Three-stage designs for monitoring clinical trials

Optimal three-stage designs with equal sample sizes at each stage are presented and compared to fixed sample designs, fully sequential designs, designs restricted to use the fixed sample critical value at the final stage, and to modifications of other group sequential designs previously proposed in the literature. Typically, the greatest savings realized with interim analyses are obtained by the first interim look. More than 50% of the savings possible with a fully sequential design can be realized with a simple two-stage design. Three-stage designs can realize as much as 75% of the possible savings. Without much loss in efficiency, the designs can be modified so that the critical value at the final stage equals the usual fixed sample value while maintaining the overall level of significance, alleviating some potential confusion should a final stage be necessary. Some common group sequential designs, modified to allow early acceptance of the null hypothesis, are shown to be nearly optimal in some settings while performing poorly in others. An example is given to illustrate the use of several three-stage plans in the design of clinical trials.     

Designing clinical trials with uncertain estimates of variability

An estimated sample size is a function of three components: the required power, the predetermined Type I error rate, and the specified effect size. For Normal data the standardized effect size is taken as the difference between two means divided by an estimate of the population standard deviation. However, in early phase trials one may not have a good estimate of the population variance as it is often based on the results of a few relatively small trials. The imprecision of this estimate should be taken into account in sample size calculations. When estimating a trial sample size this paper recommends that one should investigate the sensitivity of the trial to the assumptions made about the variance and consider being adaptive in one's trial design. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.     

Type I error rate control in adaptive designs for confirmatory clinical trials with treatment selection at interim

Interest in confirmatory adaptive combined phase II/III studies with treatment selection has increased in the past few years. These studies start comparing several treatments with a control. One (or more) treatment(s) is then selected after the first stage based on the available information at an interim analysis, including interim data from the ongoing trial, external information and expert knowledge. Recruitment continues, but now only for the selected treatment(s) and the control, possibly in combination with a sample size reassessment. The final analysis of the selected treatment(s) includes the patients from both stages and is performed such that the overall Type I error rate is strictly controlled, thus providing confirmatory evidence of efficacy at the final analysis. In this paper we describe two approaches to control the Type I error rate in adaptive designs with sample size reassessment and/or treatment selection. The first method adjusts the critical value using a simulation-based approach, which incorporates the number of patients at an interim analysis, the true response rates, the treatment selection rule, etc. We discuss the underlying assumptions of simulation-based procedures and give several examples where the Type I error rate is not controlled if some of the assumptions are violated. The second method is an adaptive Bonferroni-Holm test procedure based on conditional error rates of the individual treatment-control comparisons. We show that this procedure controls the Type I error rate, even if a deviation from a pre-planned adaptation rule or the time point of such a decision is necessary.     

Methods for one-sided testing of the difference between proportions and sample size considerations related to non-inferiority clinical trials

Assessment of non-inferiority is often performed using a one-sided statistical test through an analogous one-sided confidence limit. When the focus of attention is the difference in success rates between test and active control proportions, the lower confidence limit is computed, and many methods exist in the literature to address this objective. This paper considers methods which have been shown to be popular in the literature and have surfaced in this research as having good performance with respect to controlling type I error at the specified level. Performance of these methods is assessed with respect to power and type I error through simulations. Sample size considerations are also included to aid in the planning stages of non-inferiority trials focusing on the difference in proportions. Results suggest that the appropriate method to use depends on the sample size allocation of subjects in the test and active control groups.     

An approach to use of an adaptive procedure to clinical trials for molecularly heterogenous subject selection at interim

Abstract

For clinical trials, molecular heterogeneity has played a more important role recently. Many novel clinical trial designs prospectively incorporate molecular information to evaluation of treatment effects. In this paper, an adaptive procedure incorporating a non-pre-specified genomic biomarker is employed in the interim of a conventional trial. A non-pre-specified binary genomic biomarker, which is predictive of treatment effect, is used to classify study patients into two mutually exclusive subgroups at the interim review. According to the observations at the interim stage, adaptations such as adjusting sample size or shifting eligibility of study patients are then made in case of different scenarios.     

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.     

An Asymptotic Analysis of the Logrank Test

Asymptotic expansions for the null distribution of the logrank statistic and its distribution under local proportional hazards alternatives are developed in the case of iid observations. The results, which are derived from the work of Gu (1992) and Taniguchi (1992), are easy to interpret, and provide some theoretical justification for many behavioral characteristics of the logrank test that have been previously observed in simulation studies. We focus primarily upon (i) the inadequacy of the usual normal approximation under treatment group imbalance; and, (ii) the effects of treatment group imbalance on power and sample size calculations. A simple transformation of the logrank statistic is also derived based on results in Konishi (1991) and is found to substantially improve the standard normal approximation to its distribution under the null hypothesis of no survival difference when there is treatment group imbalance. This revised version was published online in July 2006 with corrections to the Cover Date.