Implementation of a Bayesian adaptive design in a proof of concept study

With increased costs of drug development the need for efficient studies has become critical. A key decision point on the development pathway has become the proof of concept study. These studies must provide clear information to the project teams to enable decision making about further developing a drug candidate but also to gain evidence that any effect size is sufficient to warrant this development given the current market environment. Our case study outlines one such proof of concept trial where a new candidate therapy for neuropathic pain was investigated to assess dose-response and to evaluate the magnitude of its effect compared to placebo. A Normal Dynamic Linear Model was used to estimate the dose-response--enforcing some smoothness in the dose-response, but allowing for the fact that the dose-response may be non-monotonic. A pragmatic, parallel group study design was used with interim analyses scheduled to allow the sponsor to drop ineffective doses or to stop the study. Simulations were performed to assess the operating characteristics of the study design. The study results are presented. Significant cost savings were made when it transpired that the new candidate drug did not show superior efficacy when compared placebo and the study was stopped.     

Phase II trial design with growth modulation index as the primary endpoint

Molecularly targeted, genomic‐driven, and immunotherapy‐based clinical trials continue to be advanced for the treatment of relapse or refractory cancer patients, where the growth modulation index (GMI) is often considered a primary endpoint of treatment efficacy. However, there little literature is available that considers the trial design with GMI as the primary endpoint. In this article, we derived a sample size formula for the score test under a log‐linear model of the GMI. Study designs using the derived sample size formula are illustrated under a bivariate exponential model, the Weibull frailty model, and the generalized treatment effect size. The proposed designs provide sound statistical methods for a single‐arm phase II trial with GMI as the primary endpoint.     

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.     

Cancer immunotherapy trial design with delayed treatment effect

A challenge arising in cancer immunotherapy trial design is the presence of a delayed treatment effect wherein the proportional hazard assumption no longer holds true. As a result, a traditional survival trial design based on the standard log‐rank test, which ignores the delayed treatment effect, will lead to substantial loss of statistical power. Recently, a piecewise weighted log‐rank test is proposed to incorporate the delayed treatment effect into consideration of the trial design. However, because the sample size formula was derived under a sequence of local alternative hypotheses, it results in an underestimated sample size when the hazard ratio is relatively small for a balanced trial design and an inaccurate sample size estimation for an unbalanced design. In this article, we derived a new sample size formula under a fixed alternative hypothesis for the delayed treatment effect model. Simulation results show that the new formula provides accurate sample size estimation for both balanced and unbalanced designs.     

Applications of Bayesian statistical methodology to clinical trial design: A case study of a phase 2 trial with an interim futility assessment in patients with knee osteoarthritis

Development of new pharmacological treatments for osteoarthritis that address unmet medical needs in a competitive market place is challenging. Bayesian approaches to trial design offer advantages in defining treatment benefits by addressing clinically relevant magnitude of effects relative to comparators and in optimizing efficiency in analysis. Such advantages are illustrated by a motivating case study, a proof of concept, and dose finding study in patients with osteoarthritis. Patients with osteoarthritis were randomized to receive placebo, celecoxib, or 1 of 4 doses of galcanezumab. Primary outcome measure was change from baseline WOMAC pain after 8 weeks of treatment. Literature review of clinical trials with targeted comparator therapies quantified treatment effects versus placebo. Two success criteria were defined: one to address superiority to placebo with adequate precision and another to ensure a clinically relevant treatment effect. Trial simulations used a Bayesian dose response and longitudinal model. An interim analysis for futility was incorporated. Simulations indicated the study had ≥85% power to detect a 14‐mm improvement and ≤1% risk for a placebo‐like drug to pass. The addition of the second success criterion substantially reduced the risk of an inadequate, weakly efficacious drug proceeding to future development. The study was terminated at the interim analysis due to inadequate analgesic efficacy. A Bayesian approach using probabilistic statements enables clear understanding of success criteria, leading to informed decisions for study conduct. Incorporating an interim analysis can effectively reduce sample size, save resources, and minimize exposure of patients to an inadequate treatment.     

Sample size determination and treatment screening in two‐stage phase II clinical trials via ROC curve

In pharmaceutical‐related research, we usually use clinical trials methods to identify valuable treatments and compare their efficacy with that of a standard control therapy. Although clinical trials are essential for ensuring the efficacy and postmarketing safety of a drug, conducting clinical trials is usually costly and time‐consuming. Moreover, to allocate patients to the little therapeutic effect treatments is inappropriate due to the ethical and cost imperative. Hence, there are several 2‐stage designs in the literature where, for reducing cost and shortening duration of trials, they use the conditional power obtained from interim analysis results to appraise whether we should continue the lower efficacious treatments in the next stage. However, there is a lack of discussion about the influential impacts on the conditional power of a trial at the design stage in the literature. In this article, we calculate the optimal conditional power via the receiver operating characteristic curve method to assess the impacts on the quality of a 2‐stage design with multiple treatments and propose an optimal design using the minimum expected sample size for choosing the best or promising treatment(s) among several treatments under an optimal conditional power constraint. In this paper, we provide tables of the 2‐stage design subject to optimal conditional power for various combinations of design parameters and use an example to illustrate our methods.     

A pragmatic adaptive enrichment design for selecting the right target population for cancer immunotherapies

One of the challenges in the design of confirmatory trials is to deal with uncertainties regarding the optimal target population for a novel drug. Adaptive enrichment designs (AED) which allow for a data-driven selection of one or more prespecified biomarker subpopulations at an interim analysis have been proposed in this setting but practical case studies of AEDs are still relatively rare. We present the design of an AED with a binary endpoint in the highly dynamic setting of cancer immunotherapy. The trial was initiated as a conventional trial in early triple-negative breast cancer but amended to an AED based on emerging data external to the trial suggesting that PD-L1 status could be a predictive biomarker. Operating characteristics are discussed including the concept of a minimal detectable difference, that is, the smallest observed treatment effect that would lead to a statistically significant result in at least one of the target populations at the interim or the final analysis, respectively, in the setting of AED.     

A Phase I/II adaptive design for heterogeneous groups with application to a stereotactic body radiation therapy trial

Dose‐finding studies that aim to evaluate the safety of single agents are becoming less common, and advances in clinical research have complicated the paradigm of dose finding in oncology. A class of more complex problems, such as targeted agents, combination therapies and stratification of patients by clinical or genetic characteristics, has created the need to adapt early‐phase trial design to the specific type of drug being investigated and the corresponding endpoints. In this article, we describe the implementation of an adaptive design based on a continual reassessment method for heterogeneous groups, modified to coincide with the objectives of a Phase I/II trial of stereotactic body radiation therapy in patients with painful osseous metastatic disease. Operating characteristics of the Institutional Review Board approved design are demonstrated under various possible true scenarios via simulation studies. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

A signature enrichment design with Bayesian adaptive randomization

Clinical trials in the era of precision cancer medicine aim to identify and validate biomarker signatures which can guide the assignment of individually optimal treatments to patients. In this article, we propose a group sequential randomized phase II design, which updates the biomarker signature as the trial goes on, utilizes enrichment strategies for patient selection, and uses Bayesian response-adaptive randomization for treatment assignment. To evaluate the performance of the new design, in addition to the commonly considered criteria of Type I error and power, we propose four new criteria measuring the benefits and losses for individuals both inside and outside of the clinical trial. Compared with designs with equal randomization, the proposed design gives trial participants a better chance to receive their personalized optimal treatments and thus results in a higher response rate on the trial. This design increases the chance to discover a successful new drug by an adaptive enrichment strategy, i.e. identification and selective enrollment of a subset of patients who are sensitive to the experimental therapies. Simulation studies demonstrate these advantages of the proposed design. It is illustrated by an example based on an actual clinical trial in non-small-cell lung cancer.     

Evaluation of a sequential global test of improved recovery following stroke as applied to the ICTUS trial of citicoline

The International Citicoline Trial in acUte Stroke is a sequential phase III study of the use of the drug citicoline in the treatment of acute ischaemic stroke, which was initiated in 2006 in 56 treatment centres. The primary objective of the trial is to demonstrate improved recovery of patients randomized to citicoline relative to those randomized to placebo after 12 weeks of follow-up. The primary analysis will take the form of a global test combining the dichotomized results of assessments on three well-established scales: the Barthel Index, the modified Rankin scale and the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale. This approach was previously used in the analysis of the influential National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke trial of recombinant tissue plasminogen activator in stroke.The purpose of this paper is to describe how this trial was designed, and in particular how the simultaneous objectives of taking into account three assessment scales, performing a series of interim analyses and conducting treatment allocation and adjusting the analyses to account for prognostic factors, including more than 50 treatment centres, were addressed.     

Two‐stage phase II survival trial design

Recently, molecularly targeted agents and immunotherapy have been advanced for the treatment of relapse or refractory cancer patients, where disease progression‐free survival or event‐free survival is often a primary endpoint for the trial design. However, methods to evaluate two‐stage single‐arm phase II trials with a time‐to‐event endpoint are currently processed under an exponential distribution, which limits application of real trial designs. In this paper, we developed an optimal two‐stage design, which is applied to the four commonly used parametric survival distributions. The proposed method has advantages compared with existing methods in that the choice of underlying survival model is more flexible and the power of the study is more adequately addressed. Therefore, the proposed two‐stage design can be routinely used for single‐arm phase II trial designs with a time‐to‐event endpoint as a complement to the commonly used Simon's two‐stage design for the binary outcome.     

Statistical inference on censored data for targeted clinical trials under enrichment design

For the traditional clinical trials, inclusion and exclusion criteria are usually based on some clinical endpoints; the genetic or genomic variability of the trial participants are not totally utilized in the criteria. After completion of the human genome project, the disease targets at the molecular level can be identified and can be utilized for the treatment of diseases. However, the accuracy of diagnostic devices for identification of such molecular targets is usually not perfect. Some of the patients enrolled in targeted clinical trials with a positive result for the molecular target might not have the specific molecular targets. As a result, the treatment effect may be underestimated in the patient population truly with the molecular target. To resolve this issue, under the exponential distribution, we develop inferential procedures for the treatment effects of the targeted drug based on the censored endpoints in the patients truly with the molecular targets. Under an enrichment design, we propose using the expectation–maximization algorithm in conjunction with the bootstrap technique to incorporate the inaccuracy of the diagnostic device for detection of the molecular targets on the inference of the treatment effects. A simulation study was conducted to empirically investigate the performance of the proposed methods. Simulation results demonstrate that under the exponential distribution, the proposed estimator is nearly unbiased with adequate precision, and the confidence interval can provide adequate coverage probability. In addition, the proposed testing procedure can adequately control the size with sufficient power. On the other hand, when the proportional hazard assumption is violated, additional simulation studies show that the type I error rate is not controlled at the nominal level and is an increasing function of the positive predictive value. A numerical example illustrates the proposed procedures. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

An adaptive biomarker basket design in phase II oncology trials

The phase II basket trial in oncology is a novel design that enables the simultaneous assessment of treatment effects of one anti-cancer targeted agent in multiple cancer types. Biomarkers could potentially associate with the clinical outcomes and re-define clinically meaningful treatment effects. It is therefore natural to develop a biomarker-based basket design to allow the prospective enrichment of the trials with the adaptive selection of the biomarker-positive (BM+) subjects who are most sensitive to the experimental treatment. We propose a two-stage phase II adaptive biomarker basket (ABB) design based on a potential predictive biomarker measured on a continuous scale. At Stage 1, the design incorporates a biomarker cutoff estimation procedure via a hierarchical Bayesian model with biomarker as a covariate (HBMbc). At Stage 2, the design enrolls only BM+ subjects, defined as those with the biomarker values exceeding the biomarker cutoff within each cancer type, and subsequently assesses the early efficacy and/or futility stopping through the pre-defined interim analyses. At the end of the trial, the response rate of all BM+ subjects for each cancer type can guide drug development, while the data from all subjects can be used to further model the relationship between the biomarker value and the clinical outcome for potential future research. The extensive simulation studies show that the ABB design could produce a good estimate of the biomarker cutoff to select BM+ subjects with high accuracy and could outperform the existing phase II basket biomarker cutoff design under various scenarios.     

Determining the minimum duration of treatment in tuberculosis: An order restricted non-inferiority trial design

Tuberculosis (TB) is one of the biggest killers among infectious diseases worldwide. Together with the identification of drugs that can provide benefits to patients, the challenge in TB is also the optimisation of the duration of these treatments. While conventional duration of treatment in TB is 6 months, there is evidence that shorter durations might be as effective but could be associated with fewer side effects and may be associated with better adherence. Based on a recent proposal of an adaptive order-restricted superiority design that employs the ordering assumptions within various duration of the same drug, we propose a non-inferiority (typically used in TB trials) adaptive design that effectively uses the order assumption. Together with the general construction of the hypothesis testing and expression for type I and type II errors, we focus on how the novel design was proposed for a TB trial concept. We consider a number of practical aspects such as choice of the design parameters, randomisation ratios, and timings of the interim analyses, and how these were discussed with the clinical team.     

Phase I trial design for drug combinations with Bayesian model averaging

Various statistical models have been proposed for two‐dimensional dose finding in drug‐combination trials. However, it is often a dilemma to decide which model to use when conducting a particular drug‐combination trial. We make a comprehensive comparison of four dose‐finding methods, and for fairness, we apply the same dose‐finding algorithm under the four model structures. Through extensive simulation studies, we compare the operating characteristics of these methods in various practical scenarios. The results show that different models may lead to different design properties and that no single model performs uniformly better in all scenarios. As a result, we propose using Bayesian model averaging to overcome the arbitrariness of the model specification and enhance the robustness of the design. We assign a discrete probability mass to each model as the prior model probability and then estimate the toxicity probabilities of combined doses in the Bayesian model averaging framework. During the trial, we adaptively allocated each new cohort of patients to the most appropriate dose combination by comparing the posterior estimates of the toxicity probabilities with the prespecified toxicity target. The simulation results demonstrate that the Bayesian model averaging approach is robust under various scenarios. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

A novel equivalence probability weighted power prior for using historical control data in an adaptive clinical trial design: A comparison to standard methods

A standard two-arm randomised controlled trial usually compares an intervention to a control treatment with equal numbers of patients randomised to each treatment arm and only data from within the current trial are used to assess the treatment effect. Historical data are used when designing new trials and have recently been considered for use in the analysis when the required number of patients under a standard trial design cannot be achieved. Incorporating historical control data could lead to more efficient trials, reducing the number of controls required in the current study when the historical and current control data agree. However, when the data are inconsistent, there is potential for biased treatment effect estimates, inflated type I error and reduced power. We introduce two novel approaches for binary data which discount historical data based on the agreement with the current trial controls, an equivalence approach and an approach based on tail area probabilities. An adaptive design is used where the allocation ratio is adapted at the interim analysis, randomising fewer patients to control when there is agreement. The historical data are down-weighted in the analysis using the power prior approach with a fixed power. We compare operating characteristics of the proposed design to historical data methods in the literature: the modified power prior; commensurate prior; and robust mixture prior. The equivalence probability weight approach is intuitive and the operating characteristics can be calculated exactly. Furthermore, the equivalence bounds can be chosen to control the maximum possible inflation in type I error.     

Assessing and communicating heterogeneity of treatment effects for patient subpopulations: Panel discussion on considerations in design and analysis

Clinical trials are primarily conducted to understand the average effects treatments have on patients. However, patients are heterogeneous in the severity of the condition and in ways that affect what treatment effect they can expect. It is therefore important to understand and characterize how treatment effects vary. The design and analysis of clinical studies play critical roles in evaluating and characterizing heterogeneous treatment effects. This panel discussed considerations in design and analysis under the recognition that there are heterogeneous treatment effects across subgroups of patients. Panel members discussed many questions including: What is a good estimate of the treatment effect in me, a 65-year-old, bald, Caucasian-American, male patient? What magnitude of heterogeneity of treatment effects (HTE) is sufficiently large to merit attention? What role can prior evidence about HTE play in confirmatory trial design and analysis? Is there anything described in the 21st Century Cures Act that would benefit from greater attention to HTE? An example of a Bayesian approach addressing multiplicity when testing for treatment effects in subgroups will be provided. We can do more or better at understanding heterogeneous treatment effects and providing the best information on heterogeneous treatment effects.     

Efficient sample size allocation with cost constraints for heterogeneous-variance group comparison

When conducting research with controlled experiments, sample size planning is one of the important decisions that researchers have to make. However, current methods do not adequately address this issue with regard to variance heterogeneity with some cost constraints for comparing several treatment means. This paper proposes a sample size allocation ratio in the fixed-effect heterogeneous analysis of variance when group variances are unequal and in cases where the sampling and/or variable cost has some constraints. The efficient sample size allocation is determined for the purpose of minimizing total cost with a designated power or maximizing the power with a given total cost. Finally, the proposed method is verified by using the index of relative efficiency and the corresponding total cost and the total sample size needed. We also apply our method in a pain management trial to decide an efficient sample size. Simulation studies also show that the proposed sample size formulas are efficient in terms of statistical power. SAS and R codes are provided in the appendix for easy application.     

Application of an adaptive design to a randomized phase II selection trial in gastric cancer: a report of the study design

Randomized phase II selection trials seek to provide unbiased comparisons for the selection of the most promising treatment arm for evaluation in a future phase III trial. In this paper, we present an application of an adaptive design to a randomized phase II selection trial comparing three experimental treatments with a control arm in patients with advanced gastric cancer. The trial design continuously monitors multiple patient outcomes to protect future patients from treatments with unacceptably high toxicity and/or unacceptably low efficacy. We use a Bayesian approach to monitor the trial and carry out simulations to investigate operating characteristics of the trial design. The simulation study also evaluates the sensitivity of the design to the prior distribution by considering two alternative priors.