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.     

Combining an Internal Pilot with an Interim Analysis for Single Degree of Freedom Tests

An internal pilot with interim analysis (IPIA) design combines interim power analysis (an internal pilot) with interim data analysis (two stage group sequential). We provide IPIA methods for single df hypotheses within the Gaussian general linear model, including one and two group t tests. The design allows early stopping for efficacy and futility while also re-estimating sample size based on an interim variance estimate. Study planning in small samples requires the exact and computable forms reported here. The formulation gives fast and accurate calculations of power, type I error rate, and expected sample size.     

Combining an Internal Pilot with an Interim Analysis for Single Degree of Freedom Tests

An internal pilot with interim analysis (IPIA) design combines interim power analysis (an internal pilot) with interim data analysis (two-stage group sequential). We provide IPIA methods for single df hypotheses within the Gaussian general linear model, including one and two group t tests. The design allows early stopping for efficacy and futility while also re-estimating sample size based on an interim variance estimate. Study planning in small samples requires the exact and computable forms reported here. The formulation gives fast and accurate calculations of power, Type I error rate, and expected sample size.     

Comparison of Operating Characteristics of Commonly Used Sample Size Re-Estimation Procedures in a Two-Stage Design

In group sequential clinical trials, there are several sample size re-estimation methods proposed in the literature that allow for change of sample size at the interim analysis. Most of these methods are based on either the conditional error function or the interim effect size. Our simulation studies compared the operating characteristics of three commonly used sample size re-estimation methods, Chen et al. (2004), Cui et al. (1999), and Muller and Schafer (2001). Gao et al. (2008) extended the CDL method and provided an analytical expression of lower and upper threshold of conditional power where the type I error is preserved. Recently, Mehta and Pocock (2010) extensively discussed that the real benefit of the adaptive approach is to invest the sample size resources in stages and increasing the sample size only if the interim results are in the so called “promising zone” which they define in their article. We incorporated this concept in our simulations while comparing the three methods. To test the robustness of these methods, we explored the impact of incorrect variance assumption on the operating characteristics. We found that the operating characteristics of the three methods are very comparable. In addition, the concept of promising zone, as suggested by MP, gives the desired power and smaller average sample size, and thus increases the efficiency of the trial design.     

The perils with the misuse of predictive power

In early drug development, especially when studying new mechanisms of action or in new disease areas, little is known about the targeted or anticipated treatment effect or variability estimates. Adaptive designs that allow for early stopping but also use interim data to adapt the sample size have been proposed as a practical way of dealing with these uncertainties. Predictive power and conditional power are two commonly mentioned techniques that allow predictions of what will happen at the end of the trial based on the interim data. Decisions about stopping or continuing the trial can then be based on these predictions. However, unless the user of these statistics has a deep understanding of their characteristics important pitfalls may be encountered, especially with the use of predictive power. The aim of this paper is to highlight these potential pitfalls. It is critical that statisticians understand the fundamental differences between predictive power and conditional power as they can have dramatic effects on decision making at the interim stage, especially if used to re-evaluate the sample size. The use of predictive power can lead to much larger sample sizes than either conditional power or standard sample size calculations. One crucial difference is that predictive power takes account of all uncertainty, parts of which are ignored by standard sample size calculations and conditional power. By comparing the characteristics of each of these statistics we highlight important characteristics of predictive power that experimenters need to be aware of when using this approach.     

Sample Size Re-Estimation Based on Two-Stage Analysis of Variance: Interim Analysis of Clinical Trials

Planning and conducting interim analysis are important steps for long-term clinical trials. In this article, the concept of conditional power is combined with the classic analysis of variance (ANOVA) for a study of two-stage sample size re-estimation based on interim analysis. The overall Type I and Type II errors would be inflated by interim analysis. We compared the effects on re-estimating sample sizes with and without the adjustment of Type I and Type II error rates due to interim analysis.     

Increasing the sample size at interim for a two‐sample experiment without Type I error inflation

For the case of a one‐sample experiment with known variance σ²=1, it has been shown that at interim analysis the sample size (SS) may be increased by any arbitrary amount provided: (1) The conditional power (CP) at interim is ?50% and (2) there can be no decision to decrease the SS (stop the trial early). In this paper we verify this result for the case of a two‐sample experiment with proportional SS in the treatment groups and an arbitrary common variance. Numerous authors have presented the formula for the CP at interim for a two‐sample test with equal SS in the treatment groups and an arbitrary common variance, for both the one‐ and two‐sided hypothesis tests. In this paper we derive the corresponding formula for the case of unequal, but proportional SS in the treatment groups for both one‐sided superiority and two‐sided hypothesis tests. Finally, we present an SAS macro for doing this calculation and provide a worked out hypothetical example. In discussion we note that this type of trial design trades the ability to stop early (for lack of efficacy) for the elimination of the Type I error penalty. The loss of early stopping requires that such a design employs a data monitoring committee, blinding of the sponsor to the interim calculations, and pre‐planning of how much and under what conditions to increase the SS and that this all be formally written into an interim analysis plan before the start of the study. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Design of clinical trials using an adaptive test statistic

Since the treatment effect of an experimental drug is generally not known at the onset of a clinical trial, it may be wise to allow for an adjustment in the sample size after an interim analysis of the unblinded data. Using a particular adaptive test statistic, a procedure is demonstrated for finding the optimal design. Both the timing of the interim analysis and the way the sample size is adjusted can influence the power of the resulting procedure. It is possible to have smaller average sample size using the adaptive test statistic, even if the initial estimate of the treatment effect is wrong, compared to the sample size needed using a standard test statistic without an interim look and assuming a correct initial estimate of the effect. Copyright © 2002 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Sample size re-estimation for survival data in clinical trials with an adaptive design

In clinical trials with survival data, investigators may wish to re-estimate the sample size based on the observed effect size while the trial is ongoing. Besides the inflation of the type-I error rate due to sample size re-estimation, the method for calculating the sample size in an interim analysis should be carefully considered because the data in each stage are mutually dependent in trials with survival data. Although the interim hazard estimate is commonly used to re-estimate the sample size, the estimate can sometimes be considerably higher or lower than the hypothesized hazard by chance. We propose an interim hazard ratio estimate that can be used to re-estimate the sample size under those circumstances. The proposed method was demonstrated through a simulation study and an actual clinical trial as an example. The effect of the shape parameter for the Weibull survival distribution on the sample size re-estimation is presented.     

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.     

A Bayesian sequential design with binary outcome

Several researchers have proposed solutions to control type I error rate in sequential designs. The use of Bayesian sequential design becomes more common; however, these designs are subject to inflation of the type I error rate. We propose a Bayesian sequential design for binary outcome using an alpha‐spending function to control the overall type I error rate. Algorithms are presented for calculating critical values and power for the proposed designs. We also propose a new stopping rule for futility. Sensitivity analysis is implemented for assessing the effects of varying the parameters of the prior distribution and maximum total sample size on critical values. Alpha‐spending functions are compared using power and actual sample size through simulations. Further simulations show that, when total sample size is fixed, the proposed design has greater power than the traditional Bayesian sequential design, which sets equal stopping bounds at all interim analyses. We also find that the proposed design with the new stopping for futility rule results in greater power and can stop earlier with a smaller actual sample size, compared with the traditional stopping rule for futility when all other conditions are held constant. Finally, we apply the proposed method to a real data set and compare the results with traditional designs.     

Improving interim decisions in randomized trials by exploiting information on short‐term endpoints and prognostic baseline covariates

Conditional power calculations are frequently used to guide the decision whether or not to stop a trial for futility or to modify planned sample size. These ignore the information in short‐term endpoints and baseline covariates, and thereby do not make fully efficient use of the information in the data. We therefore propose an interim decision procedure based on the conditional power approach which exploits the information contained in baseline covariates and short‐term endpoints. We will realize this by considering the estimation of the treatment effect at the interim analysis as a missing data problem. This problem is addressed by employing specific prediction models for the long‐term endpoint which enable the incorporation of baseline covariates and multiple short‐term endpoints. We show that the proposed procedure leads to an efficiency gain and a reduced sample size, without compromising the Type I error rate of the procedure, even when the adopted prediction models are misspecified. In particular, implementing our proposal in the conditional power approach enables earlier decisions relative to standard approaches, whilst controlling the probability of an incorrect decision. This time gain results in a lower expected number of recruited patients in case of stopping for futility, such that fewer patients receive the futile regimen. We explain how these methods can be used in adaptive designs with unblinded sample size re‐assessment based on the inverse normal P‐value combination method to control Type I error. We support the proposal by Monte Carlo simulations based on data from a real clinical trial.     

Type I error and power in trials with one interim futility analysis

Futility analysis reduces the opportunity to commit Type I error. For a superiority study testing a two‐sided hypothesis, an interim futility analysis can substantially reduce the overall Type I error while keeping the overall power relatively intact. In this paper, we quantify the extent of the reduction for both one‐sided and two‐sided futility analysis. We argue that, because of the reduction, we should be allowed to set the significance level for the final analysis at a level higher than the allowable Type I error rate for the study. We propose a method to find the significance level for the final analysis. We illustrate the proposed methodology and show that a design employing a futility analysis can reduce the sample size, and therefore reduce the exposure of patients to unnecessary risk and lower the cost of a clinical trial. Copyright © 2004 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

An efficient sequential design of clinical trials

We propose an efficient group sequential monitoring rule for clinical trials. At each interim analysis both efficacy and futility are evaluated through a specified loss structure together with the predicted power. The proposed design is robust to a wide range of priors, and achieves the specified power with a saving of sample size compared to existing adaptive designs. A method is also proposed to obtain a reduced-bias estimator of treatment difference for the proposed design. The new approaches hold great potential for efficiently selecting a more effective treatment in comparative trials. Operating characteristics are evaluated and compared with other group sequential designs in empirical studies. An example is provided to illustrate the application of the method.     

Designing and analyzing clinical trials for personalized medicine via Bayesian models

Patients with different characteristics (e.g., biomarkers, risk factors) may have different responses to the same medicine. Personalized medicine clinical studies that are designed to identify patient subgroup treatment efficacies can benefit patients and save medical resources. However, subgroup treatment effect identification complicates the study design in consideration of desired operating characteristics. We investigate three Bayesian adaptive models for subgroup treatment effect identification: pairwise independent, hierarchical, and cluster hierarchical achieved via Dirichlet Process (DP). The impact of interim analysis and longitudinal data modeling on the personalized medicine study design is also explored. Interim analysis is considered since they can accelerate personalized medicine studies in cases where early stopping rules for success or futility are met. We apply integrated two-component prediction method (ITP) for longitudinal data simulation, and simple linear regression for longitudinal data imputation to optimize the study design. The designs' performance in terms of power for the subgroup treatment effects and overall treatment effect, sample size, and study duration are investigated via simulation. We found the hierarchical model is an optimal approach to identifying subgroup treatment effects, and the cluster hierarchical model is an excellent alternative approach in cases where sufficient information is not available for specifying the priors. The interim analysis introduction to the study design lead to the trade-off between power and expected sample size via the adjustment of the early stopping criteria. The introduction of the longitudinal modeling slightly improves the power. These findings can be applied to future personalized medicine studies with discrete or time-to-event endpoints.     

Testing multiple primary endpoints in clinical trials with sample size adaptation

In this paper, we propose a design that uses a short‐term endpoint for accelerated approval at interim analysis and a long‐term endpoint for full approval at final analysis with sample size adaptation based on the long‐term endpoint. Two sample size adaptation rules are compared: an adaptation rule to maintain the conditional power at a prespecified level and a step function type adaptation rule to better address the bias issue. Three testing procedures are proposed: alpha splitting between the two endpoints; alpha exhaustive between the endpoints; and alpha exhaustive with improved critical value based on correlation. Family‐wise error rate is proved to be strongly controlled for the two endpoints, sample size adaptation, and two analysis time points with the proposed designs. We show that using alpha exhaustive designs greatly improve the power when both endpoints are effective, and the power difference between the two adaptation rules is minimal. The proposed design can be extended to more general settings. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Improving sample size recalculation in adaptive clinical trials by resampling

Sample size calculations in clinical trials need to be based on profound parameter assumptions. Wrong parameter choices may lead to too small or too high sample sizes and can have severe ethical and economical consequences. Adaptive group sequential study designs are one solution to deal with planning uncertainties. Here, the sample size can be updated during an ongoing trial based on the observed interim effect. However, the observed interim effect is a random variable and thus does not necessarily correspond to the true effect. One way of dealing with the uncertainty related to this random variable is to include resampling elements in the recalculation strategy. In this paper, we focus on clinical trials with a normally distributed endpoint. We consider resampling of the observed interim test statistic and apply this principle to several established sample size recalculation approaches. The resulting recalculation rules are smoother than the original ones and thus the variability in sample size is lower. In particular, we found that some resampling approaches mimic a group sequential design. In general, incorporating resampling of the interim test statistic in existing sample size recalculation rules results in a substantial performance improvement with respect to a recently published conditional performance score.     

A multistage analysis strategy for a clinical trial to assess successively more stringent criteria for a primary endpoint with a low event rate

This paper describes how a multistage analysis strategy for a clinical trial can assess a sequence of hypotheses that pertain to successively more stringent criteria for excess risk exclusion or superiority for a primary endpoint with a low event rate. The criteria for assessment can correspond to excess risk of an adverse event or to a guideline for sufficient efficacy as in the case of vaccine trials. The proposed strategy is implemented through a set of interim analyses, and success for one or more of the less stringent criteria at an interim analysis can be the basis for a regulatory submission, whereas the clinical trial continues to accumulate information to address the more stringent, but not futile, criteria. Simulations show that the proposed strategy is satisfactory for control of type I error, sufficient power, and potential success at interim analyses when the true relative risk is more favorable than assumed for the planned sample size. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Duration of Accrual and Follow-up for Two-Stage Clinical Trials

Group sequential trialswith time to event end points can be complicated to design. Notonly are there unlimited choices for the number of events requiredat each stage, but for each of these choices, there are unlimitedcombinations of accrual and follow-up at each stage that providethe required events. Methods are presented for determining optimalcombinations of accrual and follow-up for two-stage clinicaltrials with time to event end points. Optimization is based onminimizing the expected total study length as a function of theexpected accrual duration or sample size while providing an appropriateoverall size and power. Optimal values of expected accrual durationand minimum expected total study length are given assuming anexponential proportional hazards model comparing two treatmentgroups. The expected total study length can be substantiallydecreased by including a follow-up period during which accrualis suspended. Conditions that warrant an interim follow-up periodare considered, and the gain in efficiency achieved by includingan interim follow-up period is quantified. The gain in efficiencyshould be weighed against the practical difficulties in implementingsuch designs. An example is given to illustrate the use of thesetechniques in designing a clinical trial to compare two chemotherapyregimens for lung cancer. Practical considerations of includingan interim follow-up period are discussed.     

Methods for clarifying criteria for study continuation at interim analysis

In monitoring clinical trials, the question of futility, or whether the data thus far suggest that the results at the final analysis are unlikely to be statistically successful, is regularly of interest over the course of a study. However, the opposite viewpoint of whether the study is sufficiently demonstrating proof of concept (POC) and should continue is a valuable consideration and ultimately should be addressed with high POC power so that a promising study is not prematurely terminated. Conditional power is often used to assess futility, and this article interconnects the ideas of assessing POC for the purpose of study continuation with conditional power, while highlighting the importance of the POC type I error and the POC type II error for study continuation or not at the interim analysis. Methods for analyzing subgroups motivate the interim analyses to maintain high POC power via an adjusted interim POC significance level criterion for study continuation or testing against an inferiority margin. Furthermore, two versions of conditional power based on the assumed effect size or the observed interim effect size are considered. Graphical displays illustrate the relationship of the POC type II error for premature study termination to the POC type I error for study continuation and the associated conditional power criteria.