use of a random-effect meta-regression, where each immunosuppressant component of the regimen enters as a covariate. This allows us to make inference on the difference between the putative placebo and the active control. From this, various methods can then be used to derive the non-inferiority margin. A hybrid of the 95/95 and synthesis approach is suggested. Data from 51 trials with a total of 17,002 patients were used in the meta-regression. Our approach was motivated by a recent large confirmatory trial in kidney transplantation. The results and the methodological documents of this evaluation were submitted to the Food and Drug Administration. The Food and Drug Administration accepted our proposed non-inferiority margin and our rationale.     

A mixture model using likelihood‐based and Bayesian approaches for identifying responders and non‐responders in longitudinal clinical trials

A longitudinal mixture model for classifying patients into responders and non‐responders is established using both likelihood‐based and Bayesian approaches. The model takes into consideration responders in the control group. Therefore, it is especially useful in situations where the placebo response is strong, or in equivalence trials where the drug in development is compared with a standard treatment. Under our model, a treatment shows evidence of being effective if it increases the proportion of responders or increases the response rate among responders in the treated group compared with the control group. Therefore, the model has flexibility to accommodate different situations. The proposed method is illustrated using simulation and a depression clinical trial dataset for the likelihood‐based approach, and the same depression clinical trial dataset for the Bayesian approach. The likelihood‐based and Bayesian approaches generated consistent results for the depression trial data. In both the placebo group and the treated group, patients are classified into two components with distinct response rate. The proportion of responders is shown to be significantly higher in the treated group compared with the control group, suggesting the treatment paroxetine is effective. Copyright © 2014 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Assessing the treatment effect in a randomized controlled trial with extensive non‐adherence: the EVOLVE trial

Intention‐to‐treat (ITT) analysis is widely used to establish efficacy in randomized clinical trials. However, in a long‐term outcomes study where non‐adherence to study drug is substantial, the on‐treatment effect of the study drug may be underestimated using the ITT analysis. The analyses presented herein are from the EVOLVE trial, a double‐blind, placebo‐controlled, event‐driven cardiovascular outcomes study conducted to assess whether a treatment regimen including cinacalcet compared with placebo in addition to other conventional therapies reduces the risk of mortality and major cardiovascular events in patients receiving hemodialysis with secondary hyperparathyroidism. Pre‐specified sensitivity analyses were performed to assess the impact of non‐adherence on the estimated effect of cinacalcet. These analyses included lag‐censoring, inverse probability of censoring weights (IPCW), rank preserving structural failure time model (RPSFTM) and iterative parameter estimation (IPE). The relative hazard (cinacalcet versus placebo) of mortality and major cardiovascular events was 0.93 (95% confidence interval 0.85, 1.02) using the ITT analysis; 0.85 (0.76, 0.95) using lag‐censoring analysis; 0.81 (0.70, 0.92) using IPCW; 0.85 (0.66, 1.04) using RPSFTM and 0.85 (0.75, 0.96) using IPE. These analyses, while not providing definitive evidence, suggest that the intervention may have an effect while subjects are receiving treatment. The ITT method remains the established method to evaluate efficacy of a new treatment; however, additional analyses should be considered to assess the on‐treatment effect when substantial non‐adherence to study drug is expected or observed. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

A Bayesian adaptive blinded sample size adjustment method for risk differences

Adaptive sample size adjustment (SSA) for clinical trials consists of examining early subsets of on trial data to adjust estimates of sample size requirements. Blinded SSA is often preferred over unblinded SSA because it obviates many logistical complications of the latter and generally introduces less bias. On the other hand, current blinded SSA methods for binary data offer little to no new information about the treatment effect, ignore uncertainties associated with the population treatment proportions, and/or depend on enhanced randomization schemes that risk partial unblinding. I propose an innovative blinded SSA method for use when the primary analysis is a non‐inferiority or superiority test regarding a risk difference. The method incorporates evidence about the treatment effect via the likelihood function of a mixture distribution. I compare the new method with an established one and with the fixed sample size study design, in terms of maximization of an expected utility function. The new method maximizes the expected utility better than do the comparators, under a range of assumptions. I illustrate the use of the proposed method with an example that incorporates a Bayesian hierarchical model. Lastly, I suggest topics for future study regarding the proposed methods. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

A Bayesian non‐inferiority test for two independent binomial proportions

In drug development, non‐inferiority tests are often employed to determine the difference between two independent binomial proportions. Many test statistics for non‐inferiority are based on the frequentist framework. However, research on non‐inferiority in the Bayesian framework is limited. In this paper, we suggest a new Bayesian index τ = P(π₁ > π₂ ? Δ₀ | X₁,X₂), where X₁ and X₂ denote binomial random variables for trials n₁ and n₂, and parameters π₁ and π₂, respectively, and the non‐inferiority margin is Δ₀ > 0. We show two calculation methods for τ, an approximate method that uses normal approximation and an exact method that uses an exact posterior PDF. We compare the approximate probability with the exact probability for τ. Finally, we present the results of actual clinical trials to show the utility of index τ. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Addressing potential prior‐data conflict when using informative priors in proof‐of‐concept studies

Bayesian methods are increasingly used in proof‐of‐concept studies. An important benefit of these methods is the potential to use informative priors, thereby reducing sample size. This is particularly relevant for treatment arms where there is a substantial amount of historical information such as placebo and active comparators. One issue with using an informative prior is the possibility of a mismatch between the informative prior and the observed data, referred to as prior‐data conflict. We focus on two methods for dealing with this: a testing approach and a mixture prior approach. The testing approach assesses prior‐data conflict by comparing the observed data to the prior predictive distribution and resorting to a non‐informative prior if prior‐data conflict is declared. The mixture prior approach uses a prior with a precise and diffuse component. We assess these approaches for the normal case via simulation and show they have some attractive features as compared with the standard one‐component informative prior. For example, when the discrepancy between the prior and the data is sufficiently marked, and intuitively, one feels less certain about the results, both the testing and mixture approaches typically yield wider posterior‐credible intervals than when there is no discrepancy. In contrast, when there is no discrepancy, the results of these approaches are typically similar to the standard approach. Whilst for any specific study, the operating characteristics of any selected approach should be assessed and agreed at the design stage; we believe these two approaches are each worthy of consideration. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

Sequential parallel comparison design with two coprimary endpoints

A placebo‐controlled randomized clinical trial is required to demonstrate that an experimental treatment is superior to its corresponding placebo on multiple coprimary endpoints. This is particularly true in the field of neurology. In fact, clinical trials for neurological disorders need to show the superiority of an experimental treatment over a placebo in two coprimary endpoints. Unfortunately, these trials often fail to detect a true treatment effect for the experimental treatment versus the placebo owing to an unexpectedly high placebo response rate. Sequential parallel comparison design (SPCD) can be used to address this problem. However, the SPCD has not yet been discussed in relation to clinical trials with coprimary endpoints. In this article, our aim was to develop a hypothesis‐testing method and a method for calculating the corresponding sample size for the SPCD with two coprimary endpoints. In a simulation, we show that the proposed hypothesis‐testing method achieves the nominal type I error rate and power and that the proposed sample size calculation method has adequate power accuracy. In addition, the usefulness of our methods is confirmed by returning to an SPCD trial with a single primary endpoint of Alzheimer disease‐related agitation.     

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.     

Covariate‐adjusted borrowing of historical control data in randomized clinical trials

The borrowing of historical control data can be an efficient way to improve the treatment effect estimate of the current control group in a randomized clinical trial. When the historical and current control data are consistent, the borrowing of historical data can increase power and reduce Type I error rate. However, when these 2 sources of data are inconsistent, it may result in a combination of biased estimates, reduced power, and inflation of Type I error rate. In some situations, inconsistency between historical and current control data may be caused by a systematic variation in the measured baseline prognostic factors, which can be appropriately addressed through statistical modeling. In this paper, we propose a Bayesian hierarchical model that can incorporate patient‐level baseline covariates to enhance the appropriateness of the exchangeability assumption between current and historical control data. The performance of the proposed method is shown through simulation studies, and its application to a clinical trial design for amyotrophic lateral sclerosis is described. The proposed method is developed for scenarios involving multiple imbalanced prognostic factors and thus has meaningful implications for clinical trials evaluating new treatments for heterogeneous diseases such as amyotrophic lateral sclerosis.     

A simple test for the treatment effect in clinical trials with a sequential parallel comparison design and negative binomial outcomes

In placebo‐controlled, double‐blinded, randomized clinical trials, the presence of placebo responders reduces the effect size for comparison of the active drug group with the placebo group. An attempt to resolve this problem is to use the sequential parallel comparison design (SPCD). Although there are SPCDs with dichotomous or continuous outcomes, an SPCD with negative binomial outcomes—with which investigators deal eg, in clinical trials involving multiple sclerosis, where the investigators are still concerned about the presence of placebo responders—has not yet been discussed. In this article, we propose a simple test for the treatment effect in clinical trials with an SPCD and negative binomial outcomes. Through simulations, we show that the analysis method achieves the nominal type I error rate and power, whereas the sample size calculation provides the sample size with adequate power accuracy.     

The plan of enrichment designs for dealing with high placebo response

To deal with high placebo response in clinical trials for psychiatric and other diseases, different enrichment designs, such as the sequential parallel design, two‐way enriched design, and sequential enriched design, have been proposed and implemented recently. Depending on the historical trial information and the trial sponsors' resources, detailed design elements are needed for determining which design to adopt. To assist in making more suitable decisions, we perform evaluations for selecting required design elements in terms of power optimization and sample size planning. We also discuss the implementation of the interim analysis related to its applicability.     

Use of a historical control group in a noninferiority trial assessing a new antibacterial treatment: A case study and discussion of practical implementation aspects

When recruitment into a clinical trial is limited due to rarity of the disease of interest, or when recruitment to the control arm is limited due to ethical reasons (eg, pediatric studies or important unmet medical need), exploiting historical controls to augment the prospectively collected database can be an attractive option. Statistical methods for combining historical data with randomized data, while accounting for the incompatibility between the two, have been recently proposed and remain an active field of research. The current literature is lacking a rigorous comparison between methods but also guidelines about their use in practice. In this paper, we compare the existing methods based on a confirmatory phase III study design exercise done for a new antibacterial therapy with a binary endpoint and a single historical dataset. A procedure to assess the relative performance of the different methods for borrowing information from historical control data is proposed, and practical questions related to the selection and implementation of methods are discussed. Based on our examination, we found that the methods have a comparable performance, but we recommend the robust mixture prior for its ease of implementation.     

Assessing Effects on Long-term Survival after Early Termination of Randomized Trials

In this paper we present an approach to using historical control data to augment information from a randomized controlled clinical trial, when it is not possible to continue the control regimen to obtain the most reliable and valid assessment of long term treatment effects. Using an adjustment procedure to the historical control data, we investigate a method of estimating the long term survival function for the clinical trial control group and for evaluating the long term treatment effect. The suggested method is simple to interpret, and particularly motivated in clinical trial settings when ethical considerations preclude the long term follow-up of placebo controls. A simulation study reveals that the bias in parameter estimates that arises in the setting of group sequential monitoring will be attenuated when long term historical control information is used in the proposed manner. Data from the first and second National Wilms' Tumor studies are used to illustrate the method.