Probability of success for phase III after exploratory biomarker analysis in phase II

The probability of success or average power describes the potential of a future trial by weighting the power with a probability distribution of the treatment effect. The treatment effect estimate from a previous trial can be used to define such a distribution. During the development of targeted therapies, it is common practice to look for predictive biomarkers. The consequence is that the trial population for phase III is often selected on the basis of the most extreme result from phase II biomarker subgroup analyses. In such a case, there is a tendency to overestimate the treatment effect. We investigate whether the overestimation of the treatment effect estimate from phase II is transformed into a positive bias for the probability of success for phase III. We simulate a phase II/III development program for targeted therapies. This simulation allows to investigate selection probabilities and allows to compare the estimated with the true probability of success. We consider the estimated probability of success with and without subgroup selection. Depending on the true treatment effects, there is a negative bias without selection because of the weighting by the phase II distribution. In comparison, selection increases the estimated probability of success. Thus, selection does not lead to a bias in probability of success if underestimation due to the phase II distribution and overestimation due to selection cancel each other out. We recommend to perform similar simulations in practice to get the necessary information about the risk and chances associated with such subgroup selection designs.     

From statistical power to statistical assurance: It's time for a paradigm change in clinical trial design

A well-designed clinical trial requires an appropriate sample size with adequate statistical power to address trial objectives. The statistical power is traditionally defined as the probability of rejecting the null hypothesis with a pre-specified true clinical treatment effect. This power is a conditional probability conditioned on the true but actually unknown effect. In practice, however, this true effect is never a fixed value. Thus, we discuss a newly proposed alternative to this conventional statistical power: statistical assurance, defined as the unconditional probability of rejecting the null hypothesis. This kind of assurance can then be obtained as an expected power where the expectation is based on the prior probability distribution of the unknown treatment effect, which leads to the Bayesian paradigm. In this article, we outline the transition from conventional statistical power to the newly developed assurance and discuss the computations of assurance using Monte Carlo simulation-based approach.     

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.     

The power of Efron's biased coin design

The power of a statistical test depends on the sample size. Moreover, in a randomized trial where two treatments are compared, the power also depends on the number of assignments of each treatment. We can treat the power as the conditional probability of correctly detecting a treatment effect given a particular treatment allocation status. This paper uses a simple z-test and a t-test to demonstrate and analyze the power function under the biased coin design proposed by Efron in 1971. We numerically show that Efron's biased coin design is uniformly more powerful than the perfect simple randomization.     

A COMPARISON OF THE IMPRECISE BETA CLASS, THE RANDOMIZED PLAY-THE-WINNER RULE AND THE TRIANGULAR TEST FOR CLINICAL TRIALS WITH BINARY RESPONSES

This paper develops clinical trial designs that compare two treatments with a binary outcome. The imprecise beta class (IBC), a class of beta probability distributions, is used in a robust Bayesian framework to calculate posterior upper and lower expectations for treatment success rates using accumulating data. The posterior expectation for the difference in success rates can be used to decide when there is sufficient evidence for randomized treatment allocation to cease. This design is formally related to the randomized play‐the‐winner (RPW) design, an adaptive allocation scheme where randomization probabilities are updated sequentially to favour the treatment with the higher observed success rate. A connection is also made between the IBC and the sequential clinical trial design based on the triangular test. Theoretical and simulation results are presented to show that the expected sample sizes on the truly inferior arm are lower using the IBC compared with either the triangular test or the RPW design, and that the IBC performs well against established criteria involving error rates and the expected number of treatment failures.     

Assurance in clinical trial design

Conventional clinical trial design involves considerations of power, and sample size is typically chosen to achieve a desired power conditional on a specified treatment effect. In practice, there is considerable uncertainty about what the true underlying treatment effect may be, and so power does not give a good indication of the probability that the trial will demonstrate a positive outcome. Assurance is the unconditional probability that the trial will yield a ‘positive outcome’. A positive outcome usually means a statistically significant result, according to some standard frequentist significance test. The assurance is then the prior expectation of the power, averaged over the prior distribution for the unknown true treatment effect. We argue that assurance is an important measure of the practical utility of a proposed trial, and indeed that it will often be appropriate to choose the size of the sample (and perhaps other aspects of the design) to achieve a desired assurance, rather than to achieve a desired power conditional on an assumed treatment effect. We extend the theory of assurance to two‐sided testing and equivalence trials. We also show that assurance is straightforward to compute in some simple problems of normal, binary and gamma distributed data, and that the method is not restricted to simple conjugate prior distributions for parameters. Several illustrations are given. Copyright © 2005 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Informing the selection of futility stopping thresholds: case study from a late-phase clinical trial

In an environment where (i) potential risks to subjects participating in clinical studies need to be managed carefully, (ii) trial costs are increasing, and (iii) there are limited research resources available, it is necessary to prioritize research projects and sometimes re-prioritize if early indications suggest that a trial has low probability of success. Futility designs allow this re-prioritization to take place. This paper reviews a number of possible futility methods available and presents a case study from a late-phase study of an HIV therapeutic, which utilized conditional power-based stopping thresholds. The two most challenging aspects of incorporating a futility interim analysis into a trial design are the selection of optimal stopping thresholds and the timing of the analysis, both of which require the balancing of various risks. The paper outlines a number of graphical aids that proved useful in explaining the statistical risks involved to the study team. Further, the paper outlines a decision analysis undertaken which combined expectations of drug performance with conditional power calculations in order to produce probabilities of different interim and final outcomes, and which ultimately led to the selection of the final stopping thresholds.     

Consultants' forum: should post hoc sample size calculations be done?

Pre‐study sample size calculations for clinical trial research protocols are now mandatory. When an investigator is designing a study to compare the outcomes of an intervention, an essential step is the calculation of sample sizes that will allow a reasonable chance (power) of detecting a pre‐determined difference (effect size) in the outcome variable, at a given level of statistical significance. Frequently studies will recruit fewer patients than the initial pre‐study sample size calculation suggested. Investigators are faced with the fact that their study may be inadequately powered to detect the pre‐specified treatment effect and the statistical analysis of the collected outcome data may or may not report a statistically significant result. If the data produces a “non‐statistically significant result” then investigators are frequently tempted to ask the question “Given the actual final study size, what is the power of the study, now, to detect a treatment effect or difference?” The aim of this article is to debate whether or not it is desirable to answer this question and to undertake a power calculation, after the data have been collected and analysed. Copyright © 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Joint probability of statistical success of multiple phase III trials

In drug development, after completion of phase II proof‐of‐concept trials, the sponsor needs to make a go/no‐go decision to start expensive phase III trials. The probability of statistical success (PoSS) of the phase III trials based on data from earlier studies is an important factor in that decision‐making process. Instead of statistical power, the predictive power of a phase III trial, which takes into account the uncertainty in the estimation of treatment effect from earlier studies, has been proposed to evaluate the PoSS of a single trial. However, regulatory authorities generally require statistical significance in two (or more) trials for marketing licensure. We show that the predictive statistics of two future trials are statistically correlated through use of the common observed data from earlier studies. Thus, the joint predictive power should not be evaluated as a simplistic product of the predictive powers of the individual trials. We develop the relevant formulae for the appropriate evaluation of the joint predictive power and provide numerical examples. Our methodology is further extended to the more complex phase III development scenario comprising more than two (K > 2) trials, that is, the evaluation of the PoSS of at least k₀ () trials from a program of K total trials. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Using marginal structural models to analyze the impact of subsequent therapy on the treatment effect in survival data: Simulations and clinical trial examples

We explore the impact of time-varying subsequent therapy on the statistical power and treatment effects in survival analysis. The marginal structural model (MSM) with stabilized inverse probability treatment weights (sIPTW) was used to account for the effects due to the subsequent therapy. Simulations were performed to compare the MSM-sIPTW method with the conventional method without accounting for the time-varying covariate such as subsequent therapy that is dependent on the initial response of the treatment effect. The results of the simulations indicated that the statistical power, thereby the Type I error, of the trials to detect the frontline treatment effect could be inflated if no appropriate adjustment was made for the impact due to the add-on effects of the subsequent therapy. Correspondingly, the hazard ratio between the treatment groups may be overestimated by the conventional analysis methods. In contrast, MSM-sIPTW can maintain the Type I error rate and gave unbiased estimates of the hazard ratio for the treatment. Two real examples were used to discuss the potential clinical implications. The study demonstrated the importance of accounting for time-varying subsequent therapy for obtaining unbiased interpretation of data.     

Bayesian predictive power: choice of prior and some recommendations for its use as probability of success in drug development

Bayesian predictive power, the expectation of the power function with respect to a prior distribution for the true underlying effect size, is routinely used in drug development to quantify the probability of success of a clinical trial. Choosing the prior is crucial for the properties and interpretability of Bayesian predictive power. We review recommendations on the choice of prior for Bayesian predictive power and explore its features as a function of the prior. The density of power values induced by a given prior is derived analytically and its shape characterized. We find that for a typical clinical trial scenario, this density has a u‐shape very similar, but not equal, to a β‐distribution. Alternative priors are discussed, and practical recommendations to assess the sensitivity of Bayesian predictive power to its input parameters are provided. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Adaptive blinded sample size adjustment for comparing two normal means—a mostly Bayesian approach

Adaptive sample size redetermination (SSR) for clinical trials consists of examining early subsets of on‐trial data to adjust prior estimates of statistical parameters and sample size requirements. Blinded SSR, in particular, while in use already, seems poised to proliferate even further because it obviates many logistical complications of unblinded methods and it generally introduces little or no statistical or operational bias. On the other hand, current blinded SSR methods offer little to no new information about the treatment effect (TE); the obvious resulting problem is that the TE estimate scientists might simply ‘plug in’ to the sample size formulae could be severely wrong. This paper proposes a blinded SSR method that formally synthesizes sample data with prior knowledge about the TE and the within‐treatment variance. It evaluates the method in terms of the type 1 error rate, the bias of the estimated TE, and the average deviation from the targeted power. The method is shown to reduce this average deviation, in comparison with another established method, over a range of situations. The paper illustrates the use of the proposed method with an example. Copyright © 2012 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

A Hybrid Geometric Phase II/III Clinical Trial Design based on Treatment Failure Time and Toxicity

The problem of comparing several experimental treatments to a standard arises frequently in medical research. Various multi-stage randomized phase II/III designs have been proposed that select one or more promising experimental treatments and compare them to the standard while controlling overall Type I and Type II error rates. This paper addresses phase II/III settings where the joint goals are to increase the average time to treatment failure and control the probability of toxicity while accounting for patient heterogeneity. We are motivated by the desire to construct a feasible design for a trial of four chemotherapy combinations for treating a family of rare pediatric brain tumors. We present a hybrid two-stage design based on two-dimensional treatment effect parameters. A targeted parameter set is constructed from elicited parameter pairs considered to be equally desirable. Bayesian regression models for failure time and the probability of toxicity as functions of treatment and prognostic covariates are used to define two-dimensional covariate-adjusted treatment effect parameter sets. Decisions at each stage of the trial are based on the ratio of posterior probabilities of the alternative and null covariate-adjusted parameter sets. Design parameters are chosen to minimize expected sample size subject to frequentist error constraints. The design is illustrated by application to the brain tumor trial.     

Assessment of futility in clinical trials

The term 'futility' is used to refer to the inability of a clinical trial to achieve its objectives. In particular, stopping a clinical trial when the interim results suggest that it is unlikely to achieve statistical significance can save resources that could be used on more promising research. There are various approaches that have been proposed to assess futility, including stochastic curtailment, predictive power, predictive probability, and group sequential methods. In this paper, we describe and contrast these approaches, and discuss several issues associated with futility analyses, such as ethical considerations, whether or not type I error can or should be reclaimed, one-sided vs two-sided futility rules, and the impact of futility analyses on power.     

Landmark estimation of survival and treatment effects in observational studies

Clinical studies aimed at identifying effective treatments to reduce the risk of disease or death often require long term follow-up of participants in order to observe a sufficient number of events to precisely estimate the treatment effect. In such studies, observing the outcome of interest during follow-up may be difficult and high rates of censoring may be observed which often leads to reduced power when applying straightforward statistical methods developed for time-to-event data. Alternative methods have been proposed to take advantage of auxiliary information that may potentially improve efficiency when estimating marginal survival and improve power when testing for a treatment effect. Recently, Parast et al. (J Am Stat Assoc 109(505):384–394, 2014) proposed a landmark estimation procedure for the estimation of survival and treatment effects in a randomized clinical trial setting and demonstrated that significant gains in efficiency and power could be obtained by incorporating intermediate event information as well as baseline covariates. However, the procedure requires the assumption that the potential outcomes for each individual under treatment and control are independent of treatment group assignment which is unlikely to hold in an observational study setting. In this paper we develop the landmark estimation procedure for use in an observational setting. In particular, we incorporate inverse probability of treatment weights (IPTW) in the landmark estimation procedure to account for selection bias on observed baseline (pretreatment) covariates. We demonstrate that consistent estimates of survival and treatment effects can be obtained by using IPTW and that there is improved efficiency by using auxiliary intermediate event and baseline information. We compare our proposed estimates to those obtained using the Kaplan–Meier estimator, the original landmark estimation procedure, and the IPTW Kaplan–Meier estimator. We illustrate our resulting reduction in bias and gains in efficiency through a simulation study and apply our procedure to an AIDS dataset to examine the effect of previous antiretroviral therapy on survival.     

Evaluation of Viable Dynamic Treatment Regimes in a Sequentially Randomized Trial of Advanced Prostate Cancer

We present new statistical analyses of data arising from a clinical trial designed to compare two-stage dynamic treatment regimes (DTRs) for advanced prostate cancer. The trial protocol mandated that patients were to be initially randomized among four chemotherapies, and that those who responded poorly were to be rerandomized to one of the remaining candidate therapies. The primary aim was to compare the DTRs' overall success rates, with success defined by the occurrence of successful responses in each of two consecutive courses of the patient's therapy. Of the one hundred and fifty study participants, forty seven did not complete their therapy per the algorithm. However, thirty five of them did so for reasons that precluded further chemotherapy; i.e. toxicity and/or progressive disease. Consequently, rather than comparing the overall success rates of the DTRs in the unrealistic event that these patients had remained on their assigned chemotherapies, we conducted an analysis that compared viable switch rules defined by the per-protocol rules but with the additional provision that patients who developed toxicity or progressive disease switch to a non-prespecified therapeutic or palliative strategy. This modification involved consideration of bivariate per-course outcomes encoding both efficacy and toxicity. We used numerical scores elicited from the trial's Principal Investigator to quantify the clinical desirability of each bivariate per-course outcome, and defined one endpoint as their average over all courses of treatment. Two other simpler sets of scores as well as log survival time also were used as endpoints. Estimation of each DTR-specific mean score was conducted using inverse probability weighted methods that assumed that missingness in the twelve remaining drop-outs was informative but explainable in that it only depended on past recorded data. We conducted additional worst-best case analyses to evaluate sensitivity of our findings to extreme departures from the explainable drop-out assumption.     

Evaluation of program success for programs with multiple trials in binary outcomes

A late‐stage clinical development program typically contains multiple trials. Conventionally, the program's success or failure may not be known until the completion of all trials. Nowadays, interim analyses are often used to allow evaluation for early success and/or futility for each individual study by calculating conditional power, predictive power and other indexes. It presents a good opportunity for us to estimate the probability of program success (POPS) for the entire clinical development earlier. The sponsor may abandon the program early if the estimated POPS is very low and therefore permit resource savings and reallocation to other products. We provide a method to calculate probability of success (POS) at an individual study level and also POPS for clinical programs with multiple trials in binary outcomes. Methods for calculating variation and confidence measures of POS and POPS and timing for interim analysis will be discussed and evaluated through simulations. We also illustrate our approaches on historical data retrospectively from a completed clinical program for depression. Copyright © 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Adaptive Crossover Design for Normal Responses

In a response-adaptive design, we review and update the trial on the basis of outcomes in order to achive a specific goal. In clinical trials our goal is to allocate a larger number of patients to the better treatment. In the present paper, we use a response adaptive design in a two-treatment two-period crossover trial where the treatment responses are continuous. We provide probability measures to choose between the possible treatment combinations AA, AB, BA, or BB. The goal is to use the better treatment combination a larger number of times. We calculate the allocation proportions to the possible treatment combinations and their standard errors. We also derive some asymptotic results and provide solutions on related inferential problems. The proposed procedure is compared with a possible competitor. Finally, we use a data set to illustrate the applicability of our proposed design.     

Decision‐making in drug development using a composite definition of success

Evidence‐based quantitative methodologies have been proposed to inform decision‐making in drug development, such as metrics to make go/no‐go decisions or predictions of success, identified with statistical significance of future clinical trials. While these methodologies appropriately address some critical questions on the potential of a drug, they either consider the past evidence without predicting the outcome of the future trials or focus only on efficacy, failing to account for the multifaceted aspects of a successful drug development. As quantitative benefit‐risk assessments could enhance decision‐making, we propose a more comprehensive approach using a composite definition of success based not only on the statistical significance of the treatment effect on the primary endpoint but also on its clinical relevance and on a favorable benefit‐risk balance in the next pivotal studies. For one drug, we can thus study several development strategies before starting the pivotal trials by comparing their predictive probability of success. The predictions are based on the available evidence from the previous trials, to which new hypotheses on the future development could be added. The resulting predictive probability of composite success provides a useful summary to support the discussions of the decision‐makers. We present a fictive, but realistic, example in major depressive disorder inspired by a real decision‐making case.     

Improving precision and power in randomized trials with a two-stage study design: Stratification using clustering method

In a randomized controlled trial (RCT), it is possible to improve precision and power and reduce sample size by appropriately adjusting for baseline covariates. There are multiple statistical methods to adjust for prognostic baseline covariates, such as an ANCOVA method. In this paper, we propose a clustering-based stratification method for adjusting for the prognostic baseline covariates. Clusters (strata) are formed only based on prognostic baseline covariates, not outcome data nor treatment assignment. Therefore, the clustering procedure can be completed prior to the availability of outcome data. The treatment effect is estimated in each cluster, and the overall treatment effect is derived by combining all cluster-specific treatment effect estimates. The proposed implementation of the procedure is described. Simulations studies and an example are presented.