Comparisons of allocating sample size rationally into individual regions under heterogeneous effect size in a multiregional trial by a fixed effect model and a random effect model

ABSTRACT

Recently, sponsors and regulatory authorities pay much attention on the multiregional trial because it can shorten the drug lag or the time lag for approval, simultaneous drug development, submission, and approval in the world. However, many studies have shown that genetic determinants may mediate variability among persons in response to a drug. Thus, some therapeutics benefit part of treated patients. It means that the assumption of homogeneous effect size is not suitable for multiregional trials. In this paper, we conduct the sample size determination of a multiregional clinical trial calculated by fixed effect and random effect under the assumption of heterogeneous effect size. The performances of fixed effect and random effect on allocating sample size on a specific region are compared by statistical criteria for consistency between the region of interest and overall results.     

Sample Size Determination and Rational Partition for A Multi- Regional Trial for Survival (Time-To-Event) Data with Unrecognized Heterogeneity that Interacts with Treatment

To shorten the drug lag or the time lag for approval, simultaneous drug development, submission, and approval in the world may be desirable. Recently, multi-regional trials have attracted much attention from sponsors as well as regulatory authorities. Current methods for sample determination are based on the assumption that true treatment effect is uniform across regions. However, unrecognized heterogeneity among patients as ethnic or genetic factor will effect patients’ survival. In this article, we address the issue that the treatment effects with unrecognized heterogeneity that interacts with treatment are among regions to design a multi-regional trial. The log-rank test is employed to deal with the heterogeneous effect size among regions. The test statistic for the overall treatment effect is used to determine the total sample size for a multi-regional trial and the consistent trend is used to rationalize partition for sample size to each region.     

A Design For Survival Studies: A Multi-regional Trial With Unrecognized Heterogeneity

A bridging study defined by ICH E5 is usually conducted in the new region after the test product has been approved for commercial marketing in the original region due to its proven efficacy and safety. However, extensive duplication of clinical evaluation in the new region not only requires valuable development resources but also delay availability of the test product to the needed patients in the new regions. To shorten the drug lag or the time lag for approval, simultaneous drug development, submission, and approval in the world may be desirable. Recently, multi-regional trials have attracted much attention from sponsors as well as regulatory authorities. Current methods for sample determination are based on the assumption that true treatment effect is uniform across regions. However, unrecognized heterogeneity among patients as ethnic or genetic factor will effect patients’ survival. Using the simple log-rank test for analysis of treatment effect on survival in studies under heterogeneity may be severely underpowered. In this article, we address the issue that the treatment effects are different among regions to design a multi-regional trial. The optimal log-rank test is employed to deal with the heterogeneous effect size among regions. The test statistic for the overall treatment effect is used to determine the total sample size for a multi-regional trial and the consistent trend and the proposed criteria are used to rationalize partition sample size to each region.     

An Approach to Determine Sample Size and to Allocate Sample Size for a Specific Region in a Multiregional Trial for Survival (Time-to-Event) Data under Accelerated Failure Time Model

For the time-to-event outcome, current methods for sample determination are based on the proportional hazard model. However, if the proportionality assumption fails to capture the relationship between the hazard time and covariates, the proportional hazard model is not suitable to analyze survival data. The accelerated failure time (AFT) model is an alternative method to deal with survival data. In this paper, we address the issue that the relationship between the hazard time and the treatment effect is satisfied with the AFT model to design a multiregional trial. The log-rank test is employed to deal with the heterogeneous effect size among regions. The test statistic for the overall treatment effect is used to determine the total sample size for a multiregional trial, and the proposed criteria are used to rationalize partition sample size to each region.     

Sample size allocation in multiregional equivalence studies

With the increasing globalization of drug development, the multiregional clinical trial (MRCT) has gained extensive use. The data from MRCTs could be accepted by regulatory authorities across regions and countries as the primary sources of evidence to support global marketing drug approval simultaneously. The MRCT can speed up patient enrollment and drug approval, and it makes the effective therapies available to patients all over the world simultaneously. However, there are many challenges both operationally and scientifically in conducting a drug development globally. One of many important questions to answer for the design of a multiregional study is how to partition sample size into each individual region. In this paper, two systematic approaches are proposed for the sample size allocation in a multiregional equivalence trial. A numerical evaluation and a biosimilar trial are used to illustrate the characteristics of the proposed approaches.     

A Note on Sample Size Determination for Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) Approach to Clinical Data Analysis

ABSTRACT

Because of its flexibility and usefulness, Akaike Information Criterion (AIC) has been widely used for clinical data analysis. In general, however, AIC is used without paying much attention to sample size. If sample sizes are not large enough, it is possible that the AIC approach does not lead us to the conclusions which we seek. This article focuses on the sample size determination for AIC approach to clinical data analysis. We consider a situation in which outcome variables are dichotomous and propose a method for sample size determination under this situation. The basic idea is also applicable to the situations in which outcome variables have more than two categories or outcome variables are continuous. We present simulation studies and an application to an actual clinical trial.     

Potential impact of COVID-19 on ongoing clinical trials: a simulation study with the neurological Yale Global Tic Severity Scale based on the CANNA-TICS study

The COVID-19 pandemic has manifold impacts on clinical trials. In response, drug regulatory agencies and public health bodies have issued guidance on how to assess potential impacts on ongoing clinical trials and stress the importance of a risk-assessment as a pre-requisite for modifications to the clinical trial conduct. This article presents a simulation study to assess the impact on the power of an ongoing clinical trial without the need to unblind trial data and compromise trial integrity. In the context of the CANNA-TICS trial, investigating the effect of nabiximols on reducing the total tic score of the Yale Global Tic Severity Scale (YGTSS-TTS) in patients with chronic tic disorders and Tourette syndrome, the impact of the two COVID-19 related intercurrent events handled by a treatment policy strategy is investigated using a multiplicative and additive data generating model. The empirical power is examined for the analysis of the YGTSS-TTS as a continuous and dichotomized endpoint using analysis techniques adjusted and unadjusted for the occurrence of the intercurrent event. In the investigated scenarios, the simulation studies showed that substantial power losses are possible, potentially making sample size increases necessary to retain sufficient power. However, we were also able to identify scenarios with only limited loss of power. By adjusting for the occurrence of the intercurrent event, the power loss could be diminished to different degrees in most scenarios. In summary, the presented risk assessment approach may support decisions on trial modifications like sample size increases, while maintaining trial integrity.     

Sequential design approaches for bioequivalence studies with crossover designs

The planning of bioequivalence (BE) studies, as for any clinical trial, requires a priori specification of an effect size for the determination of power and an assumption about the variance. The specified effect size may be overly optimistic, leading to an underpowered study. The assumed variance can be either too small or too large, leading, respectively, to studies that are underpowered or overly large. There has been much work in the clinical trials field on various types of sequential designs that include sample size reestimation after the trial is started, but these have seen only little use in BE studies. The purpose of this work was to validate at least one such method for crossover design BE studies. Specifically, we considered sample size reestimation for a two-stage trial based on the variance estimated from the first stage. We identified two methods based on Pocock's method for group sequential trials that met our requirement for at most negligible increase in type I error rate.     

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.     

Approaches to sample size calculation for clinical trials in rare diseases

We discuss 3 alternative approaches to sample size calculation: traditional sample size calculation based on power to show a statistically significant effect, sample size calculation based on assurance, and sample size based on a decision‐theoretic approach. These approaches are compared head‐to‐head for clinical trial situations in rare diseases. Specifically, we consider 3 case studies of rare diseases (Lyell disease, adult‐onset Still disease, and cystic fibrosis) with the aim to plan the sample size for an upcoming clinical trial. We outline in detail the reasonable choice of parameters for these approaches for each of the 3 case studies and calculate sample sizes. We stress that the influence of the input parameters needs to be investigated in all approaches and recommend investigating different sample size approaches before deciding finally on the trial size. Highly influencing for the sample size are choice of treatment effect parameter in all approaches and the parameter for the additional cost of the new treatment in the decision‐theoretic approach. These should therefore be discussed extensively.     

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.     

Applications of Bayesian analysis to proof‐of‐concept trial planning and decision making

Decision making is a critical component of a new drug development process. Based on results from an early clinical trial such as a proof of concept trial, the sponsor can decide whether to continue, stop, or defer the development of the drug. To simplify and harmonize the decision‐making process, decision criteria have been proposed in the literature. One of them is to exam the location of a confidence bar relative to the target value and lower reference value of the treatment effect. In this research, we modify an existing approach by moving some of the “stop” decision to “consider” decision so that the chance of directly terminating the development of a potentially valuable drug can be reduced. As Bayesian analysis has certain flexibilities and can borrow historical information through an inferential prior, we apply the Bayesian analysis to the trial planning and decision making. Via a design prior, we can also calculate the probabilities of various decision outcomes in relationship with the sample size and the other parameters to help the study design. An example and a series of computations are used to illustrate the applications, assess the operating characteristics, and compare the performances of different approaches.     

The role of the minimum clinically important difference and its impact on designing a trial

The minimum clinically important difference (MCID) between treatments is recognized as a key concept in the design and interpretation of results from a clinical trial. Yet even assuming such a difference can be derived, it is not necessarily clear how it should be used. In this paper, we consider three possible roles for the MCID. They are: (1) using the MCID to determine the required sample size so that the trial has a pre-specified statistical power to conclude a significant treatment effect when the treatment effect is equal to the MCID; (2) requiring with high probability, the observed treatment effect in a trial, in addition to being statistically significant, to be at least as large as the MCID; (3) demonstrating via hypothesis testing that the effect of the new treatment is at least as large as the MCID. We will examine the implications of the three different possible roles of the MCID on sample size, expectations of a new treatment, and the chance for a successful trial. We also give our opinion on how the MCID should generally be used in the design and interpretation of results from a clinical trial.     

Establishing consistency across all regions in a multi-regional clinical trial

In recent years, global collaboration has become a conventional strategy for new drug development. To accelerate the development process and shorten approval time, the design of multi-regional clinical trials (MRCTs) incorporates subjects from many countries/regions around the world under the same protocol. After showing the overall efficacy of a drug in a global trial, one can also simultaneously evaluate the possibility of applying the overall trial results to all regions and subsequently support drug registration in each region. However, most of the recent approaches developed for the design and evaluation of MRCTs focus on establishing criteria to examine whether the overall results from the MRCT can be applied to a specific region. In this paper, we use the consistency criterion of Method 1 from the Japanese Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare (MHLW) guidance to assess whether the overall results from the MRCT can be applied to all regions. Sample size determination for the MRCT is also provided to take all the consistency criteria from each individual region into account. Numerical examples are given to illustrate applications of the proposed approach.     

A Statistical Issue About a Phase III Multi-regional Trial for the Survival Data under Accelerated Failure Time Model with Unrecognized Heterogeneity

For the time-to-event outcome, current methods for sample size determination are based on the proportional hazard model. However, if the proportionality assumption fails to capture the relationship between the hazard time and covariates, the proportional hazard model is not suitable to analyze survival data. The accelerated failure time model is an alternative method to deal with survival data. In this article, we address the issue that the relationship between the hazard time and the treatment effect is satisfied with the accelerated failure time model to design a multi-regional trial for a phase III clinical trial. The log-rank test is employed to deal with the heterogeneous effect size among regions. The test statistic for the overall treatment effect is used to determine the total sample size for a multi-regional trial and the consistent trend is used to rationalize partition sample size to each region.     

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.     

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.     

Adapting the sample size planning of a phase III trial based on phase II data

Traditionally, in clinical development plan, phase II trials are relatively small and can be expected to result in a large degree of uncertainty in the estimates based on which Phase III trials are planned. Phase II trials are also to explore appropriate primary efficacy endpoint(s) or patient populations. When the biology of the disease and pathogenesis of disease progression are well understood, the phase II and phase III studies may be performed in the same patient population with the same primary endpoint, e.g. efficacy measured by HbA1c in non-insulin dependent diabetes mellitus trials with treatment duration of at least three months. In the disease areas that molecular pathways are not well established or the clinical outcome endpoint may not be observed in a short-term study, e.g. mortality in cancer or AIDS trials, the treatment effect may be postulated through use of intermediate surrogate endpoint in phase II trials. However, in many cases, we generally explore the appropriate clinical endpoint in the phase II trials. An important question is how much of the effect observed in the surrogate endpoint in the phase II study can be translated into the clinical effect in the phase III trial. Another question is how much of the uncertainty remains in phase III trials. In this work, we study the utility of adaptation by design (not by statistical test) in the sense of adapting the phase II information for planning the phase III trials. That is, we investigate the impact of using various phase II effect size estimates on the sample size planning for phase III trials. In general, if the point estimate of the phase II trial is used for planning, it is advisable to size the phase III trial by choosing a smaller alpha level or a higher power level. The adaptation via using the lower limit of the one standard deviation confidence interval from the phase II trial appears to be a reasonable choice since it balances well between the empirical power of the launched trials and the proportion of trials not launched if a threshold lower than the true effect size of phase III trial can be chosen for determining whether the phase III trial is to be launched.     

Stopping for efficacy in single-arm phase II clinical trials

Phase II clinical trials investigate whether a new drug or treatment has sufficient evidence of effectiveness against the disease under study. Two-stage designs are popular for phase II since they can stop in the first stage if the drug is ineffective. Investigators often face difficulties in determining the target response rates, and adaptive designs can help to set the target response rate tested in the second stage based on the number of responses observed in the first stage. Popular adaptive designs consider two alternate response rates, and they generally minimise the expected sample size at the maximum uninterested response rate. Moreover, these designs consider only futility as the reason for early stopping and have high expected sample sizes if the provided drug is effective. Motivated by this problem, we propose an adaptive design that enables us to terminate the single-arm trial at the first stage for efficacy and conclude which alternate response rate to choose. Comparing the proposed design with a popular adaptive design from literature reveals that the expected sample size decreases notably if any of the two target response rates are correct. In contrast, the expected sample size remains almost the same under the null hypothesis.     

Blinded assessment of treatment effects for survival endpoint in an ongoing trial

Many assumptions, including assumptions regarding treatment effects, are made at the design stage of a clinical trial for power and sample size calculations. It is desirable to check these assumptions during the trial by using blinded data. Methods for sample size re‐estimation based on blinded data analyses have been proposed for normal and binary endpoints. However, there is a debate that no reliable estimate of the treatment effect can be obtained in a typical clinical trial situation. In this paper, we consider the case of a survival endpoint and investigate the feasibility of estimating the treatment effect in an ongoing trial without unblinding. We incorporate information of a surrogate endpoint and investigate three estimation procedures, including a classification method and two expectation–maximization (EM) algorithms. Simulations and a clinical trial example are used to assess the performance of the procedures. Our studies show that the expectation–maximization algorithms highly depend on the initial estimates of the model parameters. Despite utilization of a surrogate endpoint, all three methods have large variations in the treatment effect estimates and hence fail to provide a precise conclusion about the treatment effect. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.