Optimal planning of phase II/III programs for clinical trials with multiple endpoints

Owing to increased costs and competition pressure, drug development becomes more and more challenging. Therefore, there is a strong need for improving efficiency of clinical research by developing and applying methods for quantitative decision making. In this context, the integrated planning for phase II/III programs plays an important role as numerous quantities can be varied that are crucial for cost, benefit, and program success. Recently, a utility‐based framework has been proposed for an optimal planning of phase II/III programs that puts the choice of decision boundaries and phase II sample sizes on a quantitative basis. However, this method is restricted to studies with a single time‐to‐event endpoint. We generalize this procedure to the setting of clinical trials with multiple endpoints and (asymptotically) normally distributed test statistics. Optimal phase II sample sizes and go/no‐go decision rules are provided for both the “all‐or‐none” and “at‐least‐one” win criteria. Application of the proposed method is illustrated by drug development programs in the fields of Alzheimer disease and oncology.     

Curtailed two-stage designs with two dependent binary endpoints

When phase I clinical trials were found to be unable to precisely estimate the frequency of toxicity, Brayan and Day proposed incorporating toxicity considerations into two-stage designs in phase II clinical trials. Conaway and Petroni further pointed out that it is important to evaluate the clinical activity and safety simultaneously in studying cancer treatments with more toxic chemotherapies in a phase II clinical trial. Therefore, they developed multi-stage designs with two dependent binary endpoints. However, the usual sample sizes in phase II trials make these designs difficult to control the type I error rate at a desired level over the entire null region and still have sufficient power against reasonable alternatives. Therefore, the curtailed sampling procedure summarized by Phatak and Bhatt will be applied to the two-stage designs with two dependent binary endpoints in this paper to reduce sample sizes and speed up the development process for drugs.     

Bayesian two-stage design for drug screening trials with switching hypothesis tests based on continuous endpoints

Abstract

In this paper, we propose a Bayesian two-stage design with changing hypothesis test by bridging a single-arm study and a double-arm randomized trial in one phase II clinical trial based on continuous endpoints rather than binary endpoints. We have also calibrated with respect to frequentist and Bayesian error rates. The proposed design minimizes the Bayesian expected sample size if the new candidate has low or high efficacy activity subject to the constraint upon error rates in both frequentist and Bayesian perspectives. Tables of designs for various combinations of design parameters are also provided.     

Two-stage k-sample designs for the ordered alternative problem

In preclinical studies and clinical dose-ranging trials, the Jonckheere-Terpstra test is widely used in the assessment of dose-response relationships. Hewett and Spurrier (1979) presented a two-stage analog of the test in the context of large sample sizes. In this paper, we propose an exact test based on Simon's minimax and optimal design criteria originally used in one-arm phase II designs based on binary endpoints. The convergence rate of the joint distribution of the first and second stage test statistics to the limiting distribution is studied, and design parameters are provided for a variety of assumed alternatives. The behavior of the test is also examined in the presence of ties, and the proposed designs are illustrated through application in the planning of a hypercholesterolemia clinical trial. The minimax and optimal two-stage procedures are shown to be preferable as compared with the one-stage procedure because of the associated reduction in expected sample size for given error constraints.     

Adaptive designs for single‐arm phase II trials in oncology

Clinical phase II trials in oncology are conducted to determine whether the activity of a new anticancer treatment is promising enough to merit further investigation. Two‐stage designs are commonly used for this situation to allow for early termination. Designs proposed in the literature so far have the common drawback that the sample sizes for the two stages have to be specified in the protocol and have to be adhered to strictly during the course of the trial. As a consequence, designs that allow a higher extent of flexibility are desirable. In this article, we propose a new adaptive method that allows an arbitrary modification of the sample size of the second stage using the results of the interim analysis or external information while controlling the type I error rate. If the sample size is not changed during the trial, the proposed design shows very similar characteristics to the optimal two‐stage design proposed by Chang et al. (Biometrics 1987; 43:865–874). However, the new design allows the use of mid‐course information for the planning of the second stage, thus meeting practical requirements when performing clinical phase II trials in oncology. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Practical approaches for design and analysis of clinical trials of infertility treatments: crossover designs and the Mantel–Haenszel method are recommended

Crossover designs have some advantages over standard clinical trial designs and they are often used in trials evaluating the efficacy of treatments for infertility. However, clinical trials of infertility treatments violate a fundamental condition of crossover designs, because women who become pregnant in the first treatment period are not treated in the second period. In previous research, to deal with this problem, some new designs, such as re‐randomization designs, and analysis methods including the logistic mixture model and the beta‐binomial mixture model were proposed. Although the performance of these designs and methods has previously been evaluated in large‐scale clinical trials with sample sizes of more than 1000 per group, the actual sample sizes of infertility treatment trials are usually around 100 per group. The most appropriate design and analysis for these moderate‐scale clinical trials are currently unclear. In this study, we conducted simulation studies to determine the appropriate design and analysis method of moderate‐scale clinical trials for irreversible endpoints by evaluating the statistical power and bias in the treatment effect estimates. The Mantel–Haenszel method had similar power and bias to the logistic mixture model. The crossover designs had the highest power and the smallest bias. We recommend using a combination of the crossover design and the Mantel–Haenszel method for two‐period, two‐treatment clinical trials with irreversible endpoints. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

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.     

Bayesian optimal phase II designs with dual-criterion decision making

The conventional phase II trial design paradigm is to make the go/no-go decision based on the hypothesis testing framework. Statistical significance itself alone, however, may not be sufficient to establish that the drug is clinically effective enough to warrant confirmatory phase III trials. We propose the Bayesian optimal phase II trial design with dual-criterion decision making (BOP2-DC), which incorporates both statistical significance and clinical relevance into decision making. Based on the posterior probability that the treatment effect reaches the lower reference value (statistical significance) and the clinically meaningful value (clinical significance), BOP2-DC allows for go/consider/no-go decisions, rather than a binary go/no-go decision. BOP2-DC is highly flexible and accommodates various types of endpoints, including binary, continuous, time-to-event, multiple, and coprimary endpoints, in single-arm and randomized trials. The decision rule of BOP2-DC is optimized to maximize the probability of a go decision when the treatment is effective or minimize the expected sample size when the treatment is futile. Simulation studies show that the BOP2-DC design yields desirable operating characteristics. The software to implement BOP2-DC is freely available at www.trialdesign.org .     

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.     

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.     

Designing historical control studies with survival endpoints using exact statistical inference

Historical control trials compare an experimental treatment with a previously conducted control treatment. By assigning all recruited samples to the experimental arm, historical control trials can better identify promising treatments in early phase trials compared with randomized control trials. Existing designs of historical control trials with survival endpoints are based on asymptotic normal distribution. However, it remains unclear whether the asymptotic distribution of the test statistic is close enough to the true distribution given relatively small sample sizes in early phase trials. In this article, we address this question by introducing an exact design approach for exponentially distributed survival endpoints, and compare it with an asymptotic design in both real examples and simulation examples. Simulation results show that the asymptotic test could lead to bias in the sample size estimation. We conclude the proposed exact design should be used in the design of historical control trials.     

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

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

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.     

Early stopping in seamless phase I/II clinical trials

In recent years, seamless phase I/II clinical trials have drawn much attention, as they consider both toxicity and efficacy endpoints in finding an optimal dose (OD). Engaging an appropriate number of patients in a trial is a challenging task. This paper attempts a dynamic stopping rule to save resources in phase I/II trials. That is, the stopping rule aims to save patients from unnecessary toxic or subtherapeutic doses. We allow a trial to stop early when widths of the confidence intervals for the dose-response parameters become narrower or when the sample size is equal to a predefined size, whichever comes first. The simulation study of dose-response scenarios in various settings demonstrates that the proposed stopping rule can engage an appropriate number of patients. Therefore, we suggest its use in clinical trials.     

A class of confidence intervals for sequential phase II clinical trials with binary outcome

The phase II clinical trials often use the binary outcome. Thus, accessing the success rate of the treatment is a primary objective for the phase II clinical trials. Reporting confidence intervals is a common practice for clinical trials. Due to the group sequence design and relatively small sample size, many existing confidence intervals for phase II trials are much conservative. In this paper, we propose a class of confidence intervals for binary outcomes. We also provide a general theory to assess the coverage of confidence intervals for discrete distributions, and hence make recommendations for choosing the parameter in calculating the confidence interval. The proposed method is applied to Simon's [14] optimal two-stage design with numerical studies. The proposed method can be viewed as an alternative approach for the confidence interval for discrete distributions in general.     

A convenient formula for sample size calculations in clinical trials with multiple co-primary continuous endpoints

The clinical efficacy of a new treatment may often be better evaluated by two or more co-primary endpoints. Recently, in pharmaceutical drug development, there has been increasing discussion regarding establishing statistically significant favorable results on more than one endpoint in comparisons between treatments, which is referred to as a problem of multiple co-primary endpoints. Several methods have been proposed for calculating the sample size required to design a trial with multiple co-primary correlated endpoints. However, because these methods require users to have considerable mathematical sophistication and knowledge of programming techniques, their application and spread may be restricted in practice. To improve the convenience of these methods, in this paper, we provide a useful formula with accompanying numerical tables for sample size calculations to design clinical trials with two treatments, where the efficacy of a new treatment is demonstrated on continuous co-primary endpoints. In addition, we provide some examples to illustrate the sample size calculations made using the formula. Using the formula and the tables, which can be read according to the patterns of correlations and effect size ratios expected in multiple co-primary endpoints, makes it convenient to evaluate the required sample size promptly.     

Oncology phase II proof‐of‐concept studies with multiple targets: Randomized controlled trial or single arm?

For oncology drug development, phase II proof‐of‐concept studies have played a key role in determining whether or not to advance to a confirmatory phase III trial. With the increasing number of immunotherapies, efficient design strategies are crucial in moving successful drugs quickly to market. Our research examines drug development decision making under the framework of maximizing resource investment, characterized by benefit cost ratios (BCRs). In general, benefit represents the likelihood that a drug is successful, and cost is characterized by the risk adjusted total sample size of the phases II and III studies. Phase III studies often include a futility interim analysis; this sequential component can also be incorporated into BCRs. Under this framework, multiple scenarios can be considered. For example, for a given drug and cancer indication, BCRs can yield insights into whether to use a randomized control trial or a single‐arm study. Importantly, any uncertainty in historical control estimates that are used to benchmark single‐arm studies can be explicitly incorporated into BCRs. More complex scenarios, such as restricted resources or multiple potential cancer indications, can also be examined. Overall, BCR analyses indicate that single‐arm trials are favored for proof‐of‐concept trials when there is low uncertainty in historical control data and smaller phase III sample sizes. Otherwise, especially if the most likely to succeed tumor indication can be identified, randomized controlled trials may be a better option. While the findings are consistent with intuition, we provide a more objective approach.     

A Three-Stage Bayesian Adaptive Phase I/II Design and Simulation Studies

Instead of using traditional separate phase I and II trials, in this article, we propose using a parallel three-stage phase I/II design, incorporating a dose expansion approach to flexibly evaluate the safety and efficacy of dose levels, and to select the optimal dose. In the proposed design, both the toxicity and efficacy responses are binary endpoints. A 3+3-based procedure is used for initial period of dose escalation at stage 1; at this level, the dose can be expanded to stage 2 for exploratory efficacy studies of phase IIa, while simultaneously, the safety testing can advance to a higher dose level. A beta-binomial model is used to model the efficacy responses. There are two placebo-controlled randomization interim monitoring analyses at stage 2 to select the promising doses to be recommended to stage 3 for further efficacy studies of phase IIb. An adaptive randomization approach is used to assign more patients to doses with higher efficacy levels at stage 3. We examine the properties of the proposed design through extensive simulation studies by using R programming language, and also compare the new design with the conventional design and a competing adaptive Bayesian design. The simulation results show that our design can efficiently assign more patients to doses with higher efficacy levels and is superior to the two competing designs in terms of total sample size reduction.     

Single‐arm phase II trial design under parametric cure models

The current practice of designing single‐arm phase II survival trials is limited under the exponential model. Trial design under the exponential model may not be appropriate when a portion of patients are cured. There is no literature available for designing single‐arm phase II trials under the parametric cure model. In this paper, a test statistic is proposed, and a sample size formula is derived for designing single‐arm phase II trials under a class of parametric cure models. Extensive simulations showed that the proposed test and sample size formula perform very well under different scenarios. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.